LIVE: SRC Meeting 6/5/20

Ellie Stephenson attends this month’s Student Representative Council.

6pm - I’m in the meeting. Should I be in the middle of writing an essay? Definitely. Will I enjoy this meeting more than writing said essay? Questionable. Will I, a humble student journalist, have the best meeting attendance of all your USU and SRC reps? Not impossible. I’m waiting for something to happen; we currently have a meagre seven Zoom participants.

6:11pm - We’re doing a quorum count to ensure we have enough people to start the meeting.

6:17pm - Ok, we have quorum.

6:18pm - The meeting opens. President Liam Donohoe does the Acknowledgement of Country: “wherever you are, if you’re on the continent of so-called Australia, you’re on stolen land.” He notes that it’s important not to forget First Nations issues.

6:22pm - Welfare Officer Yilun Ma resigns - this is due to the resignation of Layla Mkhayber from the jointly held position. There is now a joint nomination with Yilun Ma and Amelia Mertha (Grassroots) to re-fill the position.

6:23pm - Some confusion about last month’s minutes leaves a void which can only be filled with some “editorialisations” about Modlib ex-Councillor James Ardouin’s new facial hair. “James can u get rid of the goatee”, writes Unity’s Angelina Gu. Grassroots’ Swapnik Sanagavarapu replies: “James ‘soul patch’ Ardouin”.

6:28pm - Liam Donohoe presents the President’s Report. He confirms that the SRC will not be getting contestable SSAF funding this year, although their base funding is secure. This means that most of the SRC’s projects will not eventuate.

However, the mutual aid program and packs for students are a success, with their distribution soon to reach 140 students.

The SRC is about to launch the Defend our Education campaign to deal with issues around students’ academic welfare (e.g. ProctorU, marks) alongside broader issues about support for the tertiary education sector. Liam implores students to attend tomorrow’s Education Action Group meeting.

He praises a number of social movements going on at the moment, for example the No Worker Left Behind campaign and efforts to stop evictions.

6:37pm - We go through the reports of the Vice Presidents and General Secretaries. This all goes pretty smoothly.

Now to the Education Officers. Jack Mansell (SAlt) begins with “the situation in higher ed is obviously pretty dire at the moment”, suggesting that the sector is going to face a lot of difficulty due to the lack of funding coming from the Government. He speaks about the Q&A episode where Education Minister Dan Tehan avoided responsibility for the sector’s precarious position. He speaks about a campaign for Tehan to engage directly with students and their concerns.

Mansell refers to the 40% cut in hours for USU Staff which occurred today, calling the move “disgraceful” and arguing that “the workers there should not have to pay for this crisis”.

Jazz Breen (Grassroots) speaks about the new Defend our Education campaign. She seems amused by the interest of Liberal students in the campaign despite their unwillingness to criticise the government’s funding model.

6:49pm - James Ardouin has taken on student feedback. The facial hair is gone! He’s caved under pressure from the left.

SAlt’s Maddie Clark, one of the Welfare Officers, provides further critique directed at cuts to tertiary education.

Social Justice Officer Deaglan Godwin (SAlt) also speaks about activism about protecting universities, saying that “ruling class… wanna attack students, they wanna attack workers”. Deaglan is also keen to keep up the environment movement, being involved in organising an online climate strike.

He further argues that workers, students and leftists have a role to oppose the far right, given recent mobilisations of far right groups against COVID-19 restrictions in the USA.

The Report of the Global Solidarity Officers is next. We hear from Holly Hayne (SAlt) who criticises the worldwide trend of attempting to go back to “business of usual”. She describes the scale of the health crisis as “obscene”. She expresses concern about Australia’s plan to loosen restrictions, suggesting it might cause a second wave of infection.

The first motion, which passes without dissent, is in support of the NTEU’s rank-and file members opposing concessions from the national level.

Lily Campbell and Jack Mansell both speak in favour of the motion, arguing that rank-and-file members should not be sold out by the University, especially while figures like Michael Spence earns significant amounts of money.

Nicolas Comino (Colleges for SRC) agrees with them both, arguing that the Union needs to be far more representative of its members. Some people on the left may be a little shocked to find themselves agree.

The next motion condemns the USU’s treatment of staff, with Jack Mansell condemning the redundancies and the loss of work affecting USU staff. In response to a question about how the USU can cope with its financial travails, Mansell argues that the USU ought to prioritise workers over the “bosses”, although there is no answer regarding the solvency of the organisation itself.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat, one of the USU candidates, reiterates “everything that Jack said”. She says that “as a person who has worked for the USU for a year”, she understands the issues first hand. She condemns the lack of communication and support for staff. She criticises the lack of support for students around things like accommodation. “I feel embarrassed running for the Board”, she says, because of the significant issues with the USU’s decision-making and lack of transparency at the moment.

SRC President Liam Donohoe criticises the USU’s handling of student life. He says “I don’t think anyone is denying that the USU is in serious financial strife at the moment”, but criticises the lack of cooperation of the Union with the SRC and its unwillingness to reach out to the University for help. He contests that the Union has no option but to sack staff, and emphasises that the USU doesn’t actually function as a Union - the SRC is the actual campus Union.

Amelia Byrne, an employee of the USU’s entrepreneurship program Incubate, is here to talk about the “sheer stupidity” of the Board’s moves at the moment. She was told she would not be getting her contract extended even though she is on JobKeeper and that boss will now be overburdened with work as a result of the restructuring. This contribution highlights the strange behaviour of the USU of not continuing to employ staff who are already on JobKeeper.

Deaglan Godwin argues that everyone who runs for Board is really just running for the Board of a corporate organisation, betraying their left wing values. This must be awkward for Prudence.

A common theme running through the speeches so far is to call upon the Board to be transparent about who voted for the new measures due to their drastic effects on workers.

Mikaela Pappou (NLS) argues that the USU should be “about supporting their membership… and students” and that “a lot of USU staff are students as well” so the Union should be better protecting staff. She adds an amendment which calls on the University to provide funding to the USU to protect staff jobs.

Wayne (Jiale) Wang, who is running for Board, says he tried to find reports on this kind of thing on the USU website but couldn’t. He says this is very strange for any organisation and the 40% figure seems extremely arbitrary.

Swapnik Sanagavarapu speaks in favour of the motion. He argues that the “moralising” about whether the Left should run for the USU is irrelevant: ultimately the question is about accountability of the Board. He asks how the USU is attempting to raise revenue or liquidate assets to deal with the crisis. He argues that beyond the USU, anger should be directed towards the Government and University management for refusing to bail out students.

Liam Thomas (Unity) says that we can’t know what the USU has done regarding reaching out for financial support from the University, but that ultimately it is incumbent on USyd to support them and that the USU should be more transparent about their actions so far.

James Ardouin asks Liam Donohoe about why JobKeeper is not being used to keep employing staff, a question that Pulp has also posed: why is the USU acting in a way which doesn’t seem to be financially necessary?

No-one really seems to know - yet another argument for more transparency on the part of Board.

Ardouin is broadly supportive but wants more clarification of the scenario.

Holly Hayne says that the 40% cut to student organisations is generating justified anger because, “That’s almost like 50%” and the USU shouldn’t have put itself in a position “on the market” where they face these kinds of decisions (it’s unclear what this actually means and how the USU would avoid this position).

The next motion is about the May 15 Digital Climate Strike. Deaglan Godwin praises the growing understanding of the need for “system change not climate change”. He says that Uni Students for Climate Justice will be holding a national Zoom protest in the hope of re-invigorating the climate movement.

Grace Bowskill argues that the fight for climate justice needs to be continued even during the COVID-19 pandemic and that pandemics are closely related with human destruction of the environment. This is echoed by Maddie Clark, who adds that the coronavirus has not been good for the environment; rather, it has been used by governments as an opportunity to “slash red tape” and further environmental destruction.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat mourns the lack of focus on the environment during COVID-19 and condemns “ecofascist” claims that COVID-19 and the mass death of humans helps the environment. She points to the expansion of the Peabody Mine beneath the Woronora water reservoir as evidence of expanding environmental harms.

Mikaela Pappou opposes the prioritisation of the economy over the environment and supports the motion.

Kedar Maddali (Grassroots) speaks in favour of the motion - they echo Prudence but provides an update on the Wet’suwet’en Land Defenders struggle, where the construction of the pipeline on Wet’suwet’en land has continued during the crisis.

The next motion is about the May 21 National Day of Action against cuts to Australia’s higher education sector. Willow Lost speaks in support of the motion and encourages people to be involved in the movement, including the challenging of Dan Tehan to a debate.

Maddie Clark argues that it’s important to refute the idea that students and staff must be financially affected by the tertiary education sector’s loss of income.

The next motion is entitled “USYD Says No to ProctorU”. This motion, which is proposed by members of Salt, is being moved en bloc with a similar motion from NLS.

A number of speakers support the motion.

SAlt speakers Owen Marsden-Readford and Yasmine Johnson argue that the ProctorU technology violates students’ rights to privacy.

NLS members Vivienne Goodes and Roisin Murphy add that the SRC should be broadly pursuing privacy by also taking stances on privacy issues in general society like the COVIDSafe app.

Nicholas Comino (Colleges for SRC) argues that the University has been “shady” by not telling students about the use of ProctorU in their courses before the census date. He also notes that lots of universities do assessments online so USyd should be able to find other options.

Jason Howe (ModLib) emphasises that the right to privacy should not be compromised, even in the face of concerns about academic honesty.

After Wayne Wang asks how academic integrity can be addressed without ProctorU, Liam Donohoe answers that USyd should use take home exams instead and, like Monash University, investigate developing in house invigilation.

The next motion is about supporting migrant workers. Felix Faber (NLS) argues that we must reject anti-migrant dog-whistling of the sort recently expressed by Kristina Keneally. He points to the union movement’s initial opposition to women in the workforce driving wages down, which was addressed by fighting for equal pay, arguing that the unions should be creative about protecting wages rather than blaming migrant workers. Roisin echoes this and adds that Australians are frequently reluctant to do the jobs migrants do.

Liam Donohoe speaks about the importance of governmental support for international students stuck in Australia facing financial insecurity. Prudence Wilkins-Wheat adds that international students need more academic support from the University as well. Grace Bowskill calls the treatment of international students “appalling” and argues that we must organise for “full and equal rights” for migrant workers.

The next motion is ‘Defend our Education’, which has been moved by Education Officer Jazz Breen. Liam Donohoe says the campaign is very important, combining with the #NoUniCuts campaign and the No Student Left Behind campaign. This campaign is focusing more specifically on academic issues, like special considerations, which are of course linked closely with the treatment of staff.

Jack Mansell criticises the structure of exams and assessments generally which “churn through” student but which aren’t pedagogically sound. He expresses concern that education is setting students up for being “wage slaves” rather than to meaningfully change society. Willow Lont repeats the SAlt refrain that students and staff shouldn’t suffer from the crisis.

The next motion is about endorsing the NTEU’s NDA for 22 May. Liam Donohoe says we should all be proud of USyd staff taking a “brave” stance on making no concessions and defying the union’s national leadership.

Jack Mansell says that the NDA is good and that it’s important to have a holistic movement in support of staff.

The next motion is endorsing the Housing Defence Coalition. Swapnik Sanagavarapu says two things: that housing is a human right and that Cuba has no homelessness. Take from that what you will.

Maddie Clark notes that many households are in positions of financial precariousness which means that protecting housing is especially important.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat speaks about student housing, saying that the University has not provided sufficient support for students in university accommodation and that the process to navigate university administration is overly complex, which disempowers students.

Moving on to the next motion, which is about committing to maintaining SRC mutual aid. Liam Donohoe thanks everyone involved in organising the program and says it’s “one of the best things the SRC’s done in a really long time”.

Felix Faber agrees that the mutual aid program is very important in alleviating the burden of COVID-19 on students. As an aside, Felix’s mic makes a horrifying electronic noise, to which James Newbold (NLS) replies “that’s how you pronounce the name of Grimes and Elon Musks child”. That’s one mystery solved!

Three motions left (thank god, my essay is waiting forlornly for me).

The next motion is ‘Support for domestic violence survivors during COVID-19’ which has been proposed by Women’s Officers Vivienne Guo and Ellie Wilson, along with the Women’s Collective. The motion emphasises the heightened danger of domestic violence during COVID-19 and encourages the SRC to contribute to domestic violence shelters.

Ellie says that today is the National Domestic Violence Remembrance Day, making the motion especially pertinent. She also emphasises that this is a student issue which can affect students who may have to move back to unsafe situations. She adds that the spike in domestic violence is inseparable from growing economic insecurity as multiple problems come together and worsen the risk of violence.

Vivienne says “we just can’t sweep this to the wayside while we’re dealing with COVID-19.. the crises are concurrent” and adds that marginalised groups will be affected the worst by domestic violence.

Lily Campbell echoes the relevance of economic stability in domestic violence, criticising the lack of funding directed towards women’s services which can support vulnerable women. She also explains that stigma can be particularly harmful in discouraging victims of violence to leave. Increasing access to safety by properly funding social services is the solution she highlights to these issues.

Kedar Maddali support this “really important motion”, pointing out that the social impacts of disasters often go ignored. They refer to a long-established pattern of domestic violence during times of crisis.

The next motion is another condemning the USU, but updated to mention the 40% cut in staff’s hours. Jack Mansell calls once again for Board Directors to release voting information on the decision. Lily Campbell complains that the USU is a corporation which is prioritising remaining “financially viable” above staff (it’s unclear why the USU no longer being financially viable would help staff). She sets up a trade-off between staff jobs and the solvency of the organisation, which as Liam Thomas then points out hardly protects staff rights in the long run.

We ask about this tradeoff and Lily argues that people like the USU Executive and Board Directors need to take a pay cut - this is not really a sufficient answers as these sources of income are nowhere near equal to the USU’s loss of revenue.

Swapnik Sanagavarapu responds, pointing out the contradiction between saying the USU is prioritising their solvency and that it doesn’t actually face solvency issues. He adds that we don’t know the financial status of the USU well enough to suggest they are not doing enough. He reinforces that the University must step in to bail out the USU which is the best outcome for USU workers.

Prudence concludes that the lesson to take away is that the lack of transparency has created this scenario:

There is a lot of contention between the left-wing factions in the chat, with NLS and Grassroots members arguing that SAlt’s logic only works in the abstract and doesn’t really protect workers.

We ask SAlt speakers:

(a) if you had to pick between the USU closing down and staff cuts what would you choose?

(b) board directors make around $4000 per year - how can you claim cutting this would help given the mastic scale of revenue loss?

Liam Donohoe argues that the USU becoming involvement would be a problematic outcome. He says, though, that he will be voting in support of the motion because the USU has not publicly called upon the University for help. On those grounds, he believes that the USU has not exhausted its options. Liam also criticises the “disrespectful” treatment of the SRC by the USU, complaining that CEO Alexis Roitman dismissed SRC mutual aid efforts.

Mikaela Pappou says she will vote for the motion because an increase in transparency is important but criticises other members of the council for ignoring that the USU going insolvent would hugely change the dynamic of student life on campus. She argues that the Left should try to improve the organisation by electing left-wing Board Directors.

Yasmine Johnson says that while some eligible staff are receiving JobKeeper, the USU has made people redundant or refused to renew their contracts. This is true, and concerning, but doesn’t answer our questions about SAlt’s rhetoric about solvency. Yasmine then argues that the cuts won’t save jobs.

While the motion passes, Angelina and Liam from Unity dissent.

The final motion opposes incarceration and is proposed by Ellie Wilson.

She speaks about how COVID-19 in prisons is especially deadly, arguing that the SRC must stand in solidarity with people within prisons.

Owen Marsden-Readford argues that around the world, prison riots are occurring which should be supported because they are simply attempting to be safe. Owen adds that prisons should be abolished broadly and people in prisons should be let out. James Ardouin seems to think prison abolition is a SAlt thought bubble, writing “Salt: Criminal Justice System Bad”. Read some Angela Davis, James.

9:39pm - The meeting ends. It was pretty much the opposite of a USU meeting: there was lots of public discussion of the USU.

Pulp EditorsMay 6, 2020