News

OUSA is embroiled in a political crisis after five Executive members stormed out of an ‘Emergency Meeting’ dealing with matters resulting from the referendum.

The meeting was called late last Thursday in an effort to push back the election date for the 2011 Executive by one week. Nominations for positions on the 2011 Executive open before the results of the referendum can be formalised. Currently an independent arbitrator is assessing appeals over how the referendum was conducted.
   President Harriet Geoghegan had hoped by pushing the date back, this hurdle would be overcome.
   However, at the meeting General Rep Imogen Roth gave a prepared speech, expressing her dissatisfaction with how the issue had been handled and said Geoghegan had been dishonest about why they had all been called together. After she had spoken, Postgraduate Rep Travis Monk, Science Rep Michael Anderson, Queer Rep Ros MacKenzie, Women’s Rep Shonelle Eastwood, and Roth herself stood up and silently left the boardroom. 
   The meeting was allegedly called to discuss “operational matters” and to nominate OUSA Secretary Donna Jones for a New Zealand Royal Honour. 
   As a result of the five Exec members’ sudden departure, the meeting no longer made quorum, meaning the meeting was closed early and no change could be made to the nomination dates. Nominations will open today as planned, although the positions candidates are running for may be subject to change depending on the outcome of the referendum.
   In her speech, Imogen Roth noted that the Executive could have anticipated that formal complaints would interfere with the results of the referendum being finalised.
   The five Exec members said they were upset about the lack of transparency throughout the whole process, and note that good consequences do not justify dodgy process. They say that they did not want to use quorum tactics, and that if they had, they would never have bothered to attend the meeting and hear what Geoghegan had to say. They also wished to emphasise that they have a range of opinions regarding the constitutional structure, but what unites them is their distaste for Geoghegan’s misleading comments about the content of the meeting. All who walked out wanted to make clear that they still respect every single Exec member, but that they did what they felt they had to do. 
   Geoghegan was disappointed with their tactics. “I am really disappointed at the lack of maturity of some members of the Executive. The issues raised by them were based on assumptions that were incorrect, and had been perpetuated by opponents of the changes.” Geoghegan says that this is the first time this year that Exec members have not discussed problems directly.
   Geoghegan alleges that Clubs and Societies Officer Dan Stride, who was not present at the meeting, plans to lodge a complaint at the last moment to delay the changes as long as possible. Geoghegan is baffled by the actions of both Queer Rep Rosalin MacKenzie and Stride, stating that as they were both on the Working Party, they should have voiced their opinions much earlier. Last week, MacKenzie revealed to Critic that she felt “bullied” during the process.
   Earlier, on Friday July 23, another ‘Emergency Meeting’ was held at which Paul Roth was appointed to investigate the formal complaints on behalf of the executive. On Monday, Donna Jones, acting as Returning Officer, reported that none of the complaints were to be upheld, although this decision was still subject to appeal. The appeals process is ongoing.
   In order to be upheld, formal complaints must demonstrate that OUSA did not abide by their constitution, referenda procedure, or principles of natural justice during the referendum. 
   Unfortunately, policy on how a referendum is to be conducted is fairly vague, and although a referendum should conform to election procedure, election procedure does not directly apply. Further, the recent referendum is the first binding referendum since the new constitution was passed in 2004, so there is no procedural precedent. Longstanding Exec member Dan Stride says that when the constitution was passed in 2004, it was in draft form and the Exec had intended to flesh it out, although that has never happened. As a result of ambiguous policy, the consideration of formal complaints has been largely up to Paul Roth’s discretion.
   Despite claims of biased campaigning, Geoghegan maintains that there was ample opportunity to voice all sides of the argument, citing the OUSA debate (to which a handful of people turned up) and robust Facebook conversations as examples. Nor does Geoghegan believe her Facebook status updates were inappropriate given her influential position. “It makes sense that I would support my own proposal and my personal Facebook page is just that – personal to me and advocating my views.”
   As Critic went to print the stress of the process was obviously getting to Geoghegan, who again took to Facebook on Thursday night; "Wow there's far too much drama going on ... Must diffuse ... Time to release a sex tape." Please, please don't.