A different perspective

Chris Koureas responds to Ben Raue's article on the SRC meeting of 6th June, arguing that Ben writes as if he was not paying attention to the proceedings and shows the true amateurishness of Ben's actions.

Ben Raue’s article is quite strange as he writes as if he was not paying attention to the proceedings and show the true amateurishness of his actions.

Firstly, “We were aware that the Engineers (Liberals) may have tried to lapse the meeting by leaving, thus leaving Council without a quorum, because they opposed changes to polling booths. On the night, we had counted 23 councillors in the room. Two of the Engineering councillors were sitting outside the room, and two other councillors were on their way to the meeting. If we didn’t get a quorum in 15 minutes, the meeting would have lapsed and the last realistic chance to pass electoral reform regulation changes before the election would have passed. Eventually, the Engineers were convinced to come in, and the meeting started soon after.”

None of us are members of the liberal party.
There were three of us outside the room and none in the room. We came in as a goodwill favour as the auditor was present.

“In the end, the vote was won 14-13 in favour of the NOLS model (10 nominators). No-one outside of NOLS voted for their model, with the Greens and Keep Left, and five other councillors, voting for the Greens model.”

At this stage we had 2 councillors outside the room. I was in the room and voted with the greens. If Ben was intelligent he would have had his motion passed as we would have been in the room and voting with him. Not that we care, of course, on the outcome of this motion.

“The protests by the Engineers had very little to do with the needs of Engineers. It’s absurd to think that one faculty should gain it’s own polling booth, above every other main-campus faculty, especially when it is so close to the Wentworth building. In order to satisfy the Engineers, we made a compromise, restoring their booth for a short period on one day. This, however, was not enough for them. The reason for this is that the Engineers rely on their barbeques at PNR to gain votes. Many people who vote in Engineering only do so because they have a how-to-vote shoved into their hand, not because they actually want to vote.”

For the last 4 union and last 2 SRC elections the PNR booth has recorded more than 400 votes. Reducing our booth to 2 hours means that a vote must be cast every 18 seconds. Considering that it takes 30 seconds for the attendant to fill in the forms and 30 seconds to actually vote I fail to see how the democratic process is upheld. Please explain how this is not anything but making sure we are not elected! Manning receives less votes than PNR and is closer to Fisher than PNR is to Wentworth - yet which one gets shut down?

We rely on BBQ’s to get votes, do we? Tim Suttie was elected without a BBQ. And BBQ’s are not against the rules. But this is the reason given. Our polling booth is shut down because we have BBQs. Yeah right.

It takes 40 votes to get elected. I have 40 friends who vote for me. How many people at Fisher or Wentworth want to vote and don’t have a flyer shoved in their hand?? What is good for you is good for us. Ben just tell the truth. You are scared of us and with good reason.

If these cuts are to “save money” Why is $160,000 given to NUS?

Why is Rose paid more than Sam Crosby?

Why is money still given to groups who are not students?

”..he expressly refused and proceeded to vote with the Liberals against the motion.”

Ben there were no liberals in the room! If you are referring to me, I didn’t vote on this motion. Goes to show how accurate your accounts of proceedings are.

So what else happened during this meeting?
Rose Jackson refused to take a quorum count even though she accepted one last month when requested by Joe Clayton.

Rose Jackson refused to supply the council with a meal after David Cubbin insisted that the policy required this. (Rose doesn’t take a policy document to council, she makes the rules up as she goes).

Jon Kok accused the engineering students in general of having a homophobic vibe even though, when he was an engo for 4 years, he admittedly, never experienced any homophobic treatment. He even held a high position within SUEUA. Jon is a nice guy but I think he hates the fact that we don’t hate him.

I wasn’t allowed to ask any questions on certain motions, despite my right to speak and the lack of any other questions or procedural motions. The same sort of treatment is received at times by James Jannson.

Final I would like to laugh at this quote from an SRC councillor:
“The protests by the Engineers had very little to do with the needs of Engineers.”
I would like to respond that the SRC has very little to do with the needs of students.