News

Last week’s referendum looks set to result in a significant change to the governing structure of OUSA. Student General Meetings (SGMs) will also now be held online.

When Critic went to print last week the results were still provisional, due to then-unresolved complaints regarding possible breaches of constitutional procedure, however there was a clear signal for change from those who voted.
1399 people voted on the motion to reduce the size of the Exec, with 72 percent voting for the change, 22 percent against and five percent abstaining. 1391 people voted on the motion to “supersize your say” and move SGMs online, with 87 percent for online SGMs, ten percent against, and only two percent abstaining. 
Tension was rife in the OUSA office as the Exec gathered late Thursday afternoon to hear the results. As the results were read, OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan looked ecstatic. “I’m happy all the work we have put in won’t go to waste.” 
John Phillipson, a prominent member of the Governance Structure Review Working Party, said he was over the moon: “I’m happily surprised.” When asked whether the Exec members were allowed to speak in deference to the result, an elated John said, “I don’t know why anyone would want to speak against it.”
Women’s Rep Shonelle Eastwood said that she was glad the referendum had made quorum and that so many people had turned out to vote. She refused to comment any further.
Despite John’s excitement, not everyone is enthusiastic about the outcome. The formal complaints surround a number of issues in how the election was conducted, including the wording of the referendum question, the overall advertisement of the referendum, and the impartiality of OUSA during the referendum period. One formal complaint that was leaked to Critic stated that President Harriet Geoghegan did not remain impartial, and pushed her stance on her personal Facebook page.
The complaint also alleges that Executive members on polling booths encouraged students to vote ‘yes’ on the referendum. Another major complaint concerns the period of time students were warned of the referendum, which arguably did not comply with the requisite ten working days.
Further claims are that the Exec’s use of bribes in the form of fruit bursts were reminiscent of 2008 President hopeful Jo Moore’s election techniques, in which she provided alcohol to voters, and “encouraged” friends to vote for her. In that incident Moore was stripped of the President title, and Edwin Darlow became President by default.
Breaking the so-called gag on speaking to the media, Queer Rep Rosalin MacKenzie says the results are “expected, considering that the referendum was held in an unsafe and biased way.”
“Harriet, with a Facebook profile picture of the OUSA referendum poster told people to vote yes. She tweeted telling people to vote yes on the official President’s Twitter account – which shows up on the OUSA homepage.”
MacKenzie is also critical of the way the referendum was officially promoted by the students association. “There was no advertising for the other side and to rely on other clubs or students to do this is unfair because they have very different resources.”
MacKenzie says she felt “bullied” into not coming forward with these concerns earlier. “Not being able to publicly give my opinion… made it difficult to represent the views of my constituents.”
Some people have claimed that whole process was incredibly rushed, a suggestion that Phillipson admonishes. “Last year we had the same worries aimed at us.” He says that although it must feel incredibly rushed to outsiders, it has been considered for a year now.
Despite the uproar, Geoghegan contends that the election was unbiased. “We talked to lawyers, and the claims about bias were unfounded,” she says.
 
As the dust settles Critic will have more coverage of this story in our next issue.