Adelaide Student Politics

It's Alive: NUS to hold SGM

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:37:00 +0000

Posted: 3rd of January

According to official notice, given by David Barrow, 2009 NUS President (NLS) and David Wilkins, 2009 General Secretary (Unity), NUS is to hold a special general meeting (SGM) of all national conference delegates, in order to elect the new executive for 2010. This meeting will be held on the 30th and 31st of January.

The previous conference cost every delegate (well, usually, their union) $725 (plus GST). This is on top of affiliation fees. Details of how much each delegate would cost their union for this SGM have not been publically released yet. I presume in order to limit cost, NUS has scheduled it immediately following its yearly Presidents Summit (27th to 29th), with both it and the SGM being held at the University of Sydney. Many NUS delegates would also have been attending Presidents Summit, and so may remain in Sydney for the NUS SGM.

NUS National Conference 2009: What Happened

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:29:00 +0000

Posted: 20th of December

The National Union of Students (NUS) National Conference began on Monday the 14th of December. It closed the following Friday. The Conference is used to elect the national executive of the organization for the coming year, as well as to debate NUS policy.

But you know all that. You’re in all likelihood reading this to find out what the hell went wrong, so I’ll just get on with it.

According to one source, on the Sunday immediately before the conference, an NUS national executive meeting saw the affiliations of two campuses remain in question. Affiliation is important, as it determines who can and cannot vote on the conference floor. Voting breakdown is important when factions vote on bloc, as they do at NUS, and all want as many of their people in positions of power within the premier student organization as possible.

Both of the disputed campuses (University of Western Sydney and Notre Dame) experienced difficulties with their NUS delegate elections which were similar to those experienced at Adelaide last year (i.e. A failed election, followed with delegate appointment). UWS is considered a left-wing campus, and Notre Dame, unsurprisingly, is right-wing. The same source claims that the Labor Unity (Labor-Right) did not want UWS brought on, and so pulled quorum for the executive meeting, meaning the issue remained unresolved when the conference started the following day.

The first sign of trouble to many of the delegates was when, on the first day of conference, no one was attending. Both of the two major factional groupings at NUS (Labor Unity, and the Labor Left Faction, National Labor Students – NLS) had the numbers, if they could control their people, to prevent quorum (50%) being reached. Without quorum, no conference is valid. The same source also claims Unity were not attending the conferences, out of concern over campus affiliations. Complicating the issue further from the earlier exec meeting is that several left-wing universities had paid money into the NUS account just prior to the conference. Members of the right are alleged to have insisted the money clear first before the delegates from these universities be allowed to vote.

This was not a problem for the AUU, which, despite presenting a cheque only on the Monday of the conference, was not required to wait until it cleared before its delegates were registered to vote.

It isn’t until the second day of the conference that quorum is finally reached for a sitting (possibly at 4am). This sees the election of the Business Committee. NUS is, from all accounts, a chaotic conference involving hundreds of delegates. So it makes sense that first thing, a committee is elected to decide when to hold meetings, on the agenda, and other points of order. This is however more than a logistical position, giving whichever faction rules the Business Committee significant ability to influence the debate on the conference floor (through the agenda), or even when/if votes are held (as occurred in this case). The Left factions had a slender majority of delegates (57% I have heard, from two left sources). However, in protest at the lack of conference the previous day, Socialist Alternative (one of the left factions) decided to boycott the vote. This meant that Unity won 4 of the 7 positions on Business Committee. Josh Rayner (Unity) was appointed Returning Officer for future elections.

Despite the election of the right, the Left still had the majority of votes. Quorum was not reached for more meetings on the Tuesday.

By Wednesday, one source has NLS convincing Unity to come back to the floor. Debate briefly resumes, and the position of an International Student Officer is created. Talk then moves to the affiliations of UNSW, Murdoch and UWS (all left campuses). A motion asking for the Business Committee to put this on the agenda is ruled down by Business Committee, who is then overruled on this motion decision by the larger Conference. There are then three motions, in very rapid succession, to affiliate each of these universities, giving their delegates voting rights. One right-wing source claims this was obviously rehearsed, as it happened so quickly it took Unity several moments to realize what was going on. This is corroborated by a left-wing delegate, who says that it wasn’t until the second motion (to affiliate the second campus) that the right reacted at all. David Wilkins (Unity, and 2009 NUS General Secretary) is reported to have screamed for all Unity delegates to exit the conference floor, so as to pull quorum. A right-wing source says Unity delegates were prevented from leaving, with one NLS member barring the door. A left-wing source disagrees with this, saying it all happened so quickly there was no way they could have reached the door in time, so there was no need to bar the Unity delegates into the conference room. A motion is then passed to close the meeting. The left breaks into a chorus of ‘Solidarity Forever’. They expect, given that with the affiliations of the three campuses their lead is even larger, to be share almost all the NUS Office Bearer positions among them and their allies. Evidently, their celebrations were premature.

Both right-wing and left-wing sources then have Unity, after some time, quickly reentering the conference room, and holding a meeting in which there are no left-wing members present. Of course, quorum requirements exist precisely to prevent this from happening. However, one right-wing source claims that as the smoking balcony is counted as part of conference floor, quorum was in fact reached. Another source claims that even if this were the case, the smoking balcony was empty regardless. The right justified this meeting by saying that Barrow had incorrectly closed the previous session, meaning the conference was still in session when they re-entered the meeting room.

Sometime during the course of these previous events an ambulance was called. Right-wing sources have this being the result of injuries sustained as they were prevented from leaving the conference floor when they rushed out in an attempt to prevent the left-campus affiliations. Another source claims that a female member of Unity was injured as Unity rushed back into the conference room floor, claiming she was trampled by her own faction who did not stop to help her. Yet another left-wing source has a girl being simply ‘shaken up’ by the proceedings, and wasn’t sure at what stage this occurred. Not having been there, I have no idea what happened, but can establish an ambulance was called. Other than that, everyone I’ve asked about it has a slightly different story.

While in this hasty Unity meeting, motions were passed affiliating several right-wing campuses, such as Notre Dame, Monash Caulfield and Edith Cowen. Motions are also allegedly passed disaffiliating some of the dodgier left campuses, some of which had nonetheless already been affiliated prior to the conference.

This finishes Wednesday, and on Thursday (Office Bearer Ballot day), all is quiet. Several people (understood to be the current President (David Barrow – NLS), Josh Rayner (in his role as returning officer) and another member of NLS) have to sign off on the campus accreditation report (which decides exactly who can and can’t vote). They can’t agree. Here, my left sources unambiguously blame Josh Rayner, who they say wouldn’t sign off on anything barring the inquorate meeting affiliations and disaffiliations. The right says Rayner did everything by the book, and furthermore says it is unlikely that the Returning Officer would have been given the power to decide who can and cannot vote. I cannot say for sure who it was that ultimately refused to compromise, but it is unambiguously clear that no agreement was reached before Friday morning, when some delegates began to leave the conference to return home. The secretariat was reportedly kept open to 3am in case of a ballot, but none occurred until the Friday morning.

NLS refused to support a Friday morning ballot. Left sources then have Unity attempting to hold a ballot in Melbourne at Trade Hall (NUS Offices), but ultimately all attempts to hold a ballot fail as so many delegates have gone home. The conference closes, with no national executive for 2010 having been elected.

Like many crisis situations, the twin seeds of dissent at this year’s NUS Conference were laid early. Moves to affiliate campuses with election problems were not successful at an executive level prior to the conference. Coupled with the right holding the majority on Business Committee (but not a majority of delegates – their positions on Business Committee being due to the Socialist Alliance voting boycott), these two factors set the stage for a contested decision.

There are many who bear no love for the National Union of Students. However, both the left and right-wing Labor sources spoken to expressed regret at the danger NUS is placed in as an institution, and the situation this leaves students in as the Government considers broad changes to their welfare situation and other educational overhauls. Needless to say, this particular conference was also a huge waste of money for many already cash-strapped student unions around the country.

One source was of the opinion that there was no plausible option other than to wind up the lobbying body. Apart from finishing off the 23-year old organization, the other options on the table are either to allow for a postal ballot (currently used to deal with casual vacancies), or to have the current executive appoint the new executive. Or (and this is very unlikely) have another national conference, soon. None of these avenues are really all that desirable. A postal ballot is preferable, but all sources agreed on the enormous difficulty this would be to conduct.

Legal advice is expected to be released to NUS on Monday. Until then, there’s nothing much to do but wait.

The hastily prepared profile picture currently being used by many Left NUS delegates on facebook to protest their situation. Carla Drakeford, Warren Roberts and James Butchers are, respectively, the left candidates for President, Indigenous Officer and Education Officer of NUS.

Several corrections to yesterdays post have been made. See here to read

For those not entirely familiar with NUS, I compiled a list of internet sources I found around this time last year you might be interested in taking a look at.

Will NUS See the New Year?

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:52:00 +0000

Posted: Very early on the 19th of December

This is written on events currently in progress. For this reason, it is likely to contain errors or incomplete reporting. Subscribers with more information are encouraged to point out faults or supply missing facts from this post.

When it comes to dodgy practices involving the National Union of Students (NUS), it’s all in the family at Adelaide Uni.

NUS has a yearly conference when delegates from most Australian universities gather for a week in Ballarat. While there, they debate NUS policy, and vote on who the following years NUS Office Bearers will be. This is, understandably, difficult. Especially when the Labor Left and Right both want power.

Former AUU President Josh Rayner (Student Unity - Labor Right) became nationally infamous yesterday when, in his role as Returning Officer for the NUS Office Bearer elections, he was alleged to be involved in, according to NUS President David Barrow (NLS – Labor Left), “the withholding and manipulation of the campus accreditation report”.

While a campus is affiliated to NUS until it holds a successful student referendum seeking otherwise, every campus is required to pay affiliation fees on a yearly basis. This is on top of a $725 fee for each of the delegates it sends.

Crikey reporter Andrew Crook has the dispute arising as a result of an unclear cut-off date for fees (sorry, subscriber only). Cheques arriving on Monday were ruled ineligible, making some delegates, I presume, ineligible to vote. Furthermore, Crook writes that meetings to resolve this were held in the ‘dead of night, when members from opposing factions were asleep’.

Right-wing sources at Adelaide paint a slightly different picture, saying that when faced with a Labor-Right/Liberal coalition, the Left chose to pull quorum* instead of face a vote which would see them lose (Update: Left sources entirely dispute this, saying that even with a right-wing coalition they still had the numbers, and maintain that the left never pulled quorum). This would explain the one-hour of policy debate decried in a Liberal press release. I note the alternate account does not necessarily dispute the original account published this morning by Crikey.

Haywire has a great, though factually light, interview on the whole saga, which is far more critical of both factions than I dare be at this stage. Those interviewed seem to be of the opinion that this is the end of NUS. Update: NUS Delegates have informed me that Thomas Green is a member of the right-wing independents, and that the 'journalism student' is his fiance. Not that that discredits his opinion, but for the purposes of full disclosure and all...

Adelaide’s NUS delegates were recent AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent, running for NUS Welfare Officer from what I understand), ~~Hayden Tronnolone (another Independent)~~ Sarah Anderson (NLS), Ashleigh Lustica (NLS) and Jason Virgo (also NLS). Also elected were Unity members Andrew Anson and Tim Picton. At this stage, I understand that Andrew Anson did not choose to attend. Also absent from Adelaide is outgoing State President Robert Fletcher (NLS). AUU President Fletcher O'Leary assures me that the AUU is a financial member of NUS, having paid affiliation fees (~~$14K approx in 2010~~ $9000 in 2010, plus another $5000 approx in delegate registration fees) for the coming year.

I presume this means our delegates can vote, if this is indeed the issue here. Different sources suggest this to be just the result of infighting between the Labor factions, or something to do with affiliations not being accepted, 'denying access to some from the wheels of power'. Information right now is, unfortunately, scarce.

Barrow is quoted as saying he is seeking legal advice. The morning will no doubt bring new developments. Watch this space.

*Quorum of meetings of the National Conference is the presence of a majority of elected delegates (i.e. not counting proxies) (Item 23 of schedules, NUS Constitution, Section R23 P 17). Also of note, I could not find any Constitutional contingency plans should an executive fail to be elected at the National Conference, although the Heywire interview does broach the option of postal votes. The other option is, of course, for them to be appointed by the current executive, in which case NLS has a majority.

Links from the Other Side

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:23:00 +0000

Posted: 21st of November

Young Liberal politics tends to be played, from everything I can see, off campus. Involvement in the AUU (which, despite the best efforts of Liberal Board Director Mark Joyce, retains the word ‘union’ in its title) is understandably minimal.

For this reason, the world of student politics as understood by the right-wing side of our campus is relatively alien to me. Every now and then though, one hears rumours of intrigue and power-plays, but they don’t usually occur in a public forum I feel comfortable reporting on. Every now and then though, something happens which is fair game.

This Saturday The Australian ran a story detailing Liberal infighting, centred around an editorial written by electoral officer and Adelaide student Ben Bartlett which “poured petrol on the flames of a climate change debate”*.

It was Vex News which broke the story two days ago. Vex also put up the original editorial, and the rest of the magazine, the whole of which seems to extol liberalism at the expense of the conservative elements of the Liberal party.

Vex’s unnamed source claims "the little moderate clique is getting organised for a massive branch stack recruitment drive” in SA. I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.

* Those who follow Federal politics will know that the issue of climate change has pitted the denialists against current leader Malcolm Turnbull, who demands some engagement in the Labor Governments ETS scheme.

UC Election Results

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:53:00 +0000

Posted: 6th of November

University Council elections closed today. Chris Wong and Lavinia Emmett-Grey won the two undergraduate spots. Xu Ting won the post-grad position.

Full details of the count and final margins are avaliable here.

In summary, Chris Wong received 431 primaries, with Lavinia on 149 and Paris Dean on 119. Tomas Macura was some way behind on 48 votes.

Chris Wong broke quota by some 200 votes, and so his votes flowed on to Lavinia (82 votes), Paris (54 votes) and Tomas (45 votes). This brought Lavinia to 231 votes, and Paris to 172. Tomas was eliminated.

The next round of redistribution saw 33 of Tomas’ votes flow to Lavinia, and 36 to Paris, bringing their totals to 264 and 209 respectively. Reaching the 250 quota figure first, Lavinia was elected to the remaining spot.

The post-graduate count only took 2 rounds, with only 156 valid ballots being cast. Quota was 79 votes, which none of the candidates reached. Xu Ting had 74 primaries, David Coluccio had 44, and Morteza Mohammahzhaheri has 38. Morteza was thus eliminated, and the ballots redistributed (15 to Xu Ting, 14 to David). Xu Ting was elected with 89 votes, David Collucio eliminated on 58 votes.

Repost: To A Degree, It's The End of University Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:22:00 +0000

Posted: 6th of November

The following is an article published in The Punch today. It is written by incoming On Dit Editor Connor O'Brien, regarding the Hughes Plaza consultation session which took place last Wednesday:

On the table, a hundred cups and saucers (arranged neatly, ten by ten). The university has pegged its hopes on this meeting, emailed the entire student body three times, plastered the campus with large, full-colour posters asking – begging – students to attend.

The meeting is an attempt on the part of administration to give students direct input into proposed campus redevelopments. The idea: have a cup of tea with members of the university’s Strategy and Space Planning department, air your grievances, and put forward your vision for a better campus. As they tell us repeatedly, desperately, “We’re listening.”

I count three students. (Hannah and I don’t count – we’re student journos. We have to be here). Anne, who’s in her fifties, is a mature-entry student who volunteers at the library. Gunter is an ageing hippy who’s been drifting in and out of campus for the past thirty years. The final ‘student’, Angus, doesn’t even attend the university.

This is a disappointment. Because students are unwilling to engage with administration, it has been increasingly difficult for the university to provide the college experience students wish for (but are refusing to explicitly ask for).

It’s not like students don’t care about what’s happening on campus. They do. A month ago, the university announced plans to demolish a historic theatre to make way for a state-of-the-art science precinct. Within weeks, five hundred students had joined a Facebook group petitioning against the redevelopment. A hundred students posted comments on that page, variously labelling the impending destruction a “barbaric act”, a “disgrace”, and a “tragic loss”.

But none of those students are here today.

I remember speaking to the editor of a local youth culture magazine who told me, “People can’t be f….ed anymore. I try to promote a show or an exhibition, and I’ll get hundreds of people clicking ‘Attending’ on Facebook, but they just won’t show up. You also have people who think it’s enough to become a ‘Fan’ of a local artist on Facebook, but then not buy any of that artist’s work, because they feel they don’t need to – they’ve already shown they’re a fan, by clicking a button. What I’ve realised, increasingly, is that what people do and say online is completely meaningless.”

I asked one of the students who joined and commented on the Facebook petition why he joined the group instead of speaking directly to a member of the university’s Strategy and Space Planning department. He told me that he assumed that, as soon as the group reached a “critical mass”, the university administration would have to sit up and take notice. When I point out that it’s unlikely that members of the administration actually use Facebook, he told me, “Yeah, but it’ll get on the radio or in the papers.”

Had he written to the papers? “No. But somebody else will, I’m sure.”

You can’t blame him, or any of the others, for not getting involved. Students have too much on their plates already to really give a damn about the state of the higher education system. A recent survey revealed that Californian students work an average of 23 hours per week – empirical evidence suggests that the Australian student experience can’t be much different. For all the talk of a “wasted generation”, students are actually spending the vast majority of their time working, attending classes, hitting the books – or in front of the computer, trying to resist the temptation of typing twitter.com into the browser window. Even before VSU hit, there was just no time for campus culture.

You hit a point where you realise it’s all become too darn complicated. On the one hand, students are feeling increasingly disconnected – universities have become so driven by the profit motive, students feel, that their concerns no longer factor into the equation. At the same time, the administration is struggling to connect with a student body that is distant and unresponsive. Nobody’s talking.

Two senior tutors, in their final tutorials of the year, implored us to send letters to administration. About anything – the IT system, course structure changes, even the quality of the food at the cafeteria.

“They don’t give a shit about faculty,” one tutor told me. “But they give a shit about you, because you’re the customer.”

In the closing five minutes of the final lecture of his academic career, a History professor spoke frankly about the changing face of the university.

“What is happening right now at this university,” he said, “will destroy higher education.”

This lecturer was speaking about course structure changes which force students to enroll in a larger number of introductory subjects across their undergraduate career. I’ve spoken to at least a dozen members of faculty: none are happy with the changes. Humanities students feel as though they’re now receiving a “joke education”. Yet – and here’s the kicker – the faculty are afraid to complain to administration, and students either don’t know who to talk to, don’t believe they’ll be listened to, or simply don’t have the time to voice their concerns.

I look around the room, with ninety-five coffee cups still gleaming and untouched. Angus is speaking, lamenting, “There’s no sense of collegiality. You get in, go to your lecture, leave.”

Members of the administration are writing this all down. It’s new to them. And this guy, Angus, who’s providing them with all this juicy info – he doesn’t even attend the bloody university.

Heads Up: Hughes Plaza Redevelopment questions

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:00:00 +0000

Being that it's one of the biggest changes to the uni and student opportunities for input within the uni in a long while, there's some work going on here to write a relatively comprehensive piece on the work being done on Hughes Plaza over the next year. As part of this, I'll be interviewing Paul Duldig of Property Services in a couple of weeks. If anyone has any questions that they'd like me to ask, leave them in the comments or email them to me privately and I'll see what I can do.

Whose Plaza?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:03:00 +0000

Posted: 30th of October 2009

The Hughes Plaza is being redeveloped into a student space, and we students get input on this one! I'm organising a chat with the developers so that I can write something up for you properly, but for now, come to the focus groups next week and have your say on how it ought to go.

There's two groups, 10am-11am and 3-4pm in the Ira Raymond Room. RSVPs are to michelle.chaplin@adelaide.edu.au.

If you want to know more about it, take a look at the FAQs on the site.

Big Fish

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Posted: 30th of October 2009

In terms of power in the University of Adelaide pond, University Council is where the big fish lurk. The Council consists of most of the heads of departments and standing committees, as well as the big whigs we receive emails from every now and then. Council approves or makes the biggest decisions facing students at the University of Adelaide.

The Council allows three positions to students, which are decided by online election. Two for undergrads, one for a post-grad. These positions are fiercely contested, and no wonder, with many students figuring it better to be a weak voice on the Council with power than a strong one on less directly influential bodies like, say, the Adelaide University Union. Furthermore, Council elections are usually contested by groups who don’t often bother with the AUU, such as the Medical Students and the Liberals.

This year’s undergraduate election is a four-way contest.

The favourite is Chris Wong, a Med student who is widely expected to be assured an easy ride onto Council due to the significant block vote behind him. I know very little about him, other than that he has three times as many people on his facebook group than the next highest candidate.

Close second is Lavinia Emmett-Grey, the former AUU President no doubt familiar to readers of this blog. If there’s one thing I’ve been assured of in my time watching student politics, it’s the pull of name recognition. Lavinia has more than most, and a dedicated network of people she’s recruited into student politics behind her to boot. Due to both these reasons, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her polling very highly.

Another likely to achieve some level of name recognition is Paris Dean, the long-haired socialist who has in his time as AUU Board Director and SRC President developed quite a reputation. How much of this is due to his Samson-like qualities is uncertain. Paris unexpectedly bowed out of recontesting his position on Union Board earlier this year. Many, myself included, thought that it was his throwing in the towel, but through this nomination, it appears he has his sight set on bigger things.

The final, largely unknown, contestant is Law/International Studies student Tomas Macura. A newcomer to student politics, his left-wing credentials saw him secure a preference-deal with Paris. Both have preferenced each other second, and then Lavinia third. Lavinia has not formally preferenced anyone, apart from Xu Ting (more on him below).

As already stated, Chris’ position on University Council is almost certain. The fight will be for the second position, which will likely fall to either Paris or Lavinia. I expect Lavinia will secure more primary votes, but if (or when) Tomas is knocked out, at least some of his preferences will flow to Paris. It is uncertain whether this will be enough for Paris to overtake Lavinia on preferences. Both will be anxiously awaiting the result.

In the post-grad race, three are contesting.

The first is Xu Ting. Xu made it onto this year’s Union Board, and has the block international vote behind him. However, I question how many international students will vote in an online, as opposed to campus-based, election. Many do not hesitate to cross the line in AUU election week to vote for someone who speaks their language, but I am uncertain if they will turn out in similar numbers when voting is more difficult to direct, as it is in an online forum.

The second is David Coluccio. David is the General Manager of the Adelaide University Union. As such, some have protested the conflict of interest in his contesting the position. After all, he will no doubt have a pro-union bias in his role, should he get the Council position. Rodney Crewther is a Council Member (Staff Representative), and also heavily involved in the local NTEU Branch, and so it is worth noting that Cullucio’s decision to contest in no way breaks precedent. It could place David in an interesting position however when the Council discusses issues to do with the AUU, the relationship between those two being considerably different from that of the University and the NTEU. Despite the many arguments I have heard to the contrary, I’m inclined to think that should he get on, a seat on University Council would be a significant gain for the Union.

The last post-graduate candidate is Morteza Mohammadzaheri, about whom I know absolutely nothing. Update: Several readers have informed be that Morteza is involved with the Post-Grad Students Association, an (currently barely operating) affiliate of the AUU.

Voting closes 10am Friday the 30th. The results should be known by that afternoon. Update: My bad. It closes at that time on November the 6th. I.e. you still have 1 week to vote.

No Suprises

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:49:00 +0000

Posted: 21st October 2009

A relieved President returned. A VP upset. Speeches. Betrayal. Anger. The salvaging of alliances. I am speaking, ladies and gentlemen, of last year’s Office Bearer vote. This year? Absolutely nothing exciting to report. Not even one speech to summarize. When one (or, strictly speaking, two allied) factions win so completely, it makes everything...well, predictable. And much, much quicker. Below are the results of the 2009/2010 Board Office Bearer votes.

• President: Fletcher O’Leary (Activate). Unopposed.
• Vice President: Emmanuel Njuguna (Indy-Go). Unopposed.
• Executive: Raffaele Picollo (Activate), Kim Dowling (Indy-Go), Eric Fan Yang (Internationa), Xu Ting (Internationa). Shoaming Zhu (Liberal/International) also nominates, but misses out.
• Student Media Chair: Patrick McCabe (Indy-Go). Unopposed.
• Union Activities Chair: Claire Wong (Innovate). Unopposed.
• Finance: Satchi Riehl (Activate), Tim Picton (Innovate), and Eric Parsonage (Independent Technocrat). Shoaming Zhu again nominates, but is unsuccessful.

They take their places December 1st. Two meetings of the 2008/09 Board remain.

Taking Full Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (T McCarthy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:55:00 +0000

Posted: 26th of September

The first Clubs Association meeting of the new term was held on Tuesday the 15th of September.

Summary:

• AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey voiced concerns about the CA's new website.
• The AUES was taken off notice.
• After much brouhaha, the meeting decided that the Hawke Club Affiliation would be postponed to the next meeting.
• It was revealed that no progress had been made with the new CA constitution since the last meeting.

From the moment the meeting opened there were problems. All tabled documents for the meeting, including the agenda, minutes from the previous meeting and a draft CA constitution, had only been sent to clubs two days prior to the meeting*. As a result, few of the delegates present had read any of the material to be discussed at the meeting. CA President Matt Taylor and General Executive Member Ash Brook took responsibility for the documents not being sent out**, with Ash remarking: "The minutes [from the last meeting not being there] was us being slack."

The first point of contention in the meeting was the CA's new website. During his report, President Matt Taylor reported that the CA's new website, which had cost $2000 to set up, had been functional for one week before the servers went down and it was rendered nonoperational.

AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey voiced reservations about the CA's website, and the decision of the executive not to put in on the AUU's newly-upgraded one. Instead of spending $2000 on the current website (with further funds now required to fix it), Lavinia said that the CA could have a web presence on the AUU site, with the AUU footing the bill. Furthermore, Lavinia expressed concern at the way in which funding for the CA site was approved, describing as "dodgy" the fact that the $2000 dollars was spent by the executive without the approval of a CA meeting. While Matt Taylor claimed that the previous CA meeting (held on the 6th of May this year) had given the executive license to appropriate funds for the site, the minutes of that meeting contain nothing to suggest that was the case.

Next was the Vice President's Report. VP Peta Johannsen's report was concerned mainly with the ClubFest event that was held during the first week of semester. The meeting was provided with no written report, and nor was there any written summary of the financial details of the event. Peta, while claiming that on the whole ClubFest had been a success, conceded that there had been insufficient advertising for the event. "I think it only became clear on the day that it hadn't been advertised enough", she said.

The next item on the agenda was a motion to move the AUES (Engineering Society) off notice. They were originally put on notice following a series of incidents involving varying levels of harassment by some of their rank-and-file members. AUES Vice President Kevin Chan gave a rundown of the AUES's activities this year, as well as steps that have been taken to combat sexual harassment issues within the organization. The motion to take the AUES off notice was passed with no dissent.

The meeting now moved on to the headline issue of the evening. At the CA AGM of 30th of October 2008, the Bob Hawke Appreciation Society had its bid to be Provisionally Affiliated to the Clubs Association defeated in controversial circumstances, but was granted Provisional Associate Affiliation.

The next item written on the agenda was to grant the Hawke Club, previously the cause of much debate at the previous clubs AGM in 2008, Provisional Affiliation, but, after much confusion, Ash Brook corrected this, saying that the motion at was actually to make the Hawke Club Associate Affiliates.
With all these types of affiliates being described, Matt Taylor took a moment to explain:

• If a club wants to be affiliated to the CA, it must first apply for and receive Provisional Affiliation. This allows the club to receive grants, and get many of the other advantages of being an affiliated club.
• Once a club has been Provisionally Affiliated for 6 months, it can apply for Full Affiliation, which also comes with benefits from the CA.
• A club that is a Provisional Associate Affiliate or an Associate Affiliate is affiliated only in name, and receives no benefits from the CA.
Who knows which of the CAs many constitutions this is outlined in. More on that in a second.

Matt Taylor, noting the absence of anyone from the Hawke Club, specifically it's President Andrew Anson, proposed that the motion to make it an Associate Affiliate be postponed to the next CA meeting. This idea drew criticism from a number of delegates, especially Rhiannon Newman (Labor Club Delegate), Paris Dean (representing the Law Students Society) and Lavinia (AUU President), all of whom were instrumental in defeating the Provisional Affiliation of the Hawke Club last year (and are all part of the Labor Club executive). Paris put a motion stating that the Hawke Club may not apply for affiliation for six months, arguing in an impassioned speech that Anson (who was referred to as though he was synonymous with the Hawke Club) would simply not show up until the numbers would be more in his favour.

The debate primarily consisted of a back and forth between the Labor Club trio and the CA executive. Rhiannon pointed out that there was a precedent for discussing the affiliation of clubs without a representative present, citing the Provisional Affiliation of the Humanities Society at the last CA meeting. General Executive Member James Moffatt responded that, since this was not Provisional Affiliation, there was no precedent for this case. Furthermore, he pointed out, the Hawke club's affiliation was significantly more controversial than that of the Humanities Society, and as such it should be treated differently.

Lavinia then had some questions for Matt Taylor. As part of the conditions of the Hawke Club's Provisional Associate Affiliation, she pointed out, they were required to give reports on their activities and events every two months. Lavinia asked Matt why none of these reports had been made available. Matt, rather sheepishly, revealed that he had indeed received these reports, but they had been kept confidential at Andrew Anson's request.

The argument continued for about 15 minutes before Ash pointed out that, since the agenda had only been sent out two days before the meeting, it was possible that Anson (his name again used in lieu of the name of the club he heads) had not received official notification that the Affiliation would be considered at this meeting. While Lavinia, Paris and Rhiannon all declared that Andrew had known, and that his absence was a deliberate ploy, they conceded that the Hawke club had probably not received official notification, and, after a quarter of and hour of sound and fury, Paris' motion was withdrawn. Matt Taylor was asked by council to table all of the Hawke Club's bi-monthly reports at the next council meeting, and to ensure that they are officially notified that their affiliation will be on the agenda at that meeting.

Having spent a large amount of time dealing with the Hawke Club issue, the meeting demonstrated a surprising amount of efficiency and dealt with the next eight agenda items without any ado. The Spanish and Game Development clubs received provisional affiliation, and the Fringe, Role Playing and Games clubs were all made full affiliates. Three grants were quickly approved, including $494 for the EVAC (Video Games and Anime) Club to purchase a Playstation 3, which, according to the grant application, would be available for members to borrow.

Once all the grant applications had been dispensed with, AUES representatives inquired as to the progress of an application they had made earlier in the year for a $1000 grant to cover some of the cost of a lost cash box. The executive revealed that the application had been lost, and council gave them the authority to give the money in the break before the next meeting.

At this point, President Matt Taylor left the meeting, citing a need to study for an honours presentation. Soon after his exit, a number of delegates also left, meaning the meeting no longer had quorum.

The final issue of the evening came with the proposed new CA Constitution. Originally drafted by and presented to the previous Clubs Council two months ago by James Moffatt, it was presented almost unchanged to the Council a second time. James apologized, became the latest executive member to "take full responsibility" for not getting something done and outlined a plan to draft and pass a new constitution by mid October.

Without quorum and rapidly losing delegates, the meeting moved on to any other business. The final motion of the evening was to order pizza from a different place for the next meeting. With that pivotal issue dispensed with, the meeting was closed.

Some corrections and clarifications:

* In fact, the documents were e-mailed out about four hours before the meeting, not two days.

** Matt Taylor took full responsibility for the documents not being sent out to clubs, except for the minutes, for which Ash Brook took responsibility.

VIDEO: Adelaide Joins National Uni Strikes

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:26:00 +0000

VIDEO: Adelaide joins national uni strikes.

See this for a national (and altogether less favourable) perspective. The NTEU also has been keeping up its own coverage.

Results: Official

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:57:00 +0000

Posted: 10th of September

On the AUU site.
AUU Watch in On Dit (and along with it, this blog) was begun two years ago by Hannah Mattner when she was unable to find out the results of the 2007 election. This year, the results have been prominently displayed on the doors to the Union, and now, online. That's what I call progress.

Don't Speak Too Soon

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:47:00 +0000

Posted: 9th of September

The Left on campus has been terrified of Andrew Anson for months. The relative new-comer to student politics took over the Labor Right faction when all its experienced members were eliminated at last year’s AUU elections, and has since quietly but purposefully gone about amassing support for a bid for the Presidency. His hopes were dashed at the most recent elections, to the suprise of many.

With a Board of 16 following the referendum passing, plus with current President Lavinia Emmett-Grey having a vote on all office bearers for 2010, Andrew needed to pull off 9 Board votes to succeed. With the Liberals vowing never to deal with him (though they didn’t seem to pleased with the prospect of a Left candidate either), this meant his faction, Innovate, along his international student allies, needed to together put up the necessarily number on Board.

Alas, the internationals did much worse than expected. The existence of a Chinese student on the Liberal ticket (Liberty) may have mitigated some of their block international vote, and their decision not to campaign heavily after the first two or three days meant that they only managed to get two Board directors elected (being faction head Eric Fan Yang and Xu Ting).

Things didn’t end up much better for the Labor Right. Innovate ran 10 people for Union Board, and only managed to get three of them on (the same number as this year). Juan Legaspi, Steph Ghellar and Daniel Bills were knocked out in the final minutes, making this the second year a host of Labor Right candidates just miss out. Andrew managed an impressive primary vote count (112) to retain his seat, and is joined by Claire Wong (who has made a comeback after losing her seat at last year’s election) and first-year Tim Picton.

That’s five. Out of the nine needed. Without the Liberals and one of the Independents, Andrew was screwed.

Mark Joyce (Liberty), at a stage of the night where he hadn't realized the extent of the Activate/Indy-Go alliance, said that his candidates would not support the Left or Right if they insisted on putting up what he considered inferior candidates like Andrew Anson or Fletcher O’Leary (the presumed Left candidate). In the end, the Liberals lost out too. The monstrous primary vote of both Penelope Nugent and Shaoming Zhu wasn’t enough to get their teammate Daniel Fawcett elected, meaning the Liberals control one less seat than they did this year on the AUU Board.

If everyone so far lost, who gained? Overwhelmingly and conclusively, the Left. Activate managed five (Ashleigh Lustica, Sarah Anderson, Satchi Riehl, Raffaele Picollo and Fletcher O’Leary). Their left Independent Allies, Indy-Go, got three (Emmanuel Njuguna, Patrick McCabe, and Kim Dowling). Given that the Board size has decreased, and the Left has one more person on than they did last year (Activate only had 4 in 2009), their power has increased significantly. Not forced to negotiate with either the Internationals or the divided Right (Labor Right and the Liberals), they’ll get their pick of every position, and, when united, every policy. The three Indy-Go Board directors are not bound by a caucus – and may thus act as the balance of power later on in the year – but in terms of office bearer positions are expected to side with Activate (although this didn’t happen last year due to Jake Wishart). Small 'i' independent Eric Parsonage is also expected to vote with the Left for the Officer Bearer votes, although due to Lavinia's vote they won't need him until later in the year.

This year sees the Left in its strongest position during my time at University. Despite losing Rhiannon Newman – the Activate leader – and Lavinia Emmett-Grey – the head of Indy-Go, who withdrew herself from the elections – they have managed to secure enough votes to make any policy they all agree on, provided it has Eric Parsonage's support, certain. Coupled with Indy-Go and Activate's success on the SRC, the Labor Right is due for another year in the wilderness.

Let’s see what the Left do with their newfound power.

Technology Fail (Update: Or Not)

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:12:00 +0000

Posted: 9th of September

The University of Adelaide today released a student survey. An email informing students of it was sent out at 1pm. By the time I tried to do it (at 3:40pm), the survey had closed, 'due to high response rates'. I'm not the only one to have this problem.
If the survey opens again, you may want to fill it out.

Update: It's working now. You should definately fill it out. Complain about the printers while you're at it, god knows how much trouble they've given me.

SRC, NUS and On Dit Results

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:27:00 +0000

Posted: 8th of September

SRC President: Ash Lustica (Activate)
General Secretary: Helen Chandwick (Indy-Go)
Education Officer: Sam Deere (Activate - Elected Unopposed)
Social Justice Officer: Bec Taylor (Indy-Go)
Welfare Officer: Hayden Tronnolone (Indy-Go)
Womens Officer: Sarah Anderson (Activate)
Ethno-Cultural Officer: Ramanathan Thurairajoo (Indy-Go)
Enviroment Officer: Joel Dignam (Indy-Go)
General Councillors: Dominic Mugavin (Indy-Go), Lara Ratcliff (Indy-Go), Andrew Anson (Innovate), Juan Legaspi (Innovate), Sarah Beer (Activate), Callum Deakin (Indy-Go), Ali Thompson (Indy-Go), Anna Ehmann (Activate)

NUS Delgates: Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent), Andrew Anson (Unity), Timothy Picton (Unity), Sarah Anderson (NLS), Ashleigh Lustica (NLS), Jason Virgo (NLS)

On Dit Editors: Connor O'Brien, Myriam Robin, Mateo Szlapek-Sewillo

Update: Hayden Tronnolone unfortunately did not make the position of NUS delegate. It was Sarah Anderson who in fact was the third NLS delegate. Appologies to both of you.

Elections 2009: The Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:08:00 +0000

Posted: 6th of September

Counting Method Used: Hare-Clarke Proportional Representation.

Referendum: 1 Question (thanks University Council!). Passes (75% ‘Yes’ vote)
Votes Cast: 2890. Up 300 from 2008 election.
Quota (i.e. Minimum first preferences to be elected): 168

Primary Votes

• Sam Blackman (Activate) – 71
• Jason Virgo (Activate) – 84
• Ben Wright (Innovate) – 22
• Eric Fan Yang (International) – 161
• Tim Picton (Innovate) – 84
• Courtney Griffiths (Indy-Go) – 18
• Stephanie Ghellar (Innovate) – 83
• Kim Dowling (Indy-Go) – 63
• Satchi Riehl (Activate) – 91
• Hayden Tronnolone (Indy-Go) – 35
• Asleigh Lustica (Activate) – 120
• Melissa Westbrook (Innovate) – 41
• Andrew Anson (Innovate) – 114
• John Dexter (Indy-Go) – 63
• Sarah Anderson (Activate) – 119
• Luke Lendrum (Indy-Go) – 41
• Claire Wong (Innovate) – 90
• Fan Wang (Internationals) – 63
• James Moffatt (Indy-Go) – 62
• Eric Parsonage (Independent) – 105
• Nina Miernik (Innovate) – 12
• Penelope Nugent (Liberty) – 171 (Broke Quota – Automatically Elected)
• Juan Legaspi (Innovate) – 67
• Patrick McCabe (Indy-Go) – 84
• Emmanuel Njuguna (Indy-Go) – 106
• Rhiannon Newman (Activate) – 65
• Fletcher O’Leary (Activate) – 106
• Daniel Fawcett (Liberty) – 77
• Daniel Bills (Innovate) – 88
• Raffaele Piccolo (Activate) – 112
• Sinaed O’Shaughnessy (Innovate) – 48
• Adam Kreminski (Indy-Go) – 10
• Luke Tran (International) – ?
• Shaoming Zhu (Liberty) – 174 (Broke Quote- Automatically Elected)
• Xu Ting (International) – 134

Eliminations (in order. Subject to both primary count and preference flows): Nina Miernik (Innovate), Adam Kreminski (Indy-Go), Courtney Griffiths (Indy-Go), Ben Wright (Innovate), Hayden Tronnolone (Indy-Go), Melissa Westbrook (Innovate), Rhiannon Newman (Activate), Sinaed O’Shaughnessy (Innovate), James Moffatt (Indy-Go), Fan Wang (International), Luke Lendrum (Indy-Go), John Dexter (Indy-Go), Juan Legaspi (Innovate), Sam Blackman (Activate), Daniel Fawcett (Liberals), Stephanie Ghellar (Innovate), Daniel Bills (Innovate), Jason Virgo (Activate), Luke Tran (International).

Sum Total Primaries By Faction:

• Internationals: 446
• Innovate: 563
• Activate: 764
• Indy-Go: 452
• Liberty: 417

Average Total Primaries By Candidate By Faction:

• Internationals: 446/4 = 111.5
• Innovate: 563/10 = 56.3
• Activate: 764/8 = 95.5
• Indy-Go: 452/9 = 50.2
• Liberty: 417/3 = 139

Preference Flows: Far too complex for me to understand

Final Board:

• Eric Parsonage
• Eric Fan Yang
• Xu Ting
• Penelope Nugent
• Shaoming Zhu
• Andrew Anson
• Claire Wong
• Timothy Picton
• Kim Dowling
• Patrick McCabe
• Emmanuel Njuguna
• Fletcher O’Leary
• Ashleigh Lustica
• Satchi Riehl
• Sarah Anderson
• Raffaele Picollo

(Loose) Factional Board Makeup:

• 9 Left
• 7 Right

Update: Patrick McCabe got 84 primary votes, not 54. This means 63 is now the lowest primary vote needed to get elected in 2009

Results!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:44:00 +0000

Some unconfirmed but probably accurate results for the Board part of elections:

Important fact 1: the Refererendum PASSED! This means that there is now less ridiculous nonsense in the Constitution, that there are 16 Board directors, that by-elections are now no longer (the position will default to the 17th elected Board director) and that a 2/3 majority can now vote to remove a board director.

The final unconfirmed numbers on Board by faction are:

Independents: 1
Eric Parsonage

Internationals: 2
Eric Fan Yang
Xu Ting

Liberty: 2
Penelope Nugent
Zhao Wing Zhu

Innovate: 3
Andrew Anson
Claire Wong
Timothy Picton

Indy-Go: 3
Kim Dowling
Patrick McCabe
Emmanuel Njuguna

Activate: 5
Fletcher O'Leary
Ashleigh Lustica
Satchi Riehl
Sarah Anderson
Raffaele Piccolo

With the directors shared across Activate and Indy-Go, it appears quite certain that the President for 2010 will be from the left, particularly as the outgoing President (Lavinia, who ran the Indy-Go ticket) also has a vote (or so I've heard), which fills out the majority.

The rest of the counting starts on Monday with SRC, then NUS, then student media. All the counting should be done by the end of Wednesday. We'll keep you posted. Not that we're going to be on tenterhooks until then or anything.

Poll Results

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:24:00 +0000

Posted: 3rd September

A month of ASP polling, and these are the results (assuming 18 Board Directors):

4.6 Directors to Activate
4.1 to Indy-Go
3.42 to Innovate (Pulse)
2.5 to Liberty
0.7 to the Internationals

What I'm certain of: International students don't read this blog.

I'll exit-poll next year, promise. I'll have the real results tomorrow night.

Election Week!

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:45:00 +0000

Posted: 31st of August

"Most definately not approved by the RO. Recycle if you want". Published M Szlapek-Sewillo, 1234567

Student Politics for the Uninitiated: The Factions

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:49:00 +0000

Posted 30th of August

As avaliable here (pages 9-10)

Come 6am Monday the 31st of August, and the university will be teeming with life. The uncharacteristically early start signals the beginning of election week, by far one of the most tumultuous and bewildering experiences to be had at university. Those older and wiser tend to know the ins and outs of not being taken for a fool during the five polling days. For those less experienced, read on.

Activate is aligned with the left faction of the Labor party, and has tended in recent years to be one of the largest and most well-organized tickets contesting student elections. Led by Rhiannon Newman, they operate under a binding caucus for floor votes. That means that for any major decision they vote on, they’ll discuss it privately before the meeting and come to a joint decision. This is used for things such as officer bearer positions (including the all-important vote for Union President), as well as for votes such as whether to accept a proposal to sell Unibooks (all Activate members voted this down when it was presented to the Union Board last May). Wielding a significant amount of power and institutional experience, they faced significant criticism early this year for rushing through decisions made regarding the AUU delegation to the National Union of Students, leaving many independents fuming.

Activate’s enduring opposition has been the Labor right faction. In past years they’ve operated under a number of names such as United Students and Pulse. Now, they’re calling themselves Innovate. Led by relative newcomer Andrew Anson, they were on the same side as Activate in the controversial decisions regarding NUS. Last years elections saw their experienced Board members decimated following their causing the NUS, SRC and student media elections to be cancelled. This was no doubt coupled with a backlash resultant from their providing the votes needed to sell the Unibar and other commercial operations. In the wake of the defeat, Andrew Anson was left leading an inexperienced and relatively quiet faction on this year’s Union Board. By far his biggest impact, apart from the NUS decision, was a proposal moved by him which would have sold the AUU-owned Unibooks in return for $750,000. The proposal was defeated. In these upcoming union elections, Anson has recruited a team of largely fresh faces and come up with bold (or foolhardy) policies, such as having the AUU build international student accommodation, and providing free fruit to students. He’ll need to get a lot of his people elected if he is to assume the Union Presidency, which is widely rumoured to be his intention. Innovate is at this stage understood to operate on a binding caucus similar to that of Activate, though it being a new ticket it is hard to tell how it will operate in practice.

Anson’s occasional allies on Union Board this year have been a faction of several Liberal Board Directors. More or less led by Mark Joyce, they supported the decision to sell Unibooks. Joyce was in the doghouse for several months for his decision to publicize to the Advertiser what he argued had been at best an undeclared conflict of interest over the NUS decisions. Many felt he had broken the AUU’s Media Policy, which is intended to protect the reputation of the organization. Mark narrowly avoided censure over his decision. None of the current three Liberal Board directors are contesting the upcoming elections, and instead are pushing for another team of three to replace them. Daniel Fawcett leads the Liberty ticket, which promises to refocus the union on social activities at the expense of its political advocacy roles.

Eric Fan Yang leads a loose coalition of mainly Chinese international students known from year to year, rather unimaginatively, as the ‘internationals’. In past years they’ve tended to, with some notable exceptions, drop out of student politics after the elections. That said, Fan Yang seems to be the most committed leader they’ve had in years, and as none of them are returning Board directors, it’s almost impossible to say how this ticket will do in both election week and beyond.

Current AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey is not contesting the Board elections. She however is still managing her Indy-Go ticket, a motley collection of overwhelmingly left-wing independents. Indy-Go is binding on office bearer positions, but its elected members act as independents the rest of the time. By channeling preferences to each other, its candidates tend to be much more successful than those running entirely on their own. Indy-Go and Activate are likely to combine to push for a Presidential alternative to Andrew Anson, whom both Newman and Emmett-Grey do not want to see in the role. Who they put forward is at this stage uncertain, and likely to be affected by who gets elected to the SRC and other factors to be decided by the 5th of September (when the votes are counted).

This election sees only one high-profile independent running without a ticket. Eric Parsonage is a former SRC member whose politics would see him placed neatly in either Activate or Indy-Go. He’s chosen to go at it alone. His bold proposal is to vote on union board according to the results of an online poll, to be conducted by him on every major policy issue. He sees this as necessary to remake the union in a genuinely representative mould. Last year, no independents running without a ticket made it onto the AUU Board, so Parsonage’s odds aren’t great. Even with preferences, it is uncertain to this observer whether students will want to be engaged with student politics beyond election week in sufficient numbers to deliver Eric the votes he needs.

Inside the Mind of Eric: An Interview

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:47:00 +0000

Posted: 28th of August

Eric Parsonage, a 3rd year Engineering student, is the only independent running without a ticket in the upcoming student elections. I tried to find out why.

What the hell are you doing Eric?
I’m running as an independent for the union board. I’ve decided to do the David versus Goliath thing and undermine all the major factional tickets that are running against me, to beat them all and become a truly independent leader of men.
Ok. You realize independents tend not to do very well, and you could have had a place on Activate or Indy-Go. Why did you chose not to side with a left-wing coalition of independents as opposed to your current path?
As much as I endorse and personally enjoy the left-wing philosophies, I don’t feel that personal politics has a place in student representation. I genuinely feel that when it comes to student representation, student representatives should represent the majority, or multiple student view. And although your own personal politics will provide you with a dogma that can inform your decisions normally, it doesn’t really have a place on union board.
You said ‘represent the interests of the majority’, not ‘the views of the majority. Isn’t it better to represent the interests rather than the uninformed views of the majority?
I don’t feel that I am sufficiently qualified to dictate to people what is in their best interests. I trust people to act in their own self interest.
You don’t think that after attending a meeting a month, numerous training sessions, and being well informed with the history of the union and its structure, it’s commercial operations and altruistic ones, you would not be much better informed to make decisions about the future of a student organization that has existed for over seventy years now, than the average first year?
This is an interesting point that you’ve raised. Basically you’re suggesting that training and education will take the place of true, genuine self-interested representation on the part of the students. I honestly don’t believe this to be the case. I believe that, although it may inform my decisions better, anything that I can be told in any amount of training I will be able to pass on the necessities of this to students through proper communication and proper use of the media. And I genuinely believe that is part of student media’s role, to pass on these complexities and the history behind all the decisions.
What about the point that students don’t want to know? They vote once a year, and they don’t wanna hear about you for the rest of the time.
The point is that students don’t want to hear about student politicians in general, not even once a year. But, I don’t believe….let me consider my reply momentarily.
Students will self-select their participation to events that they are stakeholders in. So at no stage do I expect the entire student population to vote for my particularly poll, I don’t expect everyone to take an interest. But I expect the people upon whom it impacts to take an interest. So basically they will self-select themselves out. Only the people who want to be heard and want to hear about what I’m doing will hear. It’s the magic of the internet.
How do you plan to do this? Through your own private website or something similar?
Yes
You mentioned (at the Q&A) focus groups. Do you plan to keep having them if you get elected?I don’t think I would have time. I like having focus groups, as I find people provide more meaningful input than just a yes/no vote in them. And, although people will have the option of being able to email me, I’ve found the focus group format much better in a freeform discussion. I don’t expect to be able to give as much time to the union board as the other directors will be able to, but it’s the best I can do.
Say the Liberals put up a motion to shut down the union. Say they get all their members to flood your site with ‘yes’ votes.
This would indeed be interesting. If they genuinely feel they have grounds for such a motion I will inform my voting site, and I will inform the student population of the nature of things, and I’d like to think they’d vote against it. If it truly turned out that the zeitgeist had shifted in that direction, and that people genuinely felt that the union should be closed down, then that’s the way I would vote.
How would you feel about the legal argument that as a board director you should be keeping a lot of information confidential? What would you do with in-camera motions and the like where you can’t ask for student feedback?
It is my personal belief that the in-camera clause in the constitution has been used far too often in recent years.
How would we know? We don’t after all know what goes on in-camera.
No we don’t. However, the sheer number of times it has happened suggests that there are either severe staffing and legal problems - and if there is the student population should probably know about it - or it’s been misused for factional politics. I strongly believe in a genuinely transparent union as much as is physically possible. If it concerns students they should know about it, and if the opinions of students can be extrapolated from the data I will have collected on issues surrounding it, I will be using that. If I have no data, and it is an issue that the student population is genuinely uninformed then I will abstain.
You were on the SRC this year which is a body which is meant to be more suited to general student interest and participation, as opposed to Board, which is more about the interests of the AUU as a whole. Why did you not incorporate this scheme of yours while you were on the SRC and why do you wish to do it now on Board instead?
This scheme of mine I developed because of my time on the SRC. I was shocked and appalled by the factional wheeling and dealing that happened on SRC, and I feel that student representation was lost. I was going to run on a nice comfortable left ticket, and maybe actually get voted on, about eight months ago. But I’ve become disillusioned.
Ok. Fair enough. You will never have anything anywhere near a majority…Because I’m one person?
Exactly. Do you think that giving students a voice which will constantly be ignored on union board will just lead to disillusionment and further disengagement from student politics? You will, after all, never be able to deliver.
I don’t intend to be able to successfully deliver very much if I get onto Board, because I am going to be on my own. However, with the exposure that I will provide on the wheeling and dealings, and the motions of the union board, the sense of participation that it will give students I believe will lead to a far more accountable set of politicians elected in the next set of elections after I’ve gone. Basically, I’m putting student representations foot in the door.
Is a vote for you a vote for uncertainty?
A vote for me is a vote for yourself. It’s a vote that you can keep on voting on.
So is that why people should vote for you?
Broadly. I asked students in general whether they trusted student politicians, and in general they respond ‘no’. In response to this I say that student politicians don’t trust them. Student politicians have a particular dogma and a particular set of rules that they will follow consistently in the decisions they make. Basically, you will not be voting for particular policies and particular decisions you will be voting for a dogma, for an ideology, that you hope will represent you as much as possible. With me being a fluid, and malleable member of the union board, you can tailor my policies to fit what you genuinely believe on each individual issue.
Every Board member this year was elected by at least fifty students, meaning that every decision they make has potentially the weight of fifty students behind it. You, I’ll guessing, will never get more than fifteen students for every decision you put up (if you’re lucky). Are you not less representative in that way than the conventional ‘factional’ student politician?
No. Beyond the information that they’ve provided to the student who voted for them in the first place, there is no further feedback on the decisions these politicians are making. I am constantly accountable for my decisions, whereas they only need to make the few pork-barreling decisions that they’ve promised, and then they will continue to have the student support. I will constantly be under student scrutiny. I’m a single person, if you have a faction, then although they possibly have fifty students each behind them, they can always make decisions that would be against these students interests, and against what these students would have voted for. These representatives can then lean on the rest of their faction and say it was a caucus decision. Whereas with me, if I make a decision that is against those that people voted for, then they can seek me out, and find me personally, and beat me up, because it will have been my choice and my choice alone. I am genuinely personally accountable.

State of the PGSA?

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:11:00 +0000

Posted: 28th of August

Student elections may be dominating the minds of most readers of this blog at the, but in my few minutes to spare this evening I'm going to write on a totally different issue..

This article was published on August 19th in the Advertiser. It is worth reading the comments. As I understand it, the AUU Board sent someone to verify the allegations (Ashleigh Brook), who came back saying they were unfounded, as said by well known politics lecturer Felix Patrikeeff here, which appeared on the front page.

Post-graduate student issues have been a recurring concern during this term of the AUU Board. I'm sure I know less than a quarter of the story, but here goes. The recent OSA elections saw the PGSA raise more than a few eyebrows by endorsing a ticket of (largely) post-graduate international candidates, who managed to secure the Presidency of the OSA. In the most recent call for SRC candidates for 2010, the position of Post-Graduate Officer has been left unfilled, with current PG Officer Katrina Stats not returning. Furthermore, ASP has recieved a document discussed by the AUU Board (in-camera) which outlines a proposal to turn the PGSA into a social club, claiming its status as an affiliate is unfounded as its advocacy roles are today fufilled by the Education and Welfare Officers. Given that no decision has been announced, I assume this issue will be one faced by the new AUU Board which to be elected in next weeks elections.

It is worth noting that this was written entirely from my contact with the AUU Board. The PGSA were not contacted by me for purposes of fair comment. I did say I only had a few minutes.

Highlights from the Q&A

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Posted: 26th of August

On Monday the 24th of August, the Questions Club (QUAC) held a Q&A session with student politicians representing most of the factions contesting the upcoming Union Board elections. Daniel Fawcett spoke for the Liberty ticket (Liberals), Lavinia Emmett-Grey for Indy-Go (Left Independents), Sam Deere for Activate (Labor Left), and Andrew Anson for Innovate (the former Pulse, with some differences. Labor Right). Eric Parsonage was also present, being the only independent not to run on a ticket.

Firstly, let’s introduce the characters. Daniel wants to ‘scale back the frontiers of the union’. Lavinia (who recently withdraw her candidacy for Union Board, but remains the head of IndyGo) said she couldn’t speak on behalf of a ticket of independents, but instead reeled off the record of IndyGo (i.e. her record) over the past year (namely, the book exchange on the AUU website, and constitutional reform). Sam was reluctant to speak on policy, saying he wasn’t a Board candidate (Rhiannon Newman later claimed that Activates policy has not been signed off on by all its candidates yet). The two novel ideas were from Eric Parsonage and Andrew Anson.

Eric, self-avowed technocrat that he is, calls himself a pure populist. In self-deprecating humour, he promised to ‘flip flop on the issues’ subject to student polling on any particular vote. “The technology exists to quickly receive feedback and polling on any particular vote. I plan to do so”. This left him open to much criticism throughout the session, with one audience member asking what the point was in voting for Eric at all, and the rest of the panel (particularly Daniel) making him the butt of many a snide remark.

Subject to far more criticism however was Andrew. He outlined two policies in his opening speech. One was for ‘Free Fresh Fruit’ to be offered to university students, citing lack of financial resources to be a factor in preventing students from eating well. He thus proposed an alliance with the Apple and Pear Board. It wasn’t clear to me whether this would mean the fruit was provided for free, or whether the union would pay for it. Andrew did mention some sort of sponsorship grant. Daniel asked whether students would have to show university ID to obtain the fruit. This wasn’t answered.

The other policy proposed by Andrew was for the union to spend 60% of its income over the next few years building housing for international students. He says he’s already entered into talks with developer Built Environs, who are happy to put their own money into the project as well. He sees this as providing the union with a source of income in the long-term, as well as providing increased student accommodation in the CBD. This policy was attacked on all fronts. Lavinia questioned the risk, and pointed out that the university had just announced plans to build more student accommodation (always room for more given international student numbers, retorted Andrew). Daniel thought it was as ridiculous a policy as providing fresh fruit. Eric disliked so much of the union’s money going towards a service for a minority. The potential for exploitation of international students, with the union as a partner, was also raised.

The panel was ruthless to each other, and the audience frequently highly skeptical in return. Retiring Board Director Jake Wishart (Indy-Go, technically) turned up merely to accuse the Labor Right and Left (as well as Lavinia) of gross corruption over the NUS scandal, though he had plenty of abuse for the others. Barring Sam. He likes Sam.

One issue raised by the Daniel and quickly disavowed by Andrew was the issue of remuneration of Board Directors. Andrew quickly denounced it, but the rumour persisted. In response to an Activate member claiming Andrew wished to pay Board directors in a status update, Andrew had this to say:

“Activate supposedly believes that we support paying board directors of the Adelaide University Union. Innovate does not support paying board directors of the Adelaide University Union. We support paying the President of the Adelaide University Union and paying the editors of On Dit. This shows that Activate do not have any policies of their own to talk about. They have nothing positive to say about the AUU and nothing to say about the future of the AUU. They have no ideas, no direction and no policies. Innovate does have policies to talk about, such as providing Free Fresh Fruit for students on campus and fighting for better student accommodation. Innovate has a talented ticket that will work harder, smarter for all students of the University of Adelaide and members of the AUU.”

Rhiannon Newman, in answer to my request for a statement on the accusation of having no policy, says:

“As per every year, Activate will have extensive list of policies which will be out, I imagine, at the end of the week. These will have been consultative of …[all Activate members and] deal with a wide range of issues from student welfare to the AUU in general. Activate has always prided itself on being a content and policy driven ticket and will do so this year.” She also took a swipe at Andrews’s suggestions: “Activate does not support sound bite policy such as those presented as Innovate, and previously under Pulse and United Students (previous Labor Right tickets). They do not present a realistic picture of the current state of the AUU, and while potentially vote wining are rarely beneficial to the union or to students.”

If election week is as vicious and hard-fought as the Q&A was, this year might see more than banner burning.

Various

noreply@blogger.com (M Robin) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:07:00 +0000

Posted: 24th of August

This isn't a post as such, more a collection of links.

Firstly, QUAC is holding a Q&A session with the factional heads (or representative) running in the upcoming student elections. 5pm at Union cinema on Monday (today).

Secondly, the following Thursday, the Liberals and Labor on campus square off in a friendly debate. 7pm at the Unibar.

Thirdly, the SRC has a new website. They've also launched a campaign centred on getting student feedback on course structure changes. Hannah Mattner has already expressed her opinion here.

Fourth, it's highly possible, though not confirmed, that this coming Tuesdays episode of Left, Right and Centre will focus entirely on student politics in the leadup to the election. From midnight at Radio Adelaide.

Other than that, there's been a lot going on and I promise to write on it tomorrow evening. Till then, enjoy your week!

Note: An earlier post was last week remailed to this blogs email subscribers. I have no idea why this happened, and can only appologise.