Push For Jett Groshinski’s Resignation
In bombshell news, Political Representative Jett Groshinski was asked to resign by two-thirds of the OUSA Executive at their most recent meeting on Thursday, August 28th. The Exec told Critic Te Ārohi that the decision was “not made lightly,” but a sequence of questionable behaviour from Jett forced their hand. A formal letter is yet to be drafted but, via media statements and his own channels, Jett’s answer has been clear: “I will not resign.”
The saga began in June when Jett was announced by the ODT as a Labour-endorsed candidate for the Local Body Elections (LBE) – to the surprise of the Exec, who had no idea of his intentions to run. Strike one. It prompted a tense Exec meeting, held largely in confidential committee, with plenty of “what the fuck” facial expressions and straight-up requests for his resignation there and then.
To answer everyone’s question of how he would be a “neutral” Political Rep whilst running for Labour, Jett’s homework was to produce a conflict management plan. The decided route would be ‘Baseline Separation’ between the two roles, meaning work related to LBE was delegated to other Exec members, and he stepped down as the chair of the Political Action Committee (PAC). Jett’s responsibility would be to ensure zero overlap between OUSA work and his political campaign. Within a couple of weeks, however, he uploaded a video to his political campaign Instagram of himself speaking to a submission written in his capacity as Political Rep (deleting it after a slap on the wrist). Strike two.
Two months later, Jett surprised the Exec with another doozy by calling for a Student General Meeting (SGM), with a motion to formally endorse and commit to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Strike three. The Exec had discussed the matter at length internally, and the decision to have a public meeting was made behind their backs.
In flyers distributed by Otago Students for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) before the SGM, who seconded Jett’s motion, they referred to OUSA as “cowardly” and inaccurately claimed that the “unelected OUSA CEO lobbied the exec into abandoning BDS, by presenting it as irresponsible and financially untenable. This is a lie.” To clarify, the CEO is not an elected position (nor has it ever been) and the so-called “lobby” was a rough figure she was asked to provide to the Exec of what BDS might cost the association – a figure that could impact their ability to offer key services to students. Based on that information, the Exec – as Officers of OUSA with a duty to its charitable purpose – decided a hard-line BDS approach would not be feasible. Jett asked at the meeting that it be noted he was against the motion.
Jett was scathing of his Exec’s decision in his speech at the SGM. “What we have seen with BDS is nothing short of a failure of student democracy,” he said. Jett referred to the Exec as “they” rather than “we” as he continued, “They didn’t respect the vote, they didn’t respect the process, they didn’t respect you.” And he’s out of strikes.
At the meeting, Daniel – who’d taken on a large proportion of Jett’s Political Rep duties that his political campaign had rendered him unable to do – explained to the crowd that, while the Exec acknowledged BDS as a legitimate movement and wants to support it, the financial situation of OUSA (suffering a $680k loss last year) meant only a very moderate approach was possible.
Following an internal review of conduct and responsibilities, the Exec asked Jett to resign. In a public statement, the Exec said, “Over the course of the year, several concerns have arisen that have impacted the trust, transparency, and effectiveness required of an Executive Officer.” These included difficulties in fulfilling general duties of the role (submissions were often late), challenges in working collaboratively within the Exec (going rogue on more than one occasion), and breaches of the Executive Code of Conduct.
The latter was the biggest one. “The Executive Code of Conduct requires members to act in the best interests of OUSA and its members (Section 2.1.3.), to demonstrate transparency, honesty, and good faith (Section 2.1.4.), to uphold the highest professional standards (Section 2.1.6.), and to disclose conflicts of interest (Section 2.3.). The Executive believes these obligations have not been met,” read the statement.
Jett has publicly refused to resign from his position. In a video posted to his political campaign Instagram the following Tuesday, Jett sits before the OUSA building and says that the call for his resignation “was because I called a student general meeting to discuss the issue of BDS. This was so students could vote, discuss and debate the issue all in a public forum. Doing that is not misconduct, that is democracy in action [...] I will continue to do the work that I was elected to do on the OUSA executive.”
The young politician appears to have skimmed the Exec’s statement, which doesn’t directly mention the SGM – but does mention his failure to be able to meet the requirements of his role (because of conflicts of interest with his campaign, whose account this video was posted to). The wider Exec has been advised not to engage with Jett’s posts, indicating that a meeting would be held to discuss his conduct.
Update On Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement
The Exec did address BDS, however, in the discussion of how the movement will be integrated into OUSA following the SGM. While the majority of this discussion was spent in a confidential committee (woe), concern was once again expressed about how adoption would affect OUSA’s operations. The majority of their on the record conversation centered around possible consultation with groups like the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
Postgrad Rep Josh expressed concern about the natural changing of leadership in such groups: “We need to consider that their movement does not always stay the same. It can vary depending on who is leading it.” Welfare and Equity Rep Amy Whyman suggested that there was a difference between meaningful consultation and taking on everything that one person says. “Consultation doesn’t mean we have to [adopt everything someone says],” she explained. She felt consultation could meaningfully inform the Executive’s process regarding BDS moving forward without strict adoption of that discussion.
Overall, not much was done regarding BDS’s operational implementation. Admin Vice Prez Amy Martin suggested that no motions be passed that day regarding a concrete decision, to “allow for more thorough consultation – bearing in mind what a big decision [BDS] is.” Liam suggested the introduction of a working group that could meet once a fortnight to work on policy for BDS’s adoption.
Aside from operational implementation, the Executive unanimously passed a motion to agree to signing a letter to members of Parliament regarding the ongoing genocide. The letter calls on Parliament to publicly commit to recognising the state of Palestine and supporting non-violent measures, including the sanctions outlined in Chlöe Swarbrick’s “Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions” Members Bill.
Daniel Got Mail!
A student wrote a letter addressed to Daniel and the Executive expressing “severe disappointment” in what occurred at the recent BDS SGM, stating they thought it was a “hijacking of legitimate student representation at OUSA” and lacked integrity from Jett and Liam, calling on them to resign.
Daniel told the rest of the Exec that he had received support from students and 20-30 staff on campus (Uni and OUSA), both in person and via email, after his speech at the recent SGM, expressing concern on what sanctioning and divesting could do to OUSA operations. He reckoned the student reached out given he was the only one who spoke at the SGM not in favour of the motion. Daniel noted that this was “on behalf of [the OUSA Exec]” after Liam, who was their intended spokesperson, surprised the Exec by speaking as an individual and in support of the motion.
Daniel noted that he felt put on the spot after “Liam didn’t do his job properly”, something he “didn’t appreciate.” Liam said that he was “quite surprised” that the student opted to reach out to Daniel as opposed to him, and that he thought he’d done a “reasonably good job” at taking on feedback given to him by students regarding the recent SGM (perhaps overlooking the author’s request for Liam to resign).
The idea of “hijacking” at the SGM was a common theme from the other Executive members. International Rep Buki pointed out that the possibility for interest groups to “take over” elections is a “bug of democracy”. Academic Rep Stella felt that the SGM wasn’t a “safe space” for students to express their opinions, with some commenting it felt closer to a pro-Palestine rally than a space for democratic discussion.
Liam suggested that he and Daniel draft a response for the letter together, however the anonymous author of the letter instead approached Daniel directly on campus, so Daniel didn’t feel this was necessary.
Craccum’s Letter
There’s been trouble in paradise at Critic’s student media cousin Craccum, the student magazine for the Auckland University’s Student Association (AUSA) since 1927. They’re a bit like Critic, but with ‘accum’ after the ‘Cr’ instead of ‘itic’. Interesting choice!
News recently spread that Craccum was yanking at the chains of AUSA. Triggered by budget cuts, claims of Exec censorship, and governance issues, some staff members issued a press release proposing to break free from the association and become an independent incorporated society. “We do not trust that AUSA can act as good faith kaitiaki for the magazine without the immediate reforms our [motion] moves for,” said the initial press release, co-written by Craccum’s Managing Editor and Digital Manager.
The Editor-in-Chief, however, followed this with a statement of his own undercutting the motion. “We jumped the gun on this decision,” he wrote, saying that the team “didn’t consider every option that would occur if we had decided to proceed with the split [from AUSA].” He made the decision to ditch the proposal. After the news broke, the editorial team reconvened behind closed doors before reemerging with a softer approach: an open letter.
The “Craccum Independence Campaign Team” sent the letter to other associations and their magazines, including the OUSA Executive, requesting they collectively sign to convey three key points: student voices matter, editorial independence is essential, and Craccum is worth protecting. “Funding cuts, censorship, and unpaid labour are putting our magazine [at risk],” the letter states. “We are calling on all students, clubs, associations, publications, alumni, and the wider community to stand with us. This isn’t just about a magazine—it’s about freedom of student expression, transparency in decision-making, and the right to be heard.”
The signatures on the letter would be in favour of “[restoring] fair funding” to at least $150k annually, reinstating the Te Ao Māori Editor and Pasifika Editor as paid staff positions for 2026, protecting editorial freedom by amending the AUSA constitution, and giving Craccum financial independence – wanting a bank account and their own advertising revenue (but still funded by AUSA?).
The OUSA Exec considered if they wanted to sign, but generally felt that they needed “more information”. In the end, they motioned to not collectively sign, but invited individual Executive members to sign in their personal capacity if they wished.
Miscellaneous
Some savings were proposed for next year’s Executive budget, namely cuts to training, travel, and January and December honorariums. The total proposed savings would be $22,600, with more to be looked at later.
There was also some unfortunate vandalism at the Aquatic Centre. A group of people have “ripped” some seats from the now defunct Carisbrook stadium off the wall, which OUSA has footage of. The Executive minutes refer to the act as one of “stupidity and senselessness”. The Exec intends to review the footage and approach the police to catch the culprits.