Presidential Response to 6th June SRC Meeting

Rose Jackson, President of the SRC, responds to the Engineer's anger over the running of the 6th June SRC meeting. She hopes to see some initiative from those who are so good at throwing insults at others, since insults will not achieve anything, expecting wasting the time and money of everyone.

To Whom It May Concern,

I understand the concerns of Chris, Andrew and Keir, the SRC counsellors who are also involved in SUEUA as to the conduct and outcomes of the SRC meeting on Monday.

I have to start by congratulating them and all members of Council for their commitment to attending meetings in 2005. Last year there was a problem with quorum not being reached on a number of occasions, leaving 20 people who turned up for meetings rather annoyed. We have avoided this problem for the 77th Council, and for that everyone who comes should be very proud.

The decision by the SRC to take initiative on electoral reform was informed by our own experiences in SRC elections over the past years. Large, unruly ballot papers, high numbers of informal votes, and a general sentiment that the system was not structured in a way that allowed students to have their views properly represented led to some people more experienced and interested in electoral process (such as Treasurer Nick Wood and Ben Raue) to consider reform. Many of the motions were also taken directly from recommendations made by SRC Returning Officer in 2004 Sean Kelly, who offered us a number of critical insights into the electoral process and how it can be improved.

The initiative behind the changes was as much improving the system as it was saving money. Most of the controversy, however, seems to stem from the decisions relating to changed polling booths and times. I see that very few questions have been raised regarding changes to the JD Stewart, Bosch, Merewether, Westmead Dental and Hospital, Concord and Royal North Shore Hospitals and Dentistry booths. I take this to mean that most agree with me that these booths (were often more than 4 votes are cast) are not integral parts of the democratic process of the SRC, and that changes there represent an acknowledgment of how changes in the student demographic must lead to changes in the way students are engaged in elections. The problem then really boils down to some students from the Engineering faculty complaints about changes to that particular booth.

In 2003 and I believe 2004, the PNR booth was open from 11am till 2pm on one of the two days of polling. This equals 3 hours (note from the ed: the Engineers have corrected this point with the statement that their booth was open 8 hours before times were cut). It is now open 2 hours. The polling times of Law, SCA, Cumbo, the Con and Nursing were also cut to two hours. Representatives from those campuses present at Monday’s meeting raised no objection to the final proposal, they recognised that this was a fair engagement and reflection of student voices on these campuses. Those engineers perturbed by the change need to realise that this was in no way a personal attack on them, nor was it a particularly significant change. It was a small part of a broad reform strategy for the electoral process that although is not going to save us from VSU, does allow us to save money whilst simplifying the procedure such that voting is easier and more representative. This is in everyone’s best interests.

As to the procedure of the meeting, I believe that it is essential if we want to have an SRC that is productive and doesn’t silence people’s voices then we must follow meeting procedure. We have rules like a progressive speaking list that allows those who haven’t spoken before to have their say, and we use an indication to the chair to speak. We simply cannot have a meeting where 27 people in a room are able to shout over each other whenever they wish, move motions at a whim, respond as they wish and generally open their mouth and say the first things that comes into their head at very opportunity. I am sorry that on this occasion Chris had not read the procedure. I feel bad about this and will try and make sure that everyone is aware of how meetings will be conducted from now on. If you wish to have your say, you have to indicate to the Chair, and then wait until the item of business currently being addressed is finished to raise your point. This is the only way to ensure everyone gets his or her say in an ordered way.

I implore the engineers to realise that I do not have anything against them. In fact, the day after the meeting I handed over the $3,000+ cheque for SUEUA from the SRC. This money was legitimately owed to SUEUA from the SRC, and despite being shouted at the last time I went down to PNR, despite being called sexist and racist in the meeting by Chris, despite the engineers attempting to pull quorum and undermine the democratic processes of the SRC, I still upheld my end of the contract and gave them what they deserved. Now I think it is their turn to stop the insults and the attacks, to stop the complaining, and to start engaging with the rest of the SRC if they want to have their say. If Chris thinks I get paid too much, have him move regulation change at Council to cut my wage and justify why he thinks I am overpaid. If he thinks we should reform our NUS affiliation, or any other matter, have him raise it democratically and try and change it, as we did when we identified a problem with elections. If you’re going to be so aggressive, you can at lease be pro-active about what you think, as opposed to bitching from the sidelines when some of us are just trying to save the SRC, represent our members, do a good job, and make our SRC one to be proud of.

I hope to see some initiative from those who are so good at throwing insults at others. This will not achieve anything, expecting wasting the time and money of everyone.

Yours truly,

Rose Jackson
SRC President