Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

A new ANU presidential election as Fleur Hawes gets the boot

By johnboy - 7 March 2012 55

Woroni bringsa new wrinkle to the storied saga of the ANU Student Association presidency as Fleur Hawes has had to resign following losing her appeal against academic exclusion, a proceeding she’d neglected to mention to her colleagues.

As per the ANUSA constitution, Vice-President Alice McAvoy is currently acting President whilst Education Officer Tom Barrington-Smith is acting Vice-President. The General Secretary, Tara Mulholland said that nominations would open on Thursday with elections likely to be held on Monday 19th – Wednesday 21st March.

Another promising political career cut short.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
55 Responses to
A new ANU presidential election as Fleur Hawes gets the boot
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Realpolitik 10:50 pm 11 Sep 12

Haha that will teach her.

Tetranitrate 11:00 am 17 Mar 12

c_c said :

QuietPlease said :

c_c im fairly certain their meetings are open to members and if you have genuine concerns you should raise them there. So either you’re not a member…in which case why do you care? or you are a member and would prefer to publish rumour and speculation on here instead of getting involved or at the very least asking them for comment?

*Mysterious ability for one of the tickets last year to bus in campaigners from Sydney, raising questions about funding and political transparency.

This has been going for ever and ever.
I don’t know or care which ticket/group corresponds to which faction at ANU, since I haven’t been there for a year or two, but most/all of the labor factions at NUS do this if they’re able too.

(It was particularly galling that they even campaigned for one of the woroni tickets in 2008 – when woroni is/was meant to be non partisan. The total separation of woroni from ANUSA actually came about as a direct result of the “political” interference in the woroni election that year.)

Mr Evil 9:32 am 17 Mar 12

QuietPlease said :

c_c said :

QuietPlease said :

c_c im fairly certain their meetings are open to members and if you have genuine concerns you should raise them there. So either you’re not a member…in which case why do you care? or you are a member and would prefer to publish rumour and speculation on here instead of getting involved or at the very least asking them for comment?

This is a public forum that they are most welcome to reply on, a right of reply many organisations and public figures in Canberra have chosen to exercise when they have become the topic of discussion.

The issue raised makes use only of public knowledge and details from public records and is far from out of the ordinary for this site: http://the-riotact.com/zeds-timesheet-troubles-worsen/65570

I note that in the past 18 months or so, the following has occurred:

*ANUSA Elections cancelled because constitution didn’t specify term limits and was therefore problematic under ACT law. (Which was also a nice stuff up by the University lawyers who ticked off on it admittedly).

*President of Chinese society accused of corruption, possibility of formal investigation.

*Large scale false email campaign sent out in an attempt to slander PARSA President and possibly link them to corrupt activities.

*Woroni closed down because of dispute between ANUSA Executive and editors prior to gaining independent incorporation.

*ANUSA President 2010 censured.

*ANUSA President 2012 forced to resign due to academic exclusion.

*Mysterious ability for one of the tickets last year to bus in campaigners from Sydney, raising questions about funding and political transparency.

All undertaken on the students’ dime. I think more transparency, not less is in order.

Student Services and Amenities fee was introduced this year. None of what you mentioned was on “the students dime” rather through an agreement with the university which derives the majority of its funding from the government. Also I don’t see how an email campaign counts as the actions of office holders. The election provisions were ticked off by more than one set of lawyers including well known private firms. This issue was addressed several times at a series of meetings and during investigations into the whole affair, and were made very public and placed on the record.

There is no mention of the Chinese Society on the ANUSA list of affiliated clubs, meaning they have been disaffiliated and do not receive any support or funding, presumably following what you mentioned. The “busing” in of support is also not mysterious. Young Labor (and Liberal) at campuses all over Australia go to each others campuses to support one another. Unfair, yes. But not mysterious, and certainly not “on the student dime”.

The censuring would also indicate a transparent organisation, not one where unfavourable behaviour is locked behind closed doors.

I’d suggest you stop wasting time trying to be “one good student in a dirty system”, and either seek positive change through running for office or at least vote at an OGM.
“He who slings mud, generally loses ground”

Okay, so because it’s not student money being wasted on all these various Student Association fiascos – but general taxpayers’ money instead – then it’s okay? Nice attitude – can’t wait until you go out into the real world!

Personally, I’d just like for someone in the Student Association to grow a pair and ask why it is okay for prices charged in the refectory to be dictated by one person, so that there is no competition in pricing for things such as a bottle or can of softdrink between businesses?

QuietPlease 12:21 am 17 Mar 12

c_c said :

QuietPlease said :

c_c im fairly certain their meetings are open to members and if you have genuine concerns you should raise them there. So either you’re not a member…in which case why do you care? or you are a member and would prefer to publish rumour and speculation on here instead of getting involved or at the very least asking them for comment?

This is a public forum that they are most welcome to reply on, a right of reply many organisations and public figures in Canberra have chosen to exercise when they have become the topic of discussion.

The issue raised makes use only of public knowledge and details from public records and is far from out of the ordinary for this site: http://the-riotact.com/zeds-timesheet-troubles-worsen/65570

I note that in the past 18 months or so, the following has occurred:

*ANUSA Elections cancelled because constitution didn’t specify term limits and was therefore problematic under ACT law. (Which was also a nice stuff up by the University lawyers who ticked off on it admittedly).

*President of Chinese society accused of corruption, possibility of formal investigation.

*Large scale false email campaign sent out in an attempt to slander PARSA President and possibly link them to corrupt activities.

*Woroni closed down because of dispute between ANUSA Executive and editors prior to gaining independent incorporation.

*ANUSA President 2010 censured.

*ANUSA President 2012 forced to resign due to academic exclusion.

*Mysterious ability for one of the tickets last year to bus in campaigners from Sydney, raising questions about funding and political transparency.

All undertaken on the students’ dime. I think more transparency, not less is in order.

Student Services and Amenities fee was introduced this year. None of what you mentioned was on “the students dime” rather through an agreement with the university which derives the majority of its funding from the government. Also I don’t see how an email campaign counts as the actions of office holders. The election provisions were ticked off by more than one set of lawyers including well known private firms. This issue was addressed several times at a series of meetings and during investigations into the whole affair, and were made very public and placed on the record.

There is no mention of the Chinese Society on the ANUSA list of affiliated clubs, meaning they have been disaffiliated and do not receive any support or funding, presumably following what you mentioned. The “busing” in of support is also not mysterious. Young Labor (and Liberal) at campuses all over Australia go to each others campuses to support one another. Unfair, yes. But not mysterious, and certainly not “on the student dime”.

The censuring would also indicate a transparent organisation, not one where unfavourable behaviour is locked behind closed doors.

I’d suggest you stop wasting time trying to be “one good student in a dirty system”, and either seek positive change through running for office or at least vote at an OGM.
“He who slings mud, generally loses ground”

poetix 10:12 am 15 Mar 12

Merle said :

The new president is going to be Dallas Proctor…

I’m so glad the proud tradition of vaguely suggestive names will be continued.

Merle 8:38 am 15 Mar 12

The new president is going to be Dallas Proctor, the man who either claimed to work 48 hours straight as Treasurer or doesn’t understand how to fill out a time sheet. Neither option is very encouraging.

c_c 2:11 pm 13 Mar 12

QuietPlease said :

c_c im fairly certain their meetings are open to members and if you have genuine concerns you should raise them there. So either you’re not a member…in which case why do you care? or you are a member and would prefer to publish rumour and speculation on here instead of getting involved or at the very least asking them for comment?

This is a public forum that they are most welcome to reply on, a right of reply many organisations and public figures in Canberra have chosen to exercise when they have become the topic of discussion.

The issue raised makes use only of public knowledge and details from public records and is far from out of the ordinary for this site: http://the-riotact.com/zeds-timesheet-troubles-worsen/65570

I note that in the past 18 months or so, the following has occurred:

*ANUSA Elections cancelled because constitution didn’t specify term limits and was therefore problematic under ACT law. (Which was also a nice stuff up by the University lawyers who ticked off on it admittedly).

*President of Chinese society accused of corruption, possibility of formal investigation.

*Large scale false email campaign sent out in an attempt to slander PARSA President and possibly link them to corrupt activities.

*Woroni closed down because of dispute between ANUSA Executive and editors prior to gaining independent incorporation.

*ANUSA President 2010 censured.

*ANUSA President 2012 forced to resign due to academic exclusion.

*Mysterious ability for one of the tickets last year to bus in campaigners from Sydney, raising questions about funding and political transparency.

All undertaken on the students’ dime. I think more transparency, not less is in order.

QuietPlease 12:26 pm 13 Mar 12

c_c im fairly certain their meetings are open to members and if you have genuine concerns you should raise them there. So either you’re not a member…in which case why do you care? or you are a member and would prefer to publish rumour and speculation on here instead of getting involved or at the very least asking them for comment?

c_c 3:35 pm 10 Mar 12

breakbrake said :

If you were honest, you would have posted both the kind and critical comments in the same place…

Absolute simpleton.

It’s about context, not just randomly bringing up facts.

JB’s original post said: “…a proceeding she’d neglected to mention to her colleagues.”

And subsequent comments from Rioters brought up the issue of whether ANUSA President should be allowed to defer study given demands on their time, which prompted an examination of the time-sheets.

That examination revealed discrepancies that are of direct relevance to the above quote in JB’s original post, itself based on an observation made in Woroni.

So the comments that you classify as critical are responding to something specifically here where they have relevance. It would make no sense to randomly bring it up elsewhere where the context was one of sympathy and well wishing to someone future academic pursuits.

c_c 3:09 pm 10 Mar 12

breakbrake said :

‘they’re writing’ indeed. While I agree they should be critically reviewed and held to account as our student fees fund both bodies, it is a little hard to swallow that you post one sort of ‘sympathetic’ message on Facebook under your real name and then sink your claws in over here where you can’t be identified.

It seems quite clear your focused on attacking the messenger than dealing with the issue raised so you have no credibility.

It’s a wonderful hack tactic, like Abbott saying Wayne Swan didn’t deserve the award he received because the organisation that gave it had no credibility. Doesn’t change the facts.

breakbrake 2:52 pm 10 Mar 12

c_c said :

breakbrake said :

Saying things that are both critical and kind doesn’t make someone two faced or dishonest, on the contrary it means they see something from more than one angle and are honest enough to call it like it is.

If you were honest, you would have posted both the kind and critical comments in the same place, both attributed to you and your real name. Two-faced is exactly what you are.

c_c 1:47 pm 10 Mar 12

breakbrake said :

‘they’re writing’ indeed. While I agree they should be critically reviewed and held to account as our student fees fund both bodies, it is a little hard to swallow that you post one sort of ‘sympathetic’ message on Facebook under your real name and then sink your claws in over here where you can’t be identified.

That’s moronic.

What you’re suggesting is that you can’t be nice to and sympathetic about someone and be critical at the same time. Basically “yes man” mentality.

And that’s funny because it goes directly to why I brought up the time sheets. Not to suggest any impropriety (because I’m confident there wouldn’t be) but that despite claiming the resignation came as a shock, it looks like there were warning signs earlier. And in that case how could they have not known of the problems until Monday? That the time sheets have been taken down would indicate some embarrassment and an admission that all was not well.

It’s exactly the mentality that you’re suggesting that likely led to this outcome in fact – that you can’t be nice and yet honest/critical at the same time.

Academic exclusion comes after repeated warnings and counselling. Surely there must have been people being honest and saying perhaps it wasn’t a wise idea to run last year, or that there was a big risk in not focussing on studies more?

Instead I’m willing to bet people were focused more on being friendly and that came at the cost of honesty and casting a critical eye over whether someone was suitable for the job. And that goes to what i was saying during the last ANUSA elections. Winning based on popularity alone is a bad criteria. It didn’t work for K Rudd and it hasn’t worked in this case. People need to look deeper.

Saying things that are both critical and kind doesn’t make someone two faced or dishonest, on the contrary it means they see something from more than one angle and are honest enough to call it like it is.

breakbrake 11:44 am 10 Mar 12

‘they’re writing’ indeed. While I agree they should be critically reviewed and held to account as our student fees fund both bodies, it is a little hard to swallow that you post one sort of ‘sympathetic’ message on Facebook under your real name and then sink your claws in over here where you can’t be identified.

dpm 10:54 am 10 Mar 12

c_c said :

Also your comments about this year’s Woroni are well out of left field, but given you couldn’t even comprehend this thread, perhaps they’re writing is a bit beyond you?

God I hate pointing out spelling/grammar issues, but if you’RE going to bag other people, at least be error-free when you do so?

c_c 2:06 am 10 Mar 12

breakbrake said :

c_c likes to pry and criticise – whether it’s Woroni (admittedly pretty darn shoddy this year) or ANUSA. He is constantly looking into other people’s ‘failings’.

You say “people’s failings” but in fact they are organisations (or delegates thereof) that are funded using student funds. And as of this year funded with compulsory payments from students of $230 a year. They have to be held accountable and be responsive.

If you had an ounce of comprehension ability, you would note that unlike many on this thread, I have highlighted how sad this outcome is and to an extent even, the costs of it are undeserved.

Issues relating to time-sheets and prior to that the complaints about the new Lena Karmel Lodge are of relevance to the professional conduct of and use of student funds by ANUSA and it’s officers as well as the representations they make on behalf of students. I see no fault in critiquing this.

Also your comments about this year’s Woroni are well out of left field, but given you couldn’t even comprehend this thread, perhaps they’re writing is a bit beyond you?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site