SRC explodes!

Well, not literally. But the furore over Tharunka's article (about the Islamic Society's push for prayer rooms) is bringing it close. The Council is currently meeting, and I imagine there's a lot of angry remarks being thrown around (and quite possibly being minuted too, which makes things a lot more fun).

Beck Hynek, the Cofa Campus representative, has put forward a motion to condemn the Tharunka editorial team for publishing the original article, and to force Tharunka to retract it. She has directly alleged racism and discrimination by the university.

There's two different parts of this.

1) Alleging racism by the university. This, legally speaking, is a quite serious matter. With plenty of potential for lawsuit. I don't think you should tiptoe around issues, far from it, but you need to be aware of the consequences of getting it wrong.

2) The relationship between the SRC and Tharunka. This has been unclear throughout Arc's existence, as to quite where Tharunka exists. Is it part of the SRC? Is it part of Marketing? Is it anywhere?
Can the SRC force Tharunka to do anything? Strictly speaking, well, it's not clear.
There has been one instance I know of where the Tharunka editorial team was specifically directed to perform a particular action by the SRC. That was at the final SRC meeting before I became Tharunka editor, when the SRC called upon us to publish, in our first issue for 2008, an apology for accidental remarks published in a 2007 issue. Kind of weird that we were the ones to have to do anything, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. We put in a very short apology, without mentioning the specifics of the matter.
That, to my mind, is very different to what Beck is pushing for. She wants an entire article retracted. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to censor content, in a magazine that is only indirectly responsible to the SRC. Needless to say, I disapprove.

7 into 2

The following is based on candidate statements and known relevent positions, both of candidates themselves and their nominees (and also a wee bit of facebook stalking. Come on, it's not like I'm the only one to ever do that). I imagine the candidate statements will be put onto the Arc website in the next few days, plus they'll appear in Blitz for the next fortnight.
I'll put in a link here to that list once it's online.

7 candidates for 2 positions. Or to be more precise: 2 candidates for one position, then 6 candidates for a second position.

There are two candidates for the Post-Grad Director position. I don't personally know either of them. Of them, the best placed will become a Board Director. The runner-up then goes into the draw for Ordinary Director.

• Jonathan The's statement reads very bureaucratic. Very focused on ticking all the boxes. Bear in mind, this is based purely on what's been written, I've never met him. I don't recognise the names of either of his nominees.
  

• Luke Parkitny I also haven't met. Based purely on what he wrote (which is, after all, all most voters will have), he sounds much more like a human. His nominees include one of the SRC Post-Grad Councillors, Pip Hunter, whom I admire. There's also the current Welfare Officer and the outgoing Yellow Shirt Coordinator.

For Ordinary Director: As said above, the second-placed PG candidate goes into this ballot. It's possible (though unlikely given the numbers) that both PG candidates will become Board Directors.

• David Godwin. I recognise the photo, though not the name. I think he's involved with CircuSoc. He seems quite friendly.
• David Lim. His candidate statement reads as a big reach-out to Sport and Recreation. That's where he's based, he wants Arc to move in that direction (I think). A little birdie told me that he's being backed by Unity. I've yet to find out anything for myself about that, so I wouldn't take it as gospel.
• Natalie Karam. She's the current LawSoc President, and the only female candidate. I've known her for a few years. While she used to be a member of the Liberals, she's walked away from all that and is running independent. I have to say, as a budding grammarian, I really didn't like her candidate statement. Full of bureaucratise, lots of 'weeping willow' structures, and very convoluted sentences. Mind you, from my time as Tharunka editor, many if not most law students will write that way given half a chance.
• Ross Willing. He's running as a representative of the Colleges; from my quick StalkBooking, I think he's from New College. I don't know a lot about him, will talk to a few others from there to see what I can find out. But from his candidate statement, he seems quite level-headed.
• Then there's me. I'm running from a background in student politics, from the SRC in particular.

So: Circusoc, Sport&Rec, LawSoc, Colleges and the SRC. Six clear bases of support. It'll be interesting to see who's still standing once the dust settles. But hopefully, much like last year, it'll be a friendly campaign; there's no need for spite or anger in this sort of thing.

Confirmation email for Arc Board

Dear Rory

Thank you for submitting your nomination form for the 2010 Arc Board Elections. Your nomination has been accepted.

We have more nominees then positions available for the Ordinary Director position, therefore an election will proceed and online voting will commence in Week 11:

Online Voting:

Online voting will be held during Week 11. Voting will open on Tuesday 18^th May and close at 4.00pm on Thursday 20^th May 2010.

An emailing containing the voting link will be sent to all Ordinary Members of Arc.

Polling Stations:

The schedule for the polling station is as follows:

Tuesday 18^th May to Thursday 20^th May 2010

Kensington – Library Lawn:

10.30am to 4.00pm

Candidate information will be in Blitz W9 and on the Arc Website.

The CoFA Director position has been re-opened. If you know anyone at CoFA, who is currently a student and Arc Member, please encourage them to nominate.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Nitasha

~~~

Here we go! And Cofa still needs someone to nominate.

Arc Board

So I've quite clearly gone completely insane. I'm standing, again, for Arc Board.

Why? Well, I think I can help make Arc the student organisation UNSW deserves. It needs to be strong, and not terrified of the university. I don't think it is right now, but extra fortitude is never a bad thing.

So far I know there's at least one other Kenso undergrad candidate, Nat Karam. While she was at one point a member of the Liberals, she has split her ways with them, preferring to stand as an Indie.

There's also at least one Post-Grad candidate. If there's one and only one, then they'll be declared elected without contest due to the Board equity arrangements.
Similarly if there's one-and-only-one candidate from Cofa, they'll be elected without contest.

The mess is in Kenso undergards, and also potentially if there's more than one from PG/Cofa.

Further details will be posted as they emerge.

5pm: Apparently there are at least 4 UG Kenso candidates, 3 PG candidates, and no word on Cofa. Things are looking rather interesting, no?

Of the Kenso UG candidates, there's, well, me, plus Nat Karam as indicated above. The other two are apparently being backed by Amber Setchell of Unity - she miscounted the number of UG spots available, so put forward two instead of one.
This is a rumour at present, not confirmed. I haven't received any notice from the Returning Officer as to anyone's identity just yet.

2:30pm, Friday 23rd. Still no official word from the Returning Officer, but from what I've heard there's now 5 candidates in full. 3 UG Kenso, 2 PG. No-one from Cofa, so I imagine that nominations will be reopened for that soon.

Factional Futures

The following follows on from several previous posts, outlining the various factional standings. I'd suggest reading them first.

At the moment, NLS and Unity seem to be matched in power stakes, with SAlt holding the balance of power. The Big-I's look to have been absorbed into NLS - while this may not be formally true, the two groups are close enough.

Had Unity not undergone a state-to-state war at the January SGM, they would probably hold a great deal more positions than they currently do. They probably couldn't have seized national Presidency, but certainly several states worth. Time will tell whether these state rivalries will cause a collapse in Unity's structure, or whether they will be sorted out.

NLS is also looking like it might well split soon. This won't be a simple state-by-state split - it's far more fundamental. The differences between the 'hard' and 'soft' left go down to basic ideology.

The names themselves are perhaps misleading - the 'hard' left are generally a lot nicer in my experience, trying to help everyone. What they are 'hard' about are issues such as queer rights, women's liberation and indigenous rights.

The 'soft' left, I've found to be much more aggressive. Less prepared to compromise, less prepared to work with others. Less prepared to stand up for solidarity, more wanting direct control.

To step into UNSW, this division became apparent last year, around the time of working out the Voice ticket. Hard left got Welfare (James Still), Soft got Education (Helen Samardzic). In the past, these two positions were overseen by a single officer, and it was often seen as a stepping stone to Presidency. That hasn't been the case for a few years now (the last being Phuong Au, President in 2008), but the association is still strong in people's minds.

Both Helen and James have indicated an interest in becoming President next year. Both have been working with people on- and off-campus to try and get support for this. If NLS remains part of the Voice coalition, they can't both go for it - they would need to first get endorsement from UNSW NLS. That is, as long as NLS remains a single faction. Shoud it split, Voice will suddenly get a lot more interesting. And probably wouldn't remain in existence.

As for other factions: SAlt are looking up. I'm not happy about this, seeing as how I disagree with some of what they push, and have major issues with the methodology.

I truly believe a left-wing, non-Labor, non-Marxist faction is needed. To fill the void that GL left, something new needs to emerge. But I'm not sure it will - many if not most indies have switched off from NUS, after being ignored for so long. The main uni student environmental group, ASEN, was removed from the NUS Environment OB position at the January SGM.

Something needs to be done. We need a voice at NUS that represents non-party uni students. And we need it to be heard. Much as I hate to admit it, being a committed indie, despising the concept of the party structure - I think we need a Faction.

Independents, of all kinds

Next we come to the most confusing part of NUS, the two/three/four/many ‘independent’ factions.

The Independents (Big-I’s) started out as a split from Labor, because Natasha Stott-Despoja didn’t get preselection for an NUS position. So she started her own faction. For a time, the Big-Is ruled the roost in WA, simply because the other factions couldn’t be bothered to cross the Nullarbor.

Not around at UNSW, obviously.

It’s difficult to tell if they’re around right now. Over summer, they worked so closely with NLS they might as well have been absorbed.

The WHIGS, well, whether they even exist depends on who you’re talking to. Right-wing independents? East coast independents? Just a bunch of High Tories at USyd who managed to convince people that they’re actually a faction? The best description I’ve heard is that they’re Liberals who Want to participate in the NUS process (unlike ALSF).

At UNSW? Well, a group of right-wing indies were part of the Unity/ALSF coalition at last year’s elections. But I’m hesitant to call them WHIGS. Mainly because they didn’t.

If you can’t tell whether they exist, you can’t expect me to say where they’re going.

East Coast Indies are sometimes bundled up with WHIGS, sometimes not. Most of them are from regional universities, many of which aren’t able to pay affiliation fees to NUS. So while they’re around, they don’t have much power at NUS beyond drawing attention to issues of constitutionality.

The independents (small-i’s, indies) aren’t a faction. They’re anyone who hasn’t joined a faction. Small i, because they aren’t the same as the (confusingly named) Big-I Independents. Sometimes includes East Coast Indies, sometimes includes WHIGS, sometimes includes GL. It depends what you accept as being a faction.

Obviously, they’re active at UNSW. Our president is one, so am I. Small-i’s have held the balance of power on our SRC for a few years now, and currently form a majority on council in their own right.

We’re not going to go away, because a lot of people don’t want to join factions. But on the other hand, it is very difficult to get anywhere in NUS without joining. Calling yourself an indie is inviting you to be recruited. For a lot of faction members, the concept of being indie doesn’t even exist.

Socialist Alternative (SAlt)

SAlt, I’ve already annoyed with my last Tharunka piece. Far left Marxist radicals, very in-your-face, gung-ho, black-and-white. Apparently a few years back they were part of GL, but split. The split looks to have done them good – they’re the most influential non-Labor faction these days. They currently hold both Queer NOB positions, yet seem unaware that there’s anything more to Queer Activism than fighting for marriage equality.

AT UNSW – you know they’re here. You hear them. They’re active. They’ve always got a stall going, even on Open Days. I suppose you could call them the ‘opposition’ on the SRC to Voice, in that they hold three voting positions on Council.

Where are they going? They’re influential, but very, very divisive. People typically either love them (mainly members) or hate them. I admire the passion, but I disagree with some of the goals, and also the methods. But in terms of NUS, they mobilise voters. And so gain votes, gain positions, gain power.

A note on terminology: Sometimes you hear them referred to as 'SA'. I've avoided this, as SA is also the abbreviation for the political party Socialist Alliance. SA and SAlt are opposed at both the theoretical level and in practice. So instead I'm trying to popularise SAlt as an alternative name.

Grassroots Left (GL)

GL have been an important minor player in NUS in the past, but don’t seem to be around much these days. They were made up of unaligned ALP members, greenies, environmentalists, queer activists and other groups who tended to work from a collectivist mentality, rather than hierarchical bureaucracy. For a number of years, they usually held one or two NOB positions through deals with NLS. However, this came unstuck at the 2008 conference, where NLS instead favoured Socialist Alternative, leaving GL with nothing. A lot of GL abandoned NUS following that, others lost courage and belief.

I’ve never found any evidence of a functioning GL group at UNSW. We’ve had a lot of student politicians who would most naturally fit within that faction, but for one reason or another never joined.

Where are they going? Well, are they even alive? I know a few True Believers, but in most people’s minds GL is dead and buried. Maybe another collective-based faction will emerge, but it won’t be the same group.

Australian Liberal Students Federation (ALSF)

ALSF, as the name suggests, comprise members of the Liberal Party. They are not supporters of NUS, and have pushed for the organisation to be disbanded. No-one from ALSF, to my knowledge, has ever held a position in NUS. However, their preferences have occasionally led to unexpected outcomes, such as at the 2006 conference (where a far-left Independent candidate became General Secretary, instead of the expected right-wing Unity candidate).

ALSF exists at UNSW, but only barely. Similar to the federal Libs, there was something of a civil war last year between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ members of the faction. They’ve participated in SRC Elections, in 2007 by themselves, and last year in coalition with Unity.

Where are they going? I suspect they’re still laughing over the chaos that was last year’s NUS conference. Alternately, they’re annoyed none of their NUS delegates went along to the SGM in January, if only to call for a quorum count – which, I am led to believe, would have caused NUS to become legally defunct.

Student Unity (Unity)

Student Unity (Unity), despite the name, are the other main ALP faction – this time for the right-wingers. Under the ‘sweetheart deal’ between NLS and Unity, Unity get NUS General Secretary in return for supporting NLS for President. They usually also get the Welfare NOB, and a few other, ‘minor’ roles.

At UNSW, they’re around, but not in a major way. Up until 2005, they held Presidency and a majority of positions on the Guild (pre-Arc). Indeed, either NLS, Unity or one of their predecessors had held Presidency every year from 1992 until 2009. But nowadays, Unity are somewhat dampened at UNSW. Until last year’s election, they were part of the Voice coalition, but didn’t manage to secure the same deal again. So instead they formed an opposition ticket in a coalition with Liberals.

Where are they going? At last year’s NUS Conference they nearly seized Presidency. At the Special General Meeting of NUS (held in January to make up for the fact the December meeting completely failed to do anything) they came close to taking control of several state bodies, the deal only falling through because of internal Unity personality clashes. As a single bloc, Unity are looking close to taking full control of NUS. But there are internal clashes yet to be worked out.

National Labor Students (NLS)

NLS are one of the major groups. Born out of a merger between two former Labor groupings (Australian Labor Students and National Organisation of Labor Students, for those keeping track), it broadly contains those student politicians more inclined to the ‘Left’ of the ALP. By tradition, they always get NUS Presidency in labyrinthine deals, as well as several other of the National Office Bearer (NOB) positions (in particular, Education NOB).

As far as UNSW is concerned, they’re a big player. Before this year, NLS (or a predecessor) had held presidency since 2005. They’re part of the ‘Voice’ coalition which holds a majority of the SRC positions.

Where are they going? It’s a bit confused. Over last summer, it looked like NLS was about to split into two factions, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ left. From where I sit, it looks like these tensions have been muted a bit, but they’re definitely still there, bubbling under the surface.

Ideas about NUS - Affiliations

This, and the next series of posts, were submitted to Tharunka for the next issue (#3). I've done a bit of editing to make it more presentable for this format. I'm not yet sure how much of this will be in the print edition, hence my posting the full-length article up here.

The Thinking Snake’s Guide to NUS

rory thomas

Last time I wrote, I presented a snake’s eye view of the members of our SRC. The SRC represents students at UNSW. It links up with other unis, both directly (eg our president talking to the president at USyd) and via the National Union of Students.

If you talk to students about NUS, you’ll get a finite range of responses. Some people will be absolutely effusive about it, regarding it as the best thing since sliced bread. Others hate it, and think it is complete and utter garbage. Then there are those who dislike the methods used, but still regard the concept of a national union as worthwhile.

Of course, these three groups are dwarfed by the group of students who will simply shrug at the name, say they’ve never heard of it, or might think you’re talking about the National University of Singapore.

NUS claims to represent every university student in Australia. Or at least, it draws representation from every affiliated undergrad university student organisation (there is a separate national body for Post Grad students, called CAPA). Arc@UNSW is an affiliated organisation, through the SRC. Similarly, USyd students can get access to NUS through the USyd SRC, Newcastle Uni students through NUSA, etc. (For quickness, I will henceforth refer to ‘student organisations’ as ‘SOs’)

Affiliation can be a big deal. Whether and how much money an SO pays in affiliation fees determines much of the pecking order at NUS. Smaller regional university SOs are usually less able to pay fees, so get less say in how NUS works and what it does. Several SOs are completely unable to pay any fees – so are without say as to what NUS will focus on.

This may well seem to you a sensible system. He who pays the piper calls the tune and all that. But in the age of Voluntary Student Unionism, it can become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy: a small SO collects less money from members, so pays less to NUS, so NUS gives less attention to that campus, so the SO gets less attention, so gains fewer members, lather, rinse, repeat.

Affiliation, as such, can be a major issue for an SO. If you aren’t getting anything from NUS, why maintain membership and continue paying large amounts of money? Particularly if you need to keep all your money on-campus simply to avoid bankruptcy?

The other side of the NUS coin is, of course, the factions. The next series of (short) posts will look at the various factions currently operating: who they are, where they sit, what they're doing, and where they're going.

What makes a Councillor?

As I indicated earlier, the position of 'Councillor' is somewhat ambiguous. Who do they represent, how do they make decisions, what do they do?

Let's start with what the various documents binding the Council say.
1. Councillors are not mentioned, even once, in the Constitution. Neither are Office Bearers, to be fair. The Constitution, being incredibly difficult to change, doesn't have most of the nitty gritty of how Arc works.
2. The Regulations give where councillors are elected from (A, B, Cofa, UG, PG), their terms of service (same as OBs, 1 December-30 November), the method of election and filling vacancies... and that's it. Nothing about responsibilities, nothing to link Councillors with their electorates.
3. The SRC Charter (passed by Council, but still not passed by Board for some strange reason) goes into a lot more detail. Included in this list are:

• Representing the electorates, by 'raising and discussing issues'
• Recommending proposals, on issues concerning students
• Ensuring OBs are held responsible for their actions
• Promoting activites of the Council to their electorates
• Actively participating in SRC campaigns and/or events
• Then the usual stuff about acting honestly, not acting improperly etc.

Now, this Charter was only (finally!) passed by SRC at the final meeting for 2009, held on November 30 last year. Apparently it hasn't gone to Board yet (I'm really not sure why). So it certainly wasn't binding upon Councillors from last year or the previous year, and it's a bit unclear as to whether this year's Councillors are (yet) bound by it.

These roles and responsibilities are important. I'm going to go through them, and give some explanation of the motivation, and how people may or may not have upheld this part of the Charter. Also, looking at just what the role/responsibility means (if anything).

'Representing the electorates' - Um. Hmm. Does this mean, well, anything? Does a Councillor's mere presence on SRC mean that the electorate is represented? Should a Councillor only limit themselves to issues relating to that electorate? Should a Councillor organise meetings with members of that electorate to try and gauge popular opinions?

This is incredibly vague. It pretty much leaves it up to the individual Councillor as to how they go about their job. The question is, is this a bad thing? Shouldn't we give leeway to individuals as to how they perform in their role?

Well yes. But the problem is, you give someone no guide, they may well end up not doing anything. Often, Councillors just end up turning up to meetings (or not even that), don't say anything, and vote when required.

Also, there's no way of enforcing that all faculties are represented. FBE and Medicine in particular are rare to have Councillors representing them, due to the heavy workload those faculties require.

'Recommending proposals on issues affecting students' - is pretty much up to the individual as well. Depending on how well you argue, anything can be an issue affecting students. Or nothing can be. Again, vague and ultimately just says 'if you want to put a proposal, you can'.

'Holding OBs to account'. Hoo boy, this is a much bigger one. This is where, in my opinion, the guts of the Councillor role is. It is a significant mark of difference between what a Councillor does, and what an OB does.

Contrary to what a lot of people have thought, including myself, there is a method to remove a member of SRC. It's incredibly difficult (and rightly so) - it requires Special Resolutions of both SRC and the Arc Board to pull off. (A Special Resolution means that, instead of just 50%+1 of the voting members, you instead need 75%+1, a much more daunting task).

OBs have their own particular areas, that they are supposed to focus on. If they're not, then that might well be a reason to at least raise the threat of removing them from office. If they continue to fart around doing nothing, or doing things clearly outside their portfolio instead of working in their area, then why should they stay there, getting paid? Arc isn't really rich enough to justify paying someone to not do their job.

'Promote/participate in SRC events/campaigns' seems a bit like filler to the untrained eye. There's a hidden catch though. If Council resolves a particular way, then the Councillor shouldn't go around telling people otherwise. SRC Members aren't meant to go around protesting each other's events. SRC Members shouldn't pass around petitions protesting a decision by Council.

This Charter wasn't in power around this time last year, when several Councillors from a particular faction postered around campus calling for the sacking of the President and most OBs, for failing to accept a proposal. If it was, then those Councillors could easily be said to have broken the Charter.

Decisions are made at Council. That's when you have the debates, the arguments, the name-slinging etc. If you want to change a decision, you bring it up at the next meeting. But in between meetings, there is a certain level of decorum expected regarding passed resolutions.

~

So what next? What should a Councillor do? What should the Charter say?

I don't really have answers for this, but one thing in particular I think ought to change. The name.

'Councillor'. It's confusing. Isn't everyone who sits on a Council a Councillor? Why reserve this name only for a subset? Maybe if they were the only ones to vote, but that's hardly the case.

Instead, I can't see any real reason not to adopt a name like 'General Representative'. It's clearer as to why they're there. They represent the student body in a fairly general way, not focussing on particular issues to the exclusion of all others.