Posted: 16th of August, written about a month before.
The Constitution has been passed by Board, the SRC is finally incorporated, and we look set for the first fully functional, fully legal election since VSU shook everything up.
This year’s election will be held in week 6 this semester (31 August-4th September), and will be to elect our AUU Board Directors, SRC Representatives, Student Media teams, NUS delegates and to vote on a new constitution for the AUU! The problems from last year have been solved by the incorporation of the SRC (rushed through a bit last minute, but actually put through, which is a definite improvement), so we’ll actually be able to have a democratic election for the SRC, NUS, On Dit and Student Radio rather than having them chosen for us.
The big change this year, though, will be the Constitution. Over the last year, the Board’s constitutional committee has worked together a new constitution that will give some structure to a post-VSU Union. They’ve been strongly encouraged by the President, Lavinia, and by some uncommon factional unity (at least on the topic of whether we need reform – they disagree a lot on what should be in the document), and have finally come up with something that can be put to students with a reasonable chance of being successful.
However, don’t be fooled into thinking that means it will be simple. When you go to the ballots in September, you won’t be voting on one referendum question, but on four. The first, simple question will be whether you agree to implement the constitution that has been drafted. This constitution is mostly administrative. It takes care of the loose ends caused by VSU and the ragged edges left by past administrations. Every faction is, or claims to be, united in their belief that the basic constitution should be passed.
The interesting, controversial bits will be presented in the form of three separate referenda questions, which each faction will have its own stance on. The first of these questions concerns whether by-elections should be removed in favour of a more direct system, by which the 19th person elected receives the empty position. This would be a MUCH cheaper way of filling positions. While some Board members argued that it could lead to a rigged system, most arguments sounded more like conspiracy theories than actual possibility.
These theories were strengthened (but only slightly) by the second referendum question: whether Board should be able to sack individuals who did not cleave to the standards expected of an AUU Board director. If the question passes, such a move would still require the approval of ¾ of Board (an absolute majority), but could still be possible in the event of a gross misdemeanour or by pissing off most of the powerful factions. Generally speaking, the agreement of most of Board is very hard to come by, so a sacking is unlikely to occur in any but the most extreme circumstances.
Finally, and most controversially, there is the question of whether the Board should continue to operate with 18 members or drop some of the excess baggage and bring the number down. Because of compromises made in discussion and the fact that these extra referendum questions were added late in the piece, the decision is between 18 and 16, rather than a more substantial change, but it still makes a difference.
This referendum will make some interesting, and hopefully very positive, changes to the way Board runs. Please, take the minute to think about the ramifications of these questions, and vote according to what you believe is best, rather than what you’re told as you stumble over the line.
As Printed in On Dit: The Elections Are Coming!
Sick of New Constitutions Yet? Cause Here’s Another One…
Posted 6th July
On the day of the last Council Meeting, a draft of the proposed new Clubs Association Constitution was mailed out to all clubs. This Constitution has been many months in the making, with input being given from both the former and current CA executive, and most of the actual drafting completed by CA General Executive Member James Moffatt.
It was made clear at the June Council that Clubs Delegates were in no way expected to vote, or even to discuss, the proposed constitution in a formal capacity at that meeting. Instead, it had been mailed out in order to facilitate input and discussion regarding what the final Constitution would contain. James said he would make himself available to hearing the thoughts of all Clubs prior to writing the final draft.
For the past two years, the Clubs Association has effectively been operating under two different constitutions (see here for an example of how). Of course, this is a breach of the Corporations Act, and so isn’t officially the case. Nonetheless, the 1985 Constitution which executive members have cited as being what they are operating under does not grant them some of the powers given in the later 1995 Contitution, which they have borrowed from when they deemed it suitable. This situation is far from ideal, and to their credit the CA have finally produced a document which they propose be officially adopted as their new constitution.
Interesting in the new document is the removal of the position of ‘Women’s Officer’. This will undoubtedly draw out dissent among many left-wing clubs, who see the position as being necessary to ensure that women are not marginalized within the Clubs hierarchy, and by having a female office bearer to whom they may go to in cases of sexual harassment. However, the position which appears to have been taken by the Clubs Executive is in favour of an ‘Equity Officer’ instead, who would work to ensure the safety and fair treatment of club members regardless of gender. Recent years have also seen it being difficult to attract Women’s Officers, with the Clubs Executive having to seek out candidates. Aside from the practical considerations however, this issue tends to break down fairly quickly into your basic pro and anti positive discrimination arguments. Given that not all clubs have overt political positions it could eventually go either way depending on who argues their case better.
Also worth noting is that the new draft document gives the CA Executive no provision to place a club on notice. This power has been used twice so far this year, against the AUES and Labor Clubs. It’s absence raises questions of how the Clubs Executive wants to deal with clubs whom it feels have broken their own Constitutions or the bounds of reasonable behaviour, aside from straight-out disaffiliation.
What I found most confusing however was the clause making all Club Members individual members of the CA, as opposed to having Clubs be the only members. This gives rise to a convoluted clause giving the CA the power to disaffiliate an individual member, as opposed to dealing with that member through their club.
It is expected that the final document will differ from the draft, once individual clubs have had their input. Nonetheless, the draft gives some guide as to what the CA Executive wish to see in the final. The battle over the Women’s Officer is likely to be fierce, but in the humble opinion of yours truly, the suggestion regarding the making of individuals members of the CA is far more crucial, as it has the potential in many ways to alter the operation and purpose of the CA in all its operations.
Tuesday the 9th of June saw the AUU hold a Constitutional Forum open to attendance to general students. This forum was advertised in an AUU members email sent several weeks ago, with a request that those who were interested in attending RSVP. From all indications, not more than 6 people did so, and five of them turned up (including yours truly). The forum was organized and chaired by AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey, and attended by Board Director Jason Virgo.
Lavinia opened the forum by giving a brief outline of the constitutional process as it has already occurred. I wrote down (by no means directly quoting Lavinia):
• Constitutional reform of the AUU must be passed by a majority of at least 10% of the student population, as well as AUU Board and University Council
• Several changes were tabled to University Council last year, which mainly dealt with references to Universal Student Unionism (now gone, though perhaps not for long). These were rejected by Council as they were not in the desired Constitutional format.
• The AUU has four stakeholders: affiliates, its staff, the university, and the student body. Consultation and strategic planning (regarding, among other things, the constitution) had occurred with the first three earlier in the year
• The AUU General Manager has presented a report to Board, and Lavinia has produced a benchmarking paper with other student unions.
• All students, and not just AUU members, will have the right to vote on the constitution. The new constitution retains this for all union elections.
• Board terms to be shifted from commencement immediately after elections to at the start of the next year. This seen as beneficial as it will provide training time for Board members, as well as allowing them time to get over burning each other’s banners and trying to kill each other during election week
• Board will have improved powers to deal with misconduct, including expelling a Board member (with a 75% majority at two subsequent meetings) and replacing them with whoever came 17th on the ballot (aside: The Liberals, surprisingly, seem to be supporting this measure, despite it being formulated so that in future they cannot speak out against what they see as corruption).
• Changes are being made so that the heads of AUU Committees no longer have to be AUU Board directors. This means that positions such as UAC (Union Activities Chair) will be directly elected, and may go to someone who excels at event planning as opposed to politics.
• Membership clauses have been written loosely, so as to apply regardless of what changes occur federally to things such as the student services fee.
• Board has been reduced to 16 members. And by-elections, which Lavinia says cost around $10,000 each, are gone (instead, the next on the ballot moves up to fill an empty space on Union Board).
After some discussion, the forums recommendations to Board were that:
1. The number of Board directors be made a separate question within the constitution
2. That Boards ability to expel Board directors for misconduct be made a separate question
3. And that the reasons why students were consulted last of all (probably the biggest bone of contention the forum had) be released from in-camera.
The forum offered no united opinion on the number of Board directors, or the ability to expel Board directors. However, while they appreciated being given the chance to speak at all, it is fair to say that all weren’t thrilled about the order of consultation. Especially resented by some was the notion that all on Board spoke for students as opposed to their own interests (and thus, a question on how truly representative Board was to speak on behalf of its primary stakeholder with no initial consultation), the possibility that students will feel ‘duped’ out of the way their union functions, and the resultant ease with which a ‘no’ campaign may be mounted and a year of constitutional reform wasted.
Posted 8th June
Tomorrow at noon in the Eclipse Room (Lv 4 Union House), the AUU will be conducting a constitutional forum. There have previously been similar forums with most other stakeholders, such as the affiliates, the staff and university. But this is the first time however that ‘general students’, arguably the primary constitution of the AUU, are to be consulted about the new constitution. Given that most of it has already been written, I wonder to what extent this forum exists to seek student views as opposed to merely to sell them the changes that have already been decided on (most of which even I don’t know, most of the constitution having been discussed in-camera). For anyone going to the forum tomorrow who wishes to briefly be aware of some of the more contentious changes (or lack of changes), here’s what I’ve got:
• Board size down to 16 (from 18). All previously consulted stakeholders wanted a Board size of 12, however this was decided against by Board, who settled on 16. This was to “improve the level of cooperation on AUU Board while still maintaining student control of the organization” (quoting the illusive constitutional reform briefing paper).
• Board now has the ability to expel directors for breaches of conduct. This policy was likely formulated in response to Mark Joyce’s (Liberal) decision to contact the Advertiser about what he says was corruption in the union (board. See here for the roundup). His doing so has been seen (though a vote to establish it as such failed) as a breach of the AUU’s media policy, and a violation of his responsibility to act in the AUU’s best interests. This clause in particular is being fought tooth and nail by Paris Dean (Activate). Board also wants to change their ability to remove for lack of attendance from three consecutive missed meetings to 4 missed meetings over the term (even if non-consecutive). This is largely to combat chronic non-attendence by some of the Liberal and international students on Board.
• One of the main functions of the AUU Board is to dispense money to affiliates. Affiliates, seeing Board as far too political for a body which should essentially be an oversight body, wished to be given a position and vote on Board. This has not been granted in this constitution, as it is felt by many on Board that Board Directors are more democratically elected than affiliate heads (who are only elected from a sub-section of the student population), and that they would if placed on board face many conflicts of interest.
• The AUU General Manager’s report earlier in the year strongly pushed for professionals to sit on the Board of the AUU (one model even having an entirely professional Board). This suggestion was not granted. The Board has decided to welcome non-voting professionals on Board committees, but not in the manner desired by many of the AUU’s staff. The staff-member position on AUU Board has also been abolished (according to the Constitutional Briefing paper due to the fact that none of the AUU’s current 15 staff members expressed an interest).
• The affiliate structure has not, to my knowledge, been changed. All present affiliates will maintain a similar relationship to the AUU Board under the new constitution than they do currently.
There are a lot of other changes which are mainly of a administrative nature, and thus I have not included them here.
For any policy wonks among you, you might also be interested in reading the AUU’s Strategic Plan for 2010-2013. If you have any issues with the AUU (and hey, if you're like most students, this is you), I’d recommend coming along to the forum. If you can't make the forum, you can also fill out the survey the AUU is currently conducting.
Constitution, Out of Camera: May AUU Board
Posted 8th June
Rebuilding from VSU has been one of the key objectives of the AUU Board for the past three years. The big decision last year was what to do with commercial operations (i.e. the decision to sell the Unibar). This year, it’s constitution.
Earlier this year, AUU General Manager David Coluccio released his view on how the student union needs to function. Given its confidential status, Board moved in-camera to discuss the (by all accounts highly critical) report. ASP knows the report contained four different models of AUU governance, with Collucio’s preference being the first model (in which the professional management has more power than student representatives in the running of the AUU (i.e. a professional AUU Board), with the SRC being the peak representative body for students).
After discussing this report, AUU Board remained in camera to discuss most of their constitution up to the 21st May meeting, when the finally moved out of camera thanks to a motion put forward by Paris Dean (Activate) which managed to garner majority support. My feelings on their remaining in-camera for as long as they did have been aptly documented here, and as well as by Hannah Mattner in On Dit’s latest environment edition. Arguments for their remaining in camera until the majority has come to an agreement are the need to present a unified Board recommendation to the student body. It is crucial for a majority of students to vote ‘yes’ on the Constitution for it to pass come this years student elections, so staying in-camera may be argued as an effort to prevent the constitution from becoming politicized.
That said, when the motion was moved to move out of camera at the last Board meeting, Hannah and I re-entered the room to find Board heatedly arguing the three different options before them for how to fill vacancies on the AUU Board that often arise during a term. Option 1 was for appointment by Board, option 2 was for it to be the next person on the election results (currently, this would mean who came 19th on the ballot), and option 3 was to make it the choice of the person who has resigned (thereby maintaining the factional balance on Board).
Vacancies
Rhiannon Newman (Activate) moves a motion for the constitution to allow vacancies to be filled as per option 3, which is the model currently followed by Sydney University. Yasmin Freschi (Clubbers/Independent) wants this motion amended so as to remove the choice if the resignation is the result of misconduct.
A motion for option 2 is put forward. This being the first constitutional discussion on Board I have heard, my note taking here got a little dodgy as I tried to understand what’s going on. Paris Dean speaks out strongly against the first motion, arguing that they will lead to dummy candidates, and is very liable to be abused. Yasmin disagrees. Option three is put to a vote, and lost (5 for, all others against).
Paris then argues against option two. He calls it the ‘lottery option’, and says he is extremely concerned about it when taken in conjunction with the Boards new ability to kick people off (‘as if Board operates like an impartial court,’ Paris derided). He is concerned that it will lead to Board directors with little factional support being kicked off in favour of less well-scoring but more supported candidates who are next on the ladder.
There is vocal disagreement with this assessment. Many doubt whether it would be possible to get 12/16 (16 being the new number of Board directors, sacking someone requiring a 2/3 majority) of Board to agree on anything without good reason, and believe that any attempts to act in the way Paris has suggested would be quickly picked up by student media. The high cost of by-elections, which seem to be what Paris is arguing for instead of the three options presented to Board, is bought up several times as money that could be better spent.
Paris does not alter his mind. “By-elections are an uncommon occurrence. The point is to institute safeguards. The path to rorting is so clear through these ‘reforms’”.
An impasse being reached, the vote is put, and carried in favour of option 2, meaning the 17th highest scoring person in the annual elections would be appointed to replace the resignation. Paris and Andrew Anson (Pulse) have their dissent noted.
If anyone can find it…
A motion is then put to put a copy of a briefing paper (produced by AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey) outlining the main changes to the constitution which have been agreed on to be put on the AUU website. I’ve seen a hard-copy of this paper, and it covers a lot worth reading. I however, can’t find it on the website, the closest thing being the AUU Strategic Plan for 2010-2013. No email or links to this briefing paper have been made available either through a members email or on the AUU main page. If anyone knows where this wonderful briefing paper has gone, please let me know.
A clause of the constitution is passed, which allows the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the annual elections.
3-Day Elections
Mark Joyce and Sonja Jankovic (both Liberals) place a motion before Board to change the election from the current 5-day to a 3-day voting period. Mark also puts forward a procedural to put the motion straight to a vote (with no discussion), which is lost. This being the case, Sonja makes a case for a 3-day period. She says it will lead to less harassment to general students from would-be AUU directors, and says she does not see why what is done in 5 days cannot be done in 3.
A procedural is put to defer this motion to the next meeting, which results in a 5-5 tie before Lavinia’s casting votes leads to its passing.
Call this a binding caucus?
This concludes the agenda discussion of constitution, and several other issues are covered before a question about the Presidents Report is bought up in ‘Any Other Business’. Mark says that Lavinia has included a comment about a Board director who has said to her that he/she is considering running a ‘no’ campaign on the Constitution, which he wants to know more about. Observers aren’t kept in the dark for long, as Yasmin takes a refreshingly straight-forward attitude: “Paris, why are you running a ‘no’ campaign?”
Paris attempts to redefine the issue. He says it was poor form of Lavinia to put a confidential conversation in her report, although he says Board should have seen it coming. “You all keep jam-packing controversial stuff in”, he accuses. Paris acknowledges that a lot of the changes are administrative, but that many others have the potential to radically alter the operation of the AUU for the worst.
Rhiannon however has little sympathy. She says everyone has compromised, and that the conclusion is an improvement on the current constitution. She also reiterates the fact that the constitution will not pass unless all those running encourage a ‘yes’ vote.
Lavinia says that if Paris sees two categories of reform, he should make these clear and put in some proposal to deal with them.
Aaron Fromm (Independent/Clubbers) defends Lavinia’s decision to put Paris’ comment in the report, saying that she was acting in the best interests of the organization. Mark however agrees with Paris that many of the changes are more controversial than others, and that they should not be put to a block vote.
David Coluccio reminds Board what a long and difficult exercise writing the Constitution has been. He says that Paris’ theories of democracy are not reasonable, and says that Paris argues against every suggestion, idea or reform. “Your role has been as a block”. He challenges Paris to put forward his proposals in a “positive manner”.
Andrew seems to be finding the debate tiresome. He says that this should all be raised in the constitutional working group, this not being the right forum.
Paris then defends himself. He says that he was not responsible for this being on the agenda, and so naturally is not prepared to do what they ask. He appears to be arguing that he has been ambushed. Nonetheless, “there are some things which I won’t support or compromise on. The ability to throw people off the Board is one of those”. He says he will make a submission with his proposals soon.
Yasmin doesn’t think much of allowing students to vote on specific aspects of the constitution. She argues that it won’t work, and will lead to a constitution as bad as the one currently used.
Ash Brook (Independent/Indy-Go) speaks for the first time in the meeting. He says the constitution to be presented has been the joint decision of Board. “I don’t see how you can campaign against it and consider yourself a good Board director”.
Andrew tries to close the meeting through a procedural. It’s a tie, but Lavinia’s casting vote comes in handy once again. The meeting remains open.
Rhiannon states that she plans to vote for the constitution in full at the next meeting. Andrew repeats that this discussion is highly unproductive, and that these concerns should be raised in the constitutional working group. Paris says that the Constitution should ultimately be up to students, as this is the entire reason it is put up for referendum. He says he will have some suggestions for Board soon.
Editorial: He Said She Said It Said
I've taken a bit more liberty than usual, so again, consider this an editorial. It's about me, indirectly, so off course I'm finding restraint particularly difficult. Not that I usually have, or even try to have, much luck with it.
As outlined in a previous post, several Board members have aired their discontent about some aspects of Adelaide University’s NUS involvement to outside media sources.
Board members were told at a recent training day, as well as in an email sent out by AUU General Manager David Coluccio after the Sandy Biar's Media Release came to light, that they are not allowed to make comments to or conduct interviews with the media, as stated in the media policy (avaliable here).
As a part of the media, naturally I am not happy about this. Thankfully, I know better than to take directives like that at face value. And indeed, a perusal of the media policy sheds light on two interesting facets of this problem.
Firstly, ‘media’ is very broadly defined.
2.2 ‘Media’ includes but is not limited to press, radio and television.
Off course, with such a broad definition, I effectively can’t approach anyone for information but AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey, or David Coluccio. This has not been the way that political commentary about the AUU has been written in the past. On Dit has for years sought out quotes and interviews with those involved in student politics, and needless to say Board directors did not always seek permission from higher-ups in order to do so.
So far, the policy as interpreted by Lavinia and David Coluccio has been constantly flouted. But not to fear. The policy is really much more reasonable than they have suggested, this being the second interesting thing I discovered. The ‘gag’ clause in question is 4.1, which states that:
4.1 AUU staff and elected representatives may not grant interviews to the media unless the AUU President, the relevant affiliate president, or if appropriate the AUU General Manager has given authorization outlining what they may say on behalf of the AUU or affiliate…
The clause then goes on to outline how specific the authorization has to be.
It’s not the most legible clause I've had the pleasure of reading over the past few weeks. It says, in plain English, ‘AUU staff and elected representatives may not grant interviews…without authorization’. But it continues: ‘without authorization outlining what they may say on behalf of the AUU or affiliate…’ As long as they make clear that they are only speaking their individual views, there is no reason why this should prevent Board directors from speaking to the media.
Clauses 4.2 to 4.4 then outline who may speak out on behalf of the AUU. For example, one can only speak on behalf of arms of the AUU of which one is a part. These clauses are sensible ways to ensure the chain of command with official information, but not gag orders.
One could make an argument that, by definition, everything a Board director says is on behalf of the AUU. But the AUU is by definition a political organization as well as a corporate one. Political entities do not function by giving only the ruling parties the ability to speak to the media. Such a policy would mean that all checks and balances on power, resultant from the democratic backlash against bad policy, would be circumvented. Off course those in the minority are going to seek to undermine those in the majority by publicizing everything they feel is wrong. That’s a way a democracy works. Attempts which prevent them doing so treat the AUU solely as a business. The fact that Board directors are elected makes this approach, well, at best ludicrous, and at worst, an intentional attempt to prevent democratic scrutiny.
Nonetheless, my personal opinions on democracy and the free press ultimately don't matter. The Media Policy does not state that everything Board directors say should be treated as if it's on behalf of the AUU. Until it does, that critique of those who spoke out isn't valid.
Speaking to the Advertiser may not have been the smartest or most responsible thing to do. But it certainly wasn't against the rules.
Also, I am very puzzled. Did the leadership of the AUU really think no-one would bother to read the Media Policy? Lift your game guys, please, this is too easy…
*Update: Some have claimed that the Corporations Act in fact defines everything said to the media in which one is introduced as a Board Director is definitionally on behalf of the organization. I have not been able to confirm this is the case, having not had time to consult the Corporations Act*
Editorial: On Constitutions and Alliances
What follows is an extremely critical account of the AUU Board. Given that fact, consider it an editorial, and treat it with a grain of salt.
The Board Committee Meeting of the 13th of November took place right in the middle of the exam period. Nonetheless, thirteen of the eighteen elected board members were present. Missing were all of Passion (international students faction), and the Liberals, being Sonja Jankovic and recently-elected Board VP John Bowers (studying? An apology would have been nice).
Opening business concerned the financial member numbers. Membership is to stay at $20 next year, with a target of 3000 members. Mark Joyce raised his concerns as to whether students would join in Semester 1, knowing that by Semester 2 they would be forced to pay for student services anyway (See Money Money Money). Not a bad question, but naturally, one scoffed at by Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and AUU General Manager David Coluccio. Truly, when will Mark learn that he’s not welcome on Board? He should just stop coming, after all, the Internationals and Liberals certainly got the message. Democratically elected, like that matters for anything.
But enough fooling around. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the new SRC constitution. Complaints about the language and content had been forwarded to Paris Dean (current SRC President, Activate), who worked systematically through the objections. Most of them were thoroughly boring, and I won’t abuse your patience by going into detail here, see the Board minutes if you care (when they’re eventually released, they’ll be here)
There were only three objections I can struggle to make of interest for the general reader. One concerned the rural officer. Many of the officer positions on SRC (Queer officer, Women’s Officer etc) are filled by one who ‘identifies’ as a member of that minority, as evidenced by a statutory declaration. A guy running for women’s officer would have to sign a piece of paper saying he identifies as a women. This tends to discourage those who would run for shits and giggles. However, a spirited discussion arose when discussing how to limit who can run for ‘rural’ officer. Oh yes, Board can’t decide on who is a women, or who is disabled, that would be discriminatory. But arbitrarily limit the rural position to those who have lived in the country for however months in the past three years, that Board can certainly do. I don’t care about the rural officer position, and I doubt you do either. However, the hypocrisy of Board amused me.
The next issue of contention was that of whether the SRC should be able to pay honoraria. All agreed that the financial situation of the SRC right now ruled this out, but many of those in the factions wanted to leave the option open for future years. Yasmin Freschi (Independent) was strongly opposed to this, feeling that the SRC should be run on a strictly volunteer basis. I haven’t spoken to her about this, but no doubt she feared a return to the days when people ran for the SAUA merely because it was a cushy job.
The final, and biggest, disagreement in Board concerned whether the SRC Constitution should explicitly recognize the native Aboriginal tribe who existed on the land before the University. Aaron Fromm (Independent) led the charge on this, arguing that this was a polarizing issue, and as such, native title should be recognized as a policy of the SRC, as opposed to being prominently displayed in the Constitution. He claimed that the SRC should be representative of student views, and not the political leanings of those who held the majority on Board. Lavinia responded by saying that recognizing the Aboriginal ‘owners’ was standard procedure, and would single the AUU out if it failed to include it in its constitutions. Furthermore, she said this was an issue that the Vice Chancellor was very passionate about, and that this was further reason why it must be included. She disputed Aaron's statement that it was a polarizing issue, saying that most Australians had no problem with it. Also, she said it would be ‘racist’ not to include it. Not that she was calling Aaron a racist, but, well, moving on. A caricatured discussion on the issue followed. Mark Joyce asked how singling out one group was an advancement of ‘equality’. Rhiannon Newman (Activate/Labor Left) responded to this by explaining positive discrimination. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Left consider Mark stupid. He hasn’t shown signs of it getting to him, yet. But back to the Aboriginals. This issue was so poker hot that they left it to the end. When they got back to it, Paris Dean (Activate) suggested that agreement would not be forthcoming, so they went straight to a vote. The motion to give Aboriginal recognition was passed, with Yasmin, Mark and and Aaron asking to have their dissent noted.
In the closing issues, Lavinia dropped a bomb on the Board. She claimed that NUS wanted a list of the chosen delegates to represent Adelaide Uni by tomorrow, and that as such, it had to be decided now. This was the responsibility of Board, as elections had been cancelled due to legal irregularities earlier in the year (see No Elections?!). Lavinia produced a list of six names (Robert Fletcher, Fletcher O’Leary, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Simone McDonnell, Andrew Anson and Daniel Bills). Paris at this point reminded those gathered that this was not a vote on whether or not the Union would seek NUS affiliation, that being dependent on costs which NUS had yet to release. Gobsmacked, the independents on Board watched as Pulse and Activate voted for the list. And is it any surprise that the two ‘rival’ factions were in perfect agreement, having received three delegates apiece? Of those ‘voted’ (I’ll call it democratic when those who had a personal interest abstain from the vote) on a free holiday, Fletcher O’Leary and Daniel Bills had not even expressed an interest in being NUS delegates prior to the election being cancelled. Calling the whole thing dodgy is an understatement. In a stroke, Lavinia and her Activate friends, as well as the Pulse faction, have shown that despite being largely fresh-faced, they are still capable of following in their factional-hack predecessors footsteps. Ironic, this time last year David Wilkins was in a lot of trouble for such behavior. Not being accountable with Board was what got him sacked. If a just standard were applied, Lavinia would be in hot water now. No doubt she let those in her faction know what had happened, and it is highly possible that the NUS deadline sprung on her just like she said it did. The fault lies in the list presented. It represented those who, by banding together, held the balance of power, not those who were elected. But as long as noone's watching, why not?
Oh, and this is as much the absentee's fault as it is the factionalists by the way. If everyone elected even bothered just to show up, such stunts would never suceed.
Electoral Reforms and the NWC
NB: I've left this article as was for it's publication in On Dit. This means that most of it is extremely confusing. Just accept that fairly much everything mentioned here has changed since and read it for fun and nostalgia.
As is common for election time, the Board is realising that they have run out of time for the electoral reforms that were so passionately talked up at the start of the year. One Board member has informed us that a lack of follow-through has left the Board in a position where it will not be possible to get the most important of the constitutional reform in place before the elections in the first week of September. Having to get constitutional amendments passed by the University Council only compounds the problem, as Council is inclined to pass nothing less than a comprehensive re-writing of the Constitution. The changes that have been successfully made are primarily minor changes to the wording to eliminate references to compulsory student unionism and the Board’s former commercial holdings. The Board’s constitutional committee hasn’t met this year, and the reform that has made it to Board at all appears to have come from conversation between Lavinia and the General Manager, David Coluccio with reference to reform proposals by Matthew Taylor, who was the Vice President of the Board last year.
It appears that the Board is “stuck in a cycle” in which they will begin their term with all sorts of good intentions to reform the way that the Board is run and see to more reasonable election rules for the year after. Inevitably, these reforms will be blocked or just not happen due to general disorganisation or higher priorities, which holds up the subsequent Board and starts the cycle again. It could be a fondly regarded tradition if the consequences weren’t so serious.
One example of the consequences is the outcome of the AUU’s negotiations with the Australian Electoral Commission, which was approached to run the student elections in the first week of September this year. The AEC reviewed the rules for student elections and found that they did not meet certain minimum standards. Because the Board has to have changes passed by University Council they were unable to deliver any rule changes until the Council meets, one week after the elections. The AEC sought legal advice on this, and were advised not to oversee Adelaide University’s student elections until these minimum standards were met. At this point, the only option was for someone from the university to assume the mantle of Returning Officer. This forces a political position upon a member of the university community, undermines the level of professionalism and introduces an unwelcome level of partisanship.
In other news, AUU Watch reported earlier this year that the National Wine Centre (NWC) was being taken to task by the Board over a number of issues. Since then the University is rumoured to have met with the NWC to express its displeasure over similar matters. The NWC made some noises at these complaints and students were told that the matters would be fixed in due course. Several months later and still nothing has been done. As a result, the Board asked the NWC to send a representative to the Board meeting on August 7th to answer the Union’s ‘please explain’. Hopefully by the time you read this column the NWC will have considered the complaints they receive at the meeting and will be on their way to working with students, rather than frustrating them.
Summer Holidays
Last year, I wrote a very rash email. I was frustrated by the complete lack of coverage of the student elections in an otherwise enjoyable On Dit, and in a fit of aggravation about the complete unaccountability of our student politicians, I said that if no one else wrote a column on student politics this year, I’d damn well do it!
The most upsetting part of this for the Board members was the concept of releasing Unibar into the hands of the University and, further on, the National Wine Centre, who are taking over all the com ops. Technically, the Unibar is actually the ‘Union Bar’, as well as an ‘important icon’ for campus culture. The idea of the Unibar turning into some sort of respectable ivy league style wine bar was too much for some board members, particularly Rhiannon Newman and Lavinia Emmett-Gray.
Futhermore, a bar run by a successful commercial business rather than the student board posed all sorts of problems in terms of student control of the venues. For instance, the provision of foods that fit various dietary requirements (vegetarian, halal, etc) could be at risk, and the prices might be driven up by the greedy monopolistic company that took over (this argument ignores the huge amount of competition and range that the proximity of North Terrace and Rundle Mall food outlets introduces to the matter. To me it seems that some of the problem was also the possibility that a place so full of Board members' good memories (and alcoholically-faded memories) could be changed in any way.
Sam Kirchner and Emilio Roberts were nominated to join the Union President, David Wilkins, in negotiating the agreement. After discussions, the University agreed reluctantly to leave the Unibar in the Board’s hands. However, once University representatives had explained to the Board the risks of keeping the Unibar (painful litigation in the case of a drunken incident or workplace accident) and the costs of making it a safe workplace (many thousands of the dollars that the Board doesn't have), the Board voted to hand the Unibar over after all. So all the food outlets on campus, as well as the function catering company, have been sold on. But the Board’s kept the income from the vending machines. There’s not really any risk in that one.
Confused yet? Can’t blame you for that. The end result is that the Board has $1.2 million to spend each year, plus what they get out of the vending machines, the sponsors and people buying membership. Out of that they have to fund the Affiliates with amounts specified in the agreement as well as take care of their own spending. For the Board, this is a wonderful achievement. Secure funding for the next ten years means that the Directors can get on with other, more useful things than looking for money The University representatives that watch over the Board can now relax in the knowledge that the Board and the Affiliates aren’t about to go broke while they’re not paying attention, or go under to pay off a bar maid who fell through the floor that the Board couldn’t afford to fix.
“We were presented with the budget quite late in the piece…hours before we were expected to pass it”, Paris Dean said.
According to the minutes, the Board was presented with the budget during the meeting and were then given half an hour to read it.
“A lot of people were upset about that”, Paris told me.
Rhiannon Newman was somewhat more expressive on the topic. “I’m still not convinced it was a real budget”, she said, “It was presented on a Word document…and it didn’t have last year’s figures and how much we’d spent and things like that.”
“I’ve been on that board before, and we got it a week before and we had a chance to look through it and make changes where we thought were appropriate”
When I asked David about this, he explained “[the budget] is a living document, it’s a guide only”.
“While I’m very very apologetic to the board that it wasn’t presented, it certainly wasn’t me trying to shove a budget through the Board to try and get support for it”.
However, the budget was not the only issue that Board members had with David's presidency since the election. Other issues such as not meeting the expectations of the board in terms of openness and communication; an attempt to introduce email voting to the Board, with all votes privately going to David; and an unwillingness to work with the appointed negotiators on the funding agreement were all raised in the letter.
David has apologised to the Board, but believes that many of these problems were caused by the unique position he has been put in with VSU, the funding agreement and number of AUU staff that have quit in recent months.
“I’ve put my heart and soul into this organisation. It’s absolutely my livelihood, I absolutely enjoy every minute that I’m doing it” David said.
“I think rather than that being seen as an attempt to sack me I’ve looked at that as kind of a bit of a wake up call”.
Recent events, on the other hand, suggest that the Board members meant it to be much stronger than that. In a meeting on January 31st, the Board voted to ratify all the votes from the inquorate meeting in December, which included the vote to have David suspended. This suggests that most of the rest of the Board is not entirely placated by David’s apologies.
Despite these disagreements, the Board Directors all sound really optimistic about the future of the Board this year. And I can see why. After years of factional stupidity, the Board is finally getting its act together! First and foremost, the election last year delivered a nicely balanced Board, with no more than five people to any factional group. This means that for at least a year it will be impossible for any faction to control the Board outright unless they resort to underhand tactics (which is not unknown for this board, even at this early stage).
The team that’s involved in actually getting stuff done looks like being a good one, too. Obviously I have no idea how O’Week will turn out yet, but everyone involved sounds very up beat and excited about it, and I can’t see Simone McDonnell doing anything but her best to make sure people have a good time – it’s what she thrives on. She’s even looking to revive Prosh this year, which I’m sure will excite everyone who’s wanted to be involved in the event as it was in the good old days before we made it to uni.
It also looks likely that the Board will have some money that they’re free to do what they want with this year. The ‘Loaded’ discount card that was produced last year was a joke, purchased only by Board Directors and the hacks who wanted to become directors this year. Whereas this year’s membership deal looks like it’s a winner. The $20 card that got me $40 off my gym membership bought my interest outright, but the $5 locker discount and the Ambassador Card could be useful, and the 10% discount at unibooks will definitely be handy (even though there would have been a unibooks discount in some way or another, even without the card).