In the interests of archiving and accurate reminiscence, below is the article published in On Dit, as written on January 26th. If the elementary and revision-style approach is frustrating, keep in mind that this was written to be the first column the freshers saw for the year.
~~~~~
Everyone’s probably sick of hearing the basics about the AUU, so we’re going to skip the simple parts. If you want the ‘this is what the AUU is’ spiel over again (but more interesting than usual), check out adelaidestudentpolitics.blogspot.com for the details. Instead of the usual intro, here’s five of the big issues in front of the Board at the moment:
1. The National Union of Students and what this year’s proceedings say about the Board
Summer is always a busy time for student politics because it’s the time when six delegates from Adelaide University go to the annual forum of the National Union of Students – the national student advocacy body. This was very controversial at Adelaide this year because the elections for NUS delegate were cancelled and, instead of re-working the elections, or even having the Board appoint delegates from those who nominated for the position, Activate and Pulse – the two most active factions – chose six people to fill the role. Most of those who nominated originally weren’t aware of the meeting in which they could have been appointed until after it happened, and two of the appointees weren’t even on the original list of nominees. Coupled with the fact that the positions were split evenly between Pulse and Activate, this suggested the selection of delegates was about as far from fair and honest as you can get. The positions within NUS are powerful within the scope of student politics, and this forum determines the direction of many NUS policies for the year to come.
Furthermore, when two Board directors gave quotes to an ex-director for a press release on the issue (one director subsequently withdrew his comments before the press release went out), they were brought in front of the Board as having breached AUU policy, and a vote of censure against them was moved. The motion was defeated, but it was a telling response to an attempt to address the corruption within the AUU.
2. The Student Representative Council
In 2007, the Adelaide University’s student advocacy body, the SAUA, died of VSU and fiscal ignorance. The lack of an advocacy body has been keenly felt by the AUU, so there’s been a lot of work put into replacing it with a new, and obviously completely different, advocacy body. Last year’s office bearers were appointed mid-year to a body that legally didn’t exist, and then the elections for the positions were cancelled, causing some to lose faith in the prospect of an operating SRC in 2009. However, there has been a lot of progress with the SRC lately, with a constitution drafted and the successful selection of the SRC office bearers for 2009. It looks like the SRC may actually function this year, though no-one can say how well until we have the office bearers at work.
3. The Overseas Students Association
The OSA last year meandered, wandered and splonked its way through the year, earning endless ire from the Board directors at the time. The elections that were meant to be held in October were held with last-minute notice to a handful of people have been declared invalid (2008 was a good year for elections, clearly). While this is negative in itself, the AUU President, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, has been working with a group of dedicated individuals from the OSA to re-draft their constitution, so that it actually functions. If we get such a passionate and constructive group in after a supplementary election, the OSA might actually do something meaningful for overseas students this year and live up to its status as an affiliate.
4. The Vice President
In the last Board meeting, Vice President John Bowers was put on notice for his continual absences and failure to report to Board. While VPs in the AUU are congenitally underperforming, we’d at least received one written report and a recipe for chicken chowder from the previous VP at this point last year. By the time uni goes back, the Board may have decided to elect a new VP.
5. Reform?
While it’s not an immediate issue, the reform of the AUU governance structure and constitution will be a core issue this year. Constitutional reform is essential if the AUU is to ditch the history of botched operations and factional conflict that has plagued it. The cancellation of some of last years’ elections is simply the latest example of the problems this lack of reform has caused.
The Big Issues of '09 (that we can see from this end)
That Which Followed the NUS Appointments
My ultimate round-up of what's been happening as a result of this year's NUS appointments, so that we don't have to refer back quite so far when discussing the latest happenings:
- Mid August: Nominations for NUS were lodged. Here's the full list of nominees.
- Late August: Elections for NUS (as well as others) were cancelled.
- Late November: The NUS delegates were appointed by Board. Two of the delegates never nominated for the position, and many of those who did nominate weren't aware that the choice was being made.
- Very End of November (juuust before NUS): The exec authorised the payment of the NUS affiliation fee of $3,300, despite the fact that the exec is only constitutionally permitted to authorise payments of up to $2,000. In addition, the Board had been assured in the previous meeting that the vote on NUS delegates did not pertain to whether they would affiliate, only to who they would send as delegates if they did. 3 of the 4 exec members who voted were also NUS delegates.
- Mid December: The exec's decision to affiliate was voided on the basis that it was against policy, then passed by Board, because affiliation was still wanted. Jake Wishart and Aaron Fromm also put forward a motion that exec minutes have to be passed by board. It turned out that this was already a policy, but was generally supported anyway (the exec meeting was only a day or two before the board pack was due in, so minutes weren't submitted for want of time). Someone (Sorry, I don't have a name for who proposed this motion. Feel free to leave it in the comments) motioned for Board directors to be able to spectate at Exec meetings, and Jake put forward a motion for a conflict of interest register to be circulated at the start of every meeting and for those with a conflict not to be able to speak or vote on the issue. Both of these motions are passed too.
- Later Mid December: Ex-Board director and 2008 NUS nominee Sandy Biar released a press release to the Advertiser containing quotes from directors Mark Joyce. Aaron Fromm also gave quotes, but revoked them before the release date.
- January: Lavinia Emmett-Grey put forward a motion to condemn Mark Joyce for his comments as they were not 'in the best interests of the Board'. This lead to a wide-ranging and convoluted discussion of what counted as the 'best interests', and whether it actually broke the AUU media policy as was claimed. In the end, the media policy was redefined, though not in any way that was actually relevant to the question, and Mark was not condemned, as he appeared to have believed at the time that it was in the Board's best interests.
Despite recent events, it would be foolish to dismiss the political ability of the Labor Right faction.
The right-wing faction of the Labor Party (which runs on its own ticket and is largely hostile to the left-wing Activate ticket) faced an electoral wipeout in the past Union Board elections. All its experienced Union Board directors who were running for reelection, David Wilkins, Simone McDonnell and Claire Wong, lost their seats, to be replaced by PULSE newcomers Andrew Anson, Daniel Bills and Ben Foxwell. Of these, only Andrew Anson appears to be a committed factionalist. All three lack experience, and in the short term are unlikely to provide a counter to the confident voices of Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Rhiannon Newman and Paris Dean.
In such a situation, it is not surprising that the faction sought to regroup. Two months after the election, it came to the attention of the Clubs Association Executive that certain high-profile members of the Labor Right were seeking to affiliate a new club, known as the Bob Hawke Appreciation Society. All new clubs must be approved by Clubs Council in order to gain affiliation.
Clubs Council meetings are usually something of a bore. The biggest challenge is usually to get a quorium of twenty club delegates, after which the group rubber-stamps whatever the executive puts in front of it. Not so the council meeting of Thursday, October 30th, which was a saga worthy of the AUU Board.
The Hawke Club’s president, the afore-mentioned AUU-Board Director Andrew Anson, gave a speech glossing over the life of Hawk, claiming that the club existed in order to honor his memory, as well as promoting ‘politics in an environment free of political wrangling’. He pointed out the Whitlam Institute in Sydney as an example of what the club aspired to.
Matt Taylor, the recently returned Clubs Association President, then opened the floor to questions, unleashing the torrent of critique.
It didn’t take long for Rhiannon Newman (AUU Board Member, Labor Club Secretary, and member of the Labor Left) to ask Andrew if this was simply a cover for another Labor Club. She also expressed theatrical disappointment that Andrew would wish to give Labor twice the representation on the Clubs Council.
Nick Grealy, the President of the Labor Club, restated Rhiannon’s objections in a more systematic manner. He claimed it was a duplicate club, that it raised issues of equality through putting multiple ‘labor voices’ on Council, and that although there had been precedent’s set in other Universities, those decisions had not proved wise. Andrew claimed in response that he wasn’t aware of any difficulties between the Whitlam Institute and the Sydney Labor Club, to which the Labor Left produced a letter from the President of the Sydney Labor Club claiming the opposite.
The letter, by Sydney University Labor Club President Rosemary Ryan, outlined concerns similar to those voiced at the meeting, additionally raising the confusion felt by many new students at choosing between the two clubs, leading to a ‘potentially hostile environment in which they compete for membership and profile’. She urged the council to ‘consider these factors’ in making its decision. Andrew tried to answer the concerns raised by Nick and Rhiannon. Dodgy note-taking on my part means I cannot recall his exact rebuttal, nonetheless, the most significant thing to remember regarding it is that it did little to convince the majority of those present.
Jake Wishart, Board member and (disgraced?) Indy-Go faction member, and President of the Greens on Campus, then took the floor. He asked Andrew ‘Do you take yourself seriously?!?’ He then said that the Hawke club had not approached the other clubs in good faith, and that if it wishes to reform itself, the Greens would be happy to support its affiliation in the future (Jake failed to specify exactly how the Hawk society could redeem itself).
James Gould (Debating delegate) asked why the Hawke Club was not able to celebrate the memory of Bob Hawke within the Labor Club, to which Andrew (by now somewhat flustered) replied: ‘We’re doing it through the Hawke Club’. In a more light-hearted question, Alan Carey (Computer Science Club delegate) put forward that ‘You said this club would be free from political ideology. How will you enforce this freedom?’ Andrew answered that this was doable by taking steps to prevent discrimination according to political beliefs within the Hawke Club.
At this point, David Wilkins (former AUU Board President, Labor Right), looking upset at the turn of mood against a club which was expected to secure affiliation, pointed out that many clubs are about debate and discussion, and that previous possible clashes of objectives had never stopped clubs being affiliated before.
A few more questions followed, after which a vote was taken. Five voted to affiliate the Hawke society (myself included), all others voted against.
After moving on to Other Business, Daniel O’Brien tendered his resignation as Clubs Treasurer in protest over the controversial decision, claiming the council had been swayed by ‘emotional displays’ against the Club rather than solid arguments. ‘I cannot be part of an institution whose values I fundamentally disagree with’. He said that it was not the constitutionally defined role of the Clubs Association to pick which Clubs it deemed worthy of existence, and in the absence of demonstrated wrongdoing, it was not right to refuse a club affiliation. His argument, in essence, while emphasizing what a ‘stupid idea’ he thought the club was, centered on the fact that all concerns raised where hypothetical, and it was impossible to discern how the Hawke Club would indeed operate until it had been given a chance. Take them at their word, and punish them legally if they falter.
As he left the hall, Matt Taylor took this as a cue to pose that the Hawke Society could receive an associate provisional association if council so chose. Many of those who had turned up to Council merely to ensure the Hawke Club did not receive affiliation had left at this point. Daniel’s dramatic resignation, coupled with the departure of many of the Labor Left voices in the hall, led the Club to receive provisional associate affiliation, with five voting against. Associate affiliation treats the Hawke Society as an outside body, and not as a student club. This affects its ability to use Clubs space, and the costs associated with participation in events such as O-Week.
Not all those who voted in the Clubs Council were political hacks. A large body of delegates present were representatives from unaffiliated clubs, unfamiliar with the constitution and looking to do the right thing free from political maneuverings. The arguments put forward by the Hawke Club in its defense did not persuade, while the Labor Club had systematic, persistently voiced concerns that were not adequately rebutted. For this reason, the Hawke Club was denied affiliation. The concerns raised by Daniel O’Brien were largely not shared by the majority of Clubs delegates. Very little of the discussion revolved around the constitutionality of denying affiliation, instead being centered on whether or not the motives of the Hawke Society were pure. Being a decidedly non-political body, it was clear that many delegates resented the mechanisms available to Clubs being used for political advantage, and sought to punish this one way or another.
Realistically speaking, the associate affiliation does little to stop the Hawke Society operating on campus. Any group is able to raise money, host events and rally membership without Clubs Association approval. In fact, given that the largest punishment the Clubs Association may pass down is disaffiliation, a lack of affiliation in the first place gives the Hawke Society an uncommon amount of freedom on campus. It will likely claim political thugs prevented its affiliation, and will continue on much as it would have if its entrance into the Clubs community had been smooth. The moral ostracizing was, like so many things that go on in student politics, largely devoid of long-term significance. Next year will show the fortunes of the Hawke Club in its unaided operation. This observer wouldn’t be surprised if the most widely attended Clubs Council in months had little real effect.
Attending the election of a new President of the Union was a real reminder for me of why I love – and hate – student politics at this university.
The thing that got me most was the clear passion and dedication that almost everyone at the meeting felt. In a way it was very exciting to be in the room with so many people who had invested such an enormous amount of their lives into making this Union function. However, the feeling was marred by the knowledge that so many of the great ideas of the Board members will be consigned to the ideological junk heap as a result of factional disagreements based more on point scoring against opposing factions than on the individual merits of the idea.
Rather than making you wait any longer, I’ll reveal here that Lavinia Emmett-Grey won the position of President with a respectable majority, forcing Mark Joyce to wait until 2010 to try again (technically the vote will be in 2009, but the President changes at the turn of the year).
Mark spoke to the Board first, with a carefully scripted speech (so scripted that he was able to give me a copy of the speech afterwards, with the bits that he didn’t use scribbled out). He focussed on the need to replace the constitution with a reformed and greatly improved document, as well as raising new ideas such as three day elections, online voting for the general elections and the re-naming of the AUU to the Adelaide University Student Association. In addition, Mark proposed that the President’s honorarium be reduced to $15 thousand annually.
In contrast, Lavinia’s speech was apparently unscripted and directly from the heart, though some more cynical observers believed that her words had been carefully selected before hand. Lavinia began by pointing out that the speeches didn’t really matter, and that everyone would already have decided how to vote. She then did her very best to change the minds of those who’d decided in Mark’s favour. Hers was an emotive appeal to those Board members who could be inspired by the image of a President who’d seen it already, and who harked back to a union that had three times the members, four times the events and ten times the will to fight for student rights. She drew on the emotive imagery of a strong student union that produced the best times, friends and fights, and the idea that student representatives and representation might mean something, rather than being a farce. To finish, Lavinia urged all of the Board members to vote as if they were the only one, and there were no factional twit standing behind them. To vote as if they were representing the students.
I can’t say whether either speech swung any votes, but the juxtaposition of the rational policy statement and the emotional appeal definitely threw the candidates into stark contrast.
Of the two big votes, the Vice Presidential one – unexpectedly – ended up being the more interesting of the two. It was clear that factional deals had been made by both sides: one group’s Presidential candidate received votes in exchange for voting for the other group’s candidate as deputy. John Bowers and his followers, then, looked quite concerned about his chances of achieving the Vice Presidency, while Fei Tang seemed the presumed candidate. Nonetheless, the speeches touting financial management and leadership went ahead. In this case they were much more similar. The biggest difference was that John came across as a more confident candidate (though some of Board appeared concerned that he drew direct parallels between leading 30 people on a battlefield and leading the Finance and Development Standing Committee [F&DSC]), whereas some Board members appeared confused and concerned by Fei’s less certain use of English and rumoured uncertainties about his future.
The votes, the counters and the scrutineers went out, and came back…looking confused and in some cases either very pleased or very worried, depending on their faction. Despite Fei Tang’s ‘side’, as it were, electing the President they had agreed on, at least three votes had changed hands in the interim, delivering John Bowers as the AUU Vice President for 2009.
This sent the Activate and IndyGo factions into a small panic as they re-counted their votes for the subsequent elections in light of their new found uncertainty. It also restored a sense of cynicism after Lavinia’s inspiring speech. Apparently Board should only vote as if they were representing the students when they’re voting for her.
The subsequent elections – for AUU Executive and the Finance and Development Standing Committee – were conducted without speeches or discussion time. Daniel Bills, Fletcher O’Leary, Aaron Fromm and Yasmin Freschi were declared as the 2009 Executive, with Jianbin Jiang (also known as Strong) as the only other person running.
Ye Yang, Fei Tang, Andrew Anson and Mark Joyce were elected to F&DSC, with Aaron Fromm missing out.
Rhiannon Newman caused some entertainment when she claimed the place as Fletcher’s scrutineer despite the fact that he was absent at the time, and unable to appoint her. She quipped that ‘It’s only because I know how you all vote’, then felt the need to point out that she was being facetious. I guess it was a touchy subject considering just how wrong the VP vote had proved her.
It was interesting to note that David Collucio – the General Manager of the AUU – spoke at length to the assembled Board both before and after the vote. In the first spiel, he mentioned that the services of the AUU employee who had been taken minutes at most of the 2008 meetings had been withdrawn for the final two meetings of that Board due to an impression of unacceptable behaviour. One former Board member in attendance – Justin Kentish – was particularly unimpressed by this, as he said that the old Board was never told that this was the reason for her absence.
After our mass exodus to Unibar, I was sought out by a Board member only willing to be quoted as ‘a left board director’, who passed on (and, at my request, later sms’d me) the sound bite that “left board directors where suprised and appalled that Jake Wishart – a vocal member of the young greens – voted in a dry liberal to vice president of the auu”. The grammar that seems to have eluded this university educated student politician aside, this ‘defection’, as it were is being taken very seriously by the left. Another of the lefties even compared it on Facebook to the totalitarian horrors of Orwell’s 1984 (though he wouldn’t explain what the parallels were).
To put it into context, the Board member who changed their vote without the knowledge of their faction (I’ll post here once I’ve asked Jake personally – until then I’m not willing to say outright that it was him, though that appears to be the common assumption) would have been asked during the negotiations whether he was comfortable with his factional leader representing his vote for that outcome. The choice was his one way or the other, but it was expected to be made and put out there for counting well in advance. Had his faction found that they did not have the numbers to offer something in return, or had he changed his mind belatedly, I expect there would have been some pressure to vote in line.
Looking to one of the side issues of that vote, though, a far more Orwellian question arises: How did the left manage to divine in meagre hours whose vote was different to expectations? I was given Jake’s name less than four hours after the meeting ended; no mean feat considering it was a secret ballot. I just hope it was some sort of asking around by the ‘factional twits’ that enabled the left to find out, though ballot tampering is not unheard of.
I guess the students will decide whether they think the Board member in question was a promise breaking lowlife or a brave independent when they vote for their representatives next year. For now, let’s see how this new group does at their attempt to bring love, life and some tangible improvements to the student union.
Student politics at Adelaide university begins and ends at the unibar. Come four o’clock election night, and it’s understandably packed. Counting won’t start till five, and I’m mildly annoyed that I can’t go and watch. Keeping informed should be interesting, now that I have to rely on the goodwill of those I’m reporting on. Not that it’s their fault. The AUU constitution acts as a straightjacket to most things, good or bad.
I should stop complaining. AUU watch is too new a column to have any institutional power. I’ve been at the Unibar half an hour now, and I’m sitting at a table with one of the two independent tickets. For those not running with one of the two main factions (Pulse and Activate, Labor Right and Left respectably), this election has seen the formation of two ‘tickets’ of independents, designed largely to channel preferences to other independents.
Unlike the factions, independent tickets do not have binding caucuses, but tend to have less clout and electioneering experience than the two factions. IndyGo, headed by 2007/8 President Lavinia Emmett-Grey, and Clubbers, not exactly ‘headed’ but organized by former Board Director Sandy Biar, are the two independent tickets. Few independent candidates have risked going it alone.
Five o’clock, and someone comes over and informs the Clubbers table that counting won’t start till seven. Looks like I’ll be here for longer than I expected. Maybe it’s got something to do with turnout. While the number of votes cast for elections has been edging down every year since VSU, this year saw a boost of 2508 votes, up from 2200 last year, and almost identical to the 2004 (pre-VSU) figure.
Seven thirty, and things get interesting. Primary votes are out, and Paris Dean has a copy. I hang back for a while chatting to some Pulse candidates, before making my way over. Dave Adams, Carey Birchall, Sacha Bolding, Zhang Xi Jin, Zehng Hung Lim, Chelsey Potter, and Lucy Damin score under forty, making it highly unlikely they’ll survive the preference boosts to other candidates. Reactions among the other candidates are mixed. Lavinia ‘I-desperately-need-your-vote-because-I’m-an-independent’ Emmett-Grey is ecstatic at her primary count of 158. Some of the so-called old hacks seem to have lost their touch. David Wilkins, former Board President and star of Electioneering, seems to have experienced a backlash, scoring only 54 primary votes, although my impression is his heart wasn’t in it this election. Rhiannon Newman, head of the Activate faction, has scored only 70 votes, leaving her looking uncertain. Ash Brooks and Daniel O’Brien are all grins at scores in the mid to high 50s, while James Gould doesn’t look anywhere near as happy despite scoring similarly. Jake Wishart had been somewhat pessimistic all week. Unnecessarily so, with an impressive 139 primary votes. I make my way next to him, muttering ‘I told you so’ under my breath.
Make it through with a decent primary vote, and a lot hangs on preferences. From the true ‘independents' (not politically but with regard to how they ran in this election), only Sonja Jankovic and Christopher Overton have pulled good primary counts (at 96 and 64 respectively), and while Sonja looks safe, Chris has a hard time ahead of him pulling enough preference votes to get him through.
Nine Fifteen, and I’m back from my dinner break. I’ve been getting information in bits and pieces, a few minutes earlier having heard that Daniel O’Brien and David Wilkins had been knocked out. Wilkins is a surprise, having been President before Lavinia. He heads, or rather headed, Pulse, the Labour Right faction. After campaigning on a ‘save the unibar’ platform last year, David sold commercial operations to the National Wine Centre in order to secure a ten-year funding deal for the Union earlier this year. This is the first election since the controversial decision, and it seems David’s vote count suffered for it. His popularity among the other factions, never high to start with, hit an all-time low in the lead-up to this election, and it seems the other student politicians in the bar cut him little slack, a cheer reputedly erupting when his failure to secure a place in the top eighteen was known. Soon Kit Richards is out, leaving one less member of Pulse in the running. I go out onto the Unibar balcony, and spy James Gould looking less melancholy than he did earlier in the evening, despite having been knocked out a few minutes earlier. He expresses a hope that his policies (university-wide international student mentoring among others) will be taken up by those who do get on.
Ten Thirty, and the thirty-six have been culled to eighteen. Earlier than I expected, maybe there’s still time to go the Party Party Party.
Wait, you want to know? About their policies? How would you feel carrying a notepad around a pub all night. I gave you the final result, I’m done. Do your own reporting next time. Adios
P.S. I'm just being lazy. I'll upload a policies summary soon, and we can pay out the student pollies about which ones were 'core' promises.
Numbers only at this point. Analysis to follow within the next few days:
Primary Vote Count:
- 33-David Adams (Activate)
- 78- Andrew Anson (Pulse)
- 112- Daniel Bills (Pulse)
- 7- Catey Birchall (Pulse)
- 11- Sasha Bolding (Pulse)
- 81- John Bowers (?)
- 54- Ashleigh Brook (Indy-Go)
- 11- Lisanne Bunt (Activate)
- 80- Paris Dean (Activate)
- 71- Sam Deere (Activate)
- 158- Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Indy-Go)
- 74- Ben Foxwell (Pulse)
- 81- Yasmin Freschi (Clubbers)
- 107- Aaron Fromm (Clubbers)
- 54- James Gould (Indy-Go)
- 96- Sonja Jankovic (Ind/Lib?)
- 89- Jianbin Jiang (Passion)
- 17- Zhang Xi Jin (Passion)
- 116- Mark Joyce (Clubbers)
- 25- Zehng Hung Lim (Passion)
- 64- Simone McDonnell (Pulse)
- 87- Evan Mitchell (Clubbers)
- 70- Rhiannon Newman (Activate)
- 58- Daniel O'Brien (Clubbers)
- 79- Fletcher O'Leary (Activate)
- 64- Chris Overton (Ind/Lib)
- 8- Chelsea Potter (Ind)
- 50- Kit Richards (Pulse)
- 119- Fei Tang (Passion)
- 45- Hayden Tronnolone (Indy-Go)
- 78- Jason Virgo (Activate)
- 85- Ye Yang (Passion)
- 61- Claire Wong (Pulse)
- 139- Jake Wishart (Indy-Go)
- 54- David Wilkins (Pulse)
- 1- Lucy Damin (Ind)
Final 18 Elected:
- Andrew Anson (Pulse)
- Daniel Bills (Pulse)
- John Bowers (Liberal)
- Ashleigh Brook (Indy-Go)
- Paris Dean (Activate)
- Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Indy-Go)
- Ben Foxwell (Pulse)
- Yasmin Freschi (Clubbers)
- Aaron Fromm (Clubbers)
- Sonja Jankovic (Liberal)
- Jianbin Jiang (Passion)
- Mark Joyce (Clubbers)
- Rhiannon Newman (Activate)
- Fletcher O'Leary (Activate)
- Fei Tang (Passion)
- Jason Virgo (Activate)
- Ye Yang (Passion)
- Jake Wishart (Indy-Go)
Major apologies for the bad writing and potential inaccuracy of my article. I wrote it on my plane to Melbourne, and I'm giving up valuable sleep to post it as a placeholder until I can deliver something more detailed (probably Wednesday or Thursday or so). If you have questions, comments or problems with some of my facts, PLEASE let me know in the comments!
Have you noticed an unusual amount of anger and frustration emanating from student politicians this week just gone? If so, it's probably because the elections for the Student Representative Council, National Union of Students delegates and Student Media – everything except AUU Board – have been cancelled.
Back in the Union’s ancient history, pre-VSU that is, there was the Student Association of Adelaide Uni (the SAUA). They were basically the same body as the SRC is aiming to be when it grows up; although I expect everyone involved is hoping that the SRC will be more functional. The SAUA was where all the technical allowances for elections sat, so when the SAUA was disbanded, all elections other than those for AUU Board became invalid. Last year the people running the AUU were ignorant – wilfully or otherwise – of this, so the elections went ahead. However, this year a complaint was lodged by David Wilkins, ex-President and policy leader for the Pulse (Labor Right) faction.
This complaint revolved around the way that the SRC was brought into being. To create a committee like the SRC, a rule must be passed twice at separate sittings through the AUU Board and then once through University Council. The rule to create the SRC went through Board in September ’07 and April ’08, but it never cleared the final hurdle: University Council. In what Lavinia Emmett-Gray, AUU President, described as ‘a bullying tactic’, UC refused any such rule unless it was accompanied by complete constitutional reform which the Board did not have – or make – time for. This left the election in a tenuous position which was revealed fully when David lodged a complaint about their illegality.
As an attempt to plaster over these problems so that the elections could go ahead almost as planned, Lavinia put forth a piece of policy that would separate the two elections. The idea was to run them with different returning officers and slightly different rules, but still side by side. In response, David lodged another complaint on the basis that only positions specified in the constitution or rules can be elected. The election tribunal ruled in David’s favour. As a result, the SRC, NUS and Student Media positions for the coming year can only be filled by appointment.
In essence, this is an ideological dispute. On one hand, Lavinia and her friends in Labor Left believe that these positions should be elected, even if that requires creative interpretation of the rules. They see election as the only way to fairly fill the positions. Conversely, Pulse believes that the people who fill these roles deserve to be there legitimately, even if that means that they have to be appointed by Board this year.
Of course, there’s also plenty of personal politics that’s had a hand in this situation. I’ll try to explain that well in my more thorough coverage, but you can probably guess most of how it went.
SRC President, Returning Officer #2 and Transparency
The Board meeting on August 7th saw yet another election take place (could this be a record for a single year of Board?). After Ellen Ketteridge’s resignation, the position of Student Representation Council President was wide open and letting in the breeze. David Wilkins and Paris Dean were both nominated for the position. Unsurprisingly, Paris – who has done substantial work with the SRC this year and made his intentions to run for their President next year very clear – is now SRC President.
The general SRC elections were also very topical during that meeting. As a result of the current election rules, the elections for everything but the AUU Board (that is, SRC reps, National Union of Students reps, Student Radio Directors and the On Dit editors) will be held separately from the Board elections. While this won’t affect the election process much for most students (there will be two boxes for the ballot papers and the like, but nothing major), it means that there will need to be two returning officers to oversee the election. The AUU has been (amazingly, unexpectedly and belatedly) fortunate in securing the services of a former AEC employee to oversee the Board election, but this left the SRC and other elections bereft of an R.O. Lavinia proposed to the Board that they pass a motion to instate James Moffatt, a Music student at Adelaide Uni (and a friend of mine), as the R.O. A couple of Board directors protested on the basis that it was unlikely that James would have the time, the understanding or the confidence to execute the role properly. Despite this, the desperate need for a returning officer to ensure an operating SRC and membership for the NUS led to James being appointed to the position with a small majority of votes.
A more ongoing issue that was raised is the level of transparency within the AUU. Directors are meant to keep quiet on all the important upcoming issues. This is to keep them free of outside influence and capable of making decisions in the Board’s best interests. For a start, in the context of the AUU Board this seems a little naïve – most of the people seeking to affect Directors’ votes to suit another (factional) agenda are already on the Board and have full access to all that information. Members of the Board from all the factions made their issues with this idea quite clear, pointing out that students can only get information about what’s happening in the AUU through a 2-4 week out of date column that only covers issues that have already been discussed at Board. It was suggested that if students actually care, they would come to the Board meetings and get involved, but this was argued down on the basis that most students would have to put ridiculous amounts of time just finding out when and where the meetings would be. Even then, only Board members know what’s on the agenda before the meeting starts. In essence, this leads to a system where plenty of people know what’s going on – all the people who are already cosy with our student politicians. It’s still difficult for anyone who’s not already involved with student politics to find out anything about what’s really going on.
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.