RECAP: USU Board 27/10/20

Ellie Stephenson checks up on your student representatives in the USU.

Today I’m attending another USU Board meeting: they’re slated to discuss transparency, Pulp and presumably a bunch of stuff in camera.

The discussion about transparency happens first - before I join the meeting. I hear the Board is discussing a number of recommendations made to the Governance Committee about how they can be more transparent. The reforms include measures to encourage consultation on proposals, publishing the agenda in advance as well as more information after the meeting, and a quarterly statement on how SSAF is being spent. 

The Board opted not to vote on the policy, as two of the recommendations are proving unpopular: releasing the benefits, expenses and spending of Board Directors (for example, things like cab charges and the use of their meal cards); and releasing the voting numbers for in camera motions. While it’s obvious why Directors might be cautious about releasing voting numbers, what they’re hiding in their meal cards is a little more mysterious - you wouldn’t think their daily Courtyard pasta would be so controversial.

When I enter the Zoom, the Directors are discussing some potential changes to Pulp. Ben Hines (Libdependent) has proposed giving the Board the option to increase the number of Pulp editors, allow for a senior editor to coordinate, and expand the number of multilingual editors. While the proposal doesn’t mandate any change immediately, it provides the Board with options if they would like to take them.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat (Switchroots) voices her support for this option, saying it signals the Board’s “openness” to expanding Pulp in the future. She asks me if I would like to comment on the idea (thanks Prudence!). USU President Irene Ma shuts this down on the basis that, as a visitor to the meeting, I can only talk during open question time. This is not strictly true, as I am a USU staff member which means I have speaking rights - if only Irene will let me speak.

Nick Forbutt (NLS) is resistant to the motion, asking “what are we getting out of six that we’re not getting out of three?” He also has questions about how the editors would be paid if the number is to expand. He tells the Board that he has spoken to past editors who have told him that Pulp’s success is about “who you hire”, rather than how many. It’s a little unclear why past editors were consulted but not current ones. Forbutt is also concerned that the USU would struggle to recruit sufficient talent to fill the expanded positions.

Vikki Qin says that she thinks having a lead editor would work by allowing someone to direct Pulp’s content and coordinate the workload while keeping the publication independent from the USU. She adds that more multilingual editors will be important for continuing to engage international students. 

Belinda Thomas (Unity) echoes Prudence’s sentiment that the policy “encourages Pulp to grow” and asks why anyone would oppose doing that. She describes opposing Pulp’s expansion as “demeaning” and “cutting Pulp down to size”. Nick Rigby (Moderate Liberal) agrees with this, describing the move as “fantastic”. 

Benny Shen asks how it would be financed. 

Ben Hines responds to these arguments, noting that the Board can continue with the present numbers if they eventually decide it’s best to do so, the policy only attempts to allow for more flexibility before the recruitment of the next editors. He suggests that people are “stuck” in a specific idea of what Pulp is now. He adds that maybe I could speak (thanks Ben!). 

Tania Moroko, the Director of Sales, Marketing & Membership, sees the Senior Editor position as an opportunity to help manage the workload of coordinating Pulp, especially while the marketing team has less resources during COVID-19. She also suggests they could help ease the transition between editorial teams.

Irene Ma says she is “really happy to see this amendment” and thinks it could help build an expanded contributor pool. She still opposes letting me speak, maintaining that consultation can occur after the policy has passed. Sad. 

Thanks Belinda!

After some cajoling, I get to speak after all! I say the Senior Editor position could actually be useful in developing editorial talent by managing Pulp’s direction and distributing workload. With that said, I add that having a non-zero budget with which to pay contributors and hold events would be more useful in the short term.  

After that sliver of consultation, the changes pass. 

Now for the reports! Most of the reports are passed with limited discussion. We hear that strategic planning will be occurring over the next few weeks regarding the ‘student experience’; the USU is looking into ways to support the C&S program, including a $40000 grants fund to support clubs and societies to update their online presence; and Senate Appointed Director Marie Leech wants the USU to be “very prominent” at graduation ceremonies in order to build connections with alumni. Ben Hines, Vikki Qin and Ruby Lotz are elected to the selection panel for next year’s Debates Committee members. 

Immediate Past President Connor Wherrett has proposed a motion condemning Mark Latham’s transphobic Religion Bill. The motion criticises the Bill for using religious freedoms as an excuse for legitimising discrimination against the LGBTI+ community. It also commits to signing the Protect Us All statement, which has been signed by a number of other organisations including unions and faith groups. The motion passes.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat attempts to propose a motion condemning the NSW Police’s treatment of student protests, however it is shut down on the basis that the Board didn’t receive enough notice to debate the motion. Sadly we will have to wait for the next meeting to see it discussed.

President Irene Ma begins discussing the confidential section of the meeting before moving in camera. Sadly, Board Secretary Dane Luo intercedes before I hear anything juicy. I depart into the solitude of a Zoom breakout room.