My Way or the Highway

Sam Crosby, outgoing Union President, is a divisive figure, whose influence has reached beyond the Union Board to impact upon numerous facets of student political life. So as his term comes to an end, it seems fitting to explore his policies, politics and personality.

Like Gough Whitlam, Mussolini or Bob Carr, Sam Crosby has been a leader whose legacy will be a subject of heated debate. On the one hand, during his term as President, he has overseen significant, and probably beneficial, changes to the Union and its functioning. On the other, his personality, leadership style, and politics have bred a range of feelings (including begrudging respect and downright hatred) in parts of the student body.

So, as his term comes to an end, and he passes the baton over to Beck or Amit (everyone knows which candidate he prefers), a retrospective of his contentious term – including his policies, his Board relationships, and his politics - seems to be in order.

Many students don’t realise that being the President of a student organization is a full time (underpaid) job. In other words, while the face of the Union Board only appears in their monthly meetings (and in those gorgeous photos in Union buildings), behind the scenes, Crosby has worked continuously in negotiating, planning, organising and running your Union’s functioning and its future. And in that time, you sincerely hope that he has achieved something.

Policies

Crosby clearly believes he, the Board, and the Union have not just achieved “something”, they have achieved great things. When asked if the Union has been proactive in the face of VSU he answers emphatically “Yes”. When quizzed about the Board’s achievements over the last year, he gives a passionate spiel about the long term vision that they have implemented, and buzzwords such as “big picture” pepper his soliloquising.

The long term value of the policies implemented during Sam’s term is yet to be seen. Their controversy, on the other hand, is undeniable. Among the greatest changes, and the most divisive, have been the introduction of an Affirmative Action policy, the phasing out of life membership, and, of course, everyone’s favourite bit of orange plastic – the USU membership card.

The argument over whether AA will give more or less credibility to the Board is essentially unresolvable at this point in time. Although its popularity, from a Board perspective, is undeniable, debate rages over its appropriateness in the context of serious issues of gender equality in the nomination system. On the one hand, Sam voted for AA, as did seven other Board members, as did the overwhelming majority of those who were at the Union AGM. On the other hand, upcoming Board Directors have already promised that it will be no more than a “bandaid”. And until the next Board election, it is impossible to say whether these changes will make more women run.

Similarly, the changes to life membership remain problematic. Sam, and the entire Board (bar Senate Representative Merrilee Robb) are convinced that they are right in getting rid of Union life membership. But they are not all convinced that they went about this in the right way. Sam himself admits the process could have been better, but insists that this does not diminish from the quality of the decision. Many (including Beck Mann and Amit Singh) would argue that, considering most Ordinary Union Members won’t even realise the difference, the Union made a mistake in angering and alienating a large and potentially influential group of Union members in the year before VSU.

The Board

The relationship between Union Management, Board Directors and the Board President is meant to be harmonious, cooperative and democratic. However, this year there have been accusations from all sides (including from Board directors) that the Board have been little more than a “rubber stamp” that approved proposals initiated by the Union Management.

Crosby vehemently denies this. When asked whether the Board has been proactive, he points in particular to the close relationship that he has developed with Management, particularly General Manager Paul McJannett. In response to the accusation of “rubber stamping” he highlights ideas, such as Evan’s Commemoration Day, and the return to the old USU logo, which have originated at Board level (although he is quick to deny Mark Chan’s claim that he was the source of the Union Membership Card idea). In particular, he is proud of the popularity of the return to the USU logo, an idea that again originated with Amit, Sam and Evan.

However, taking away Crosby’s positive spin, and the negative spin of the various dissidents, the reality appears to be somewhat more complicated, and undouobtedly relates to Crosby’s personal leadership style. In summary, the real situation appears to be one in which Crosby, and those Directors with whom he had a good relationship, had a healthy and dynamic liaison with Union Management. However, for others on the Board, the year seemed one in which they felt shut out by Crosby’s dominating and forceful personality.

The difficulties were set up at the very beginning of Crosby’s term, when Hannah Diddams, a popular choice for Union executive, got shafted due to a series of late night phone calls, and ended up without any executive position at all. From all reports, she continues to dislike Sam strongly, and while Sam insists “I really like Hannah”, he acknowledges that, like many people, she probably wants to “claw my eyes out”.

Tension also exists between Sam and Asren Pugh. Not only is Asren a strong, and strongly opinionated, opponent of Sam’s policies and politics, these two do not get along on a personal level either. Sam puts it down to the fact that Asren “didn’t give enough of himself to the Union”. Whether this is because of Asren’s personality, or his personal dislike of a dominating Union President, is ambiguous.

And, of course, there is also the infamous tension between Beck Mann and Crosby, which has received far too much attention. Considering Beck has remained on good terms with other ex-boyfriends (including Brad Lanken, whom she called in as an advisor during this year’s recount) the division between Sam and Beck probably has a lot more substance and justification than simple sexual politics. But it doesn’t change the fact that they do not like each other. At all.

As for Senate Rep, Merrilee Rob, Crosby says simply “she gets up ya”, a comment which appears to be positive, but which fails to hide the fact that there was a fundamental clash between these two strong personalities, as was obvious during the Union AGM to all who watched her responses to Sam’s behaviour.

The fact is, beyond the occasional abrasiveness of Crosby’s personality, he admits freely that “I’m not the best consensus builder” - which he contrasts with presidential hopeful Amit Singh’s ability to keep negotiating until all the parties are happy. At this point it might be appropriate to point out that while consensus is nice, in democracy, majority rules – and few have Sam’s skill at building that majority. Unfortunately, for those who aren’t on his side, Crosby has little patience for those who don’t agree with “what’s smart”. Discussing the many things which he hopes he has achieved, and the place he has been taking the Union, Sam states “If people don’t want to go to the same place, it shits me”, adding as an afterthought that it only annoys him when it’s “without good reason”.

His Politics

The problem is, what constitutes “good reason” in politics is fairly subjective. As Sam admits, he can’t stand “ideological bullshit debates” from the Left or Right – yet ideology is a fundamental part of politics. This is probably where it becomes significant that Sam is a Labor Right man. Labor Right, also known as “centrists” are arguably the purist politicians of them all. Divorced from the conservatism of the Right, and the passionate activism of the Left, the Labor Right politician walks the righteous middle path or the “third way”. As Sam says, he only has one personal belief, in what is “smart”.

In such statements, Sam seems to channel our esteemed State premier Bob Carr (a large poster of Carr adorns the wall of Crosby’s office, apparently a present from none other than Rose Jackson). However, Crosby should be distinguished from Carr in a number of respects, including the fact that Sam seems genuinely interested in implementing long term policies, and also appears to uphold the best interests of students above the best interest of the “party” or “faction”.

So has Sam Crosby been “smart” in his leadership of the Union? Perhaps the cleverest summary comes from SRC President and NOLS powerbroker, Rose Jackson. Rose suggests that he’s done a pretty good job “working within a culture that [Sam was] responsible for creating.” Crosby has worked hard and in reality, well, over the past year – but in his inability to build consensus, and his gift for upsetting everyone from Board Directors to Stephen Rogers, has undoubtedly made his job much harder than it should have been.

But Crosby’s political manoeuvrings will not constitute his legacy. Like many student politicians, after his tenure at the top ends, Crosby’s name will fade into obscurity (save for its inscription in gold on the Union honour board). His reputation as a hardcore factional headkicker (with an incredible intelligence which he attempts to hide behind bully boy tactics) will be forgotten. His face (described as “halfway adorable” and even “strangely alluring”) will be removed from the Union board photo frames. But as the man who may well have been the last President of a compulsory student Union, and as the President who put into place the core measures that may keep the Union afloat once Nelson gets his way, Crosby’s place in Sydney University’s history is assured.

(For more Crosby-worship see this link, although note he is apparantly not so hot as he once was - even though the gaming industry might still love him.)