Adelaide Student Politics

Despite only ten of the eighteen board members showing up to the final meeting (even after the September meeting was cancelled because of a lack of quorum), it was one of the most active meetings of the year, and still ran under time!

An impressive nine of the fifteen new board members showed up to take a look at what they were in for, and had a respectable amount of input into the proceedings.

Two affiliates – the Overseas Students’ Association (OSA) and the Postgrad Students Association (PGSA) were put on notice by the Board. Notice is reviewed at the next Board meeting and, if the Board sees no changes have been made to the state of affairs, it can result in the affiliate losing a share of its funding.

The OSA was brought up (again) for its dodgy reporting practices, on the basis that most of the reports to the Board this year are apparently identical. Not only does this mess the Board around, it also means that the University will have proof that the OSA has been negligent about their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs - the list of things they need to do that year to be assured of their funding) this year. As a result, there would be a strong argument to cut funding to the OSA next year, which would be extremely disappointing for the executive that is chosen at the AGM this month.

Having the PGSA put on notice was far more unexpected, and was a result of the affiliate completely overlooking at least one of their KPIs. There were also suggestions raised in the meeting that the PGSA hasn't been fulfilling its advocacy role towards students, which may have contributed to their being put on notice.

In a tour of the sports facilities recently, President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Sports Association President Andreas Munoz-Lamilla discovered an enormous need for better upkeep of the university sporting facilities. One of the buildings in the parklands, for instance, was found to have what was thought to be asbestos in the ceiling, which was punctured. In addition, one the walls of the rugby rooms at Waite was so termite riddled that it provided a serious safety danger.

The Board also made some changes to the structure of some of the advocacy spaces – the Rainbow Room and the Women’s Room. These were brought under the banner of the SRC, and the Women’s Officer and Queer Officer respectively now have responsibility for keeping an eye on those spaces and advising the SRC when there’s any issues with that room. This means that there is now a specific individual that problems can be reported to, rather than the general confusion that existed this year.

The Board also voted to establish a new AUU website at a cost of $15 thousand dollars. Paris Dean raised concerns that the money might mean that the Affiliates would lose out on funding as a result, but ultimately the vote was passed. The plan is to have a new and more user friendly youth-focussed website established ready for term one next year. $15 thousand is reportedly seen as a conservative estimate for the website, and the tender that was decided upon has promised a high level of responsiveness to student needs. The site will be moved off the university server, but it is expected that advertising on the site will well and truly make up for the costs.

The other big motion that was passed during the meeting was to determine a more technological and less expensive way to run referenda, seeing as we need to have one (preferably soon) to instate the (currently unwritten) new constitution. Whoever said the Board doesn’t think ahead?
The two options that were discussed were to have voting over Access Adelaide or to have voting conducted on computers in specific ballot areas, in the manner of normal elections but without all the paper. The proponents of online voting argued that it would make voting far more accessible, making it easier for people to vote and allowing disenfranchised groups such as working students a better opportunity to have their say. Those in favour of electronic voting in person argued that it allowed groups to make their arguments for and against to voters in person and ensure that they were aware of the issues, as well as protecting against people sending out emails to their friends asking them to go straight to the site and vote without looking at the other side of the argument first. Despite the suggestion of a compromise – tents on the lawns from which voters could vote on Access Adelaide – the Board voted to have electronic ballots conducted in the same manner as our usual pen and paper elections.

The final motion for the current Board was one of thanks for the work done in the last twelve months and, really, it was a very depressing demonstration of the board’s capability. The Board bickered over exactly who should be mentioned by name in the motion and how it should be phrased. Eventually everything broke down into argument and it was presumed that some sort of motion had been passed, at which point everyone quickly made their escape.

And with that, I give my enormous congratulations to all the involved members of the 2008 Board who, in my personal opinion, have done relatively well. Good luck to all of you new Board members. I will be pleasantly impressed if you can surpass the caring and passion of those who were genuinely a part of the Board of 2008.

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.

By and large, students are a lazy bunch. Many of us skip at least one or two lectures a week and sleep through the remainder. When we skip class, when we hand our assignments in late, we hurt only ourselves. When our Board directors skip meetings and can’t be bothered attending important workshops, they hurt us all. It shows the university, already reluctant to part with their money, that we are just as incompetent and unprofessional as ever. It impacts on the accountability and transparency of the Board. Most importantly, it represents a broken promise, a failure to live up to a basic commitment. These directors were quite willing to set aside a week to campaign in the first place, stoking their over-inflated egos and gaining a useful line for their resume, yet they can’t put aside three hours a month. Pathetic.

With five notable exceptions, every Board director has missed at least one meeting since being elected last year. Six missed two of the eight meetings. Tom McDougall missed three and Yang Shen has skipped out on four. Simon Le Poidevin has managed to attend but a single meeting since November last year, missing five in total. You have to wonder why he bothered running in the first place.

At the May meeting, the Overseas Students Association was placed on notice for (allegedly) failing to meet its Key Performance Indicators. This is the first step towards suspending its funding. Dilan Moragolle, a Board director and President of the OSA failed to show up to that meeting. More disturbingly, despite the obvious importance of the June meeting, he failed to attend until some snack-seeking Board directors retrieved him from an OSA-sponsored party. He apologised profusely to the Board and the OSA’s notice was extended to August. It’s a true shame that an important organisation like the OSA risks having its funding cut due, in part, to its slack President.

That same meeting, important electoral changes were discussed, including the notion that at least four board members each year must have previously served on the board. Yet of the fifteen directors who bothered to show up, three felt the need to leave before the end.

Earlier this year the Board following the advice of its General Manager, David Coluccio, organised a governance workshop to examine how the Union runs and how it should run. He touted it as the most important event of the year for Board Directors. Appallingly, seven directors neglected to attend – Zhen Ji, Justin Kentish, Simon Le Poidevin (surprise), Tom McDougall, Dilan Moragolle, Yang Shen, and Matthew Taylor.

After all this griping about the shameful laziness of many of our Board directors, I would like to commend the following for showing up to the governance session and every Board meeting this year: Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Rhiannon Newman, Emilio Roberts, and Claire Wong.

In shock news, a Board Director delivered their letter of resignation shortly after the deadline for this article. SRC Chair, Ellen Ketteridge, gave notice on Tuesday the 15th of July. Regarding the AUU and SRC, she said, “It’s a nice cause, but not really going to accomplish anything, is it?”. This was Ellen’s first (and likely final) year of involvement with student politics.

By Daniel and Hannah (Daniel will be taking over the column soon).

For those who are curious, the attendance rates were:
Lavinia, Emilio, Claire and Rhiannon: Attended absolutely everything (seven meetings plus the governance session).
Simone, Ellen, Justin and Xan: Attended six meetings and the governance session. (Justin missed the governance session, but he had informed the Board that he was on teaching practice and not an acting member for that period as a result).
Matt Taylor: Attended seven meetings, but not the governance session.
David, Paris and Sam: Attended five meetings and the governance session.
Dilan: Attended six meetings, but missed governance.
Zheng: Attended four meetings and governance.
Tom: Attended five meetings, but missed governance.
Zhen: Attended four meetings, but missed governance.
Yang and Simon: Attended three meetings, but missed governance.

Should have been posted around May 10th. Sorry guys!

I am shocked. I am amazed. The Board as a whole is actually coming close to impressing me. While there are still some clear indications that this is a student board with a sometimes frustrating lack of professionalism, the Board is starting to shape up and get something done!

The biggest thing (not that the delay was the Board’s fault) was to pass the funding agreement with the University! This means that the Union has $1.2 million this year to share between the affiliates and use for advocacy, education support and events to promote the ever elusive campus culture. Unless something goes horribly wrong, this agreement is expected to last for the next ten years, with negotiation each year as to the exact amount.

The schism between the Overseas Students Association (or at least, their President, Dilan Morragolle) and the rest of the Board continues. Dilan missed the Board meeting without apology, and there was no report from the OSA. They’ve also been conspicuously quiet around campus; their only event since the last Board meeting was one barbecue. The OSA has been put on notice, and the Board has voted to address the issues with advocacy at the next meeting. In the meanwhile, Union Activities Chair Simone McDonnell is organising a number of film screenings (Kenny, Crocodile Dundee and the like) with our international students in mind.

The SRC has also surpassed expectations. By the time you read this, the first meeting of the full council should have been held. Judging by Lavinia Emmett-Grey’s excited description of the enthusiasm and integrity of the candidates, this year’s SRC will be passionate, at the very least.

In a surprise move, Lavinia also brought forward some electoral reforms in what was the last meeting to get them in so that they can be instituted for this year’s accostafest...that is, student election. The first of two proposed reforms was thinstitution of a training evening for all candidates, so that they are all familiar with the roles and responsibilities that they are running for. The second is the introduction of a platform section for groups of candidates in the official election broadsheet. The first measure is an excellent idea that I wish had been instituted long ago. It should mean that new Board members are more aware of their role and responsibilities as the Board of a corporate body. The changes to the broadsheet, however, are unfair, as they give groups of candidates far more coverage than independants. The Union’s General Manager, David Coluccio, has also sought quotes from the Australian Electoral Commission on hiring an independent Returning Officer for this year’s AUU and SRC elections, as well as advice for improving the electoral system for the future.

The only other black spot on the meeting was the general relationship between the National Wine Centre (NWC) and the Union. At the start of the year, we probably all felt general relief to see that all the food outlets but Rumours were up and running, and that everything seemed generally well presented and managed.

However, it seems that this improvement hasn’t continued to other areas of the NWC’s takeover. The Clubs Association has received a number of complaints from the different clubs, ranging from a lack of bins to an inability to access rooms that have been booked to clubs having to pay to use rooms after 8pm. The Clubs Association (note: I’m on the CA executive committee, so there’s some bias here) has also had difficulties in dealing with the NWC, and an event in the Clubs Cup was cancelled as a result. The underlying issues between the NWC and student groups, however, have not been solved. Even the AUU Board meetings have been rushed as a result of the 8pm curfew on rooms in Union House. The University has apparently called NWC management to order over this, resulting in what I expect was a heated meeting on May 20.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about the NWC’s negotiating methods. Firstly, there was the suggestion that the NWC was looking to use the AUU’s membership of the TAG buying group (a group that the NWC could not access independent of the AUU, and which caused the level of acronym use in this article to become quite ridiculous) in a way that would preclude the AUU from using it for their own purposes as well. This was followed by Union President Lavinia Emmett-Grey commenting in the AUU meeting that the NWC’s tactics felt awfully like bullying. This could be seen as a weakness in that she can feel bullied in negotiations or a strength in that she feels able to tell this to the Board and spectators, including the one who will go and publish it for the rest of the uni to read.

Lavinia declared herself ‘shocked’ (apparently in a good way) that the Australian National Union of students has been so active this year, and Simone McDonnell echoed this with a mention that the NUS President (who is visiting on May 21st to meet with the Board) had been promoting student issues on Triple J. There was some concern that the Board might find it difficult to meet their NUS fees this year, but Rhiannon, who has been on the relevant committee, explained that the affiliation fees are based on each student union’s ability to pay as well as their membership.

There was also discussion of the formation of a committee of the presidents of all the faculty clubs on campus. The idea behind this is to develop an authoritative group to look at education issues around the university and take action on them. I expect it will be interesting to see how this initiative pans out, as getting clubs to do extra work can be very difficult.