7 March 2012

A new ANU presidential election as Fleur Hawes gets the boot

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

55
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Haha that will teach her.

Tetranitrate11:00 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.)

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?

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”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

‘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.

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?

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?

poetix said :

theaccusedthugsrelativeorfriend said :

Chop71 said :

She would have had more fun drinking beer and failing university.

She knew how to enjoy herself. Used to order a cocktail called a “wet pussy” http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink4979.html

The scene is a casino in say, Monte Carlo, about 1965, with Sean Connery as Bond:

‘Good evening. Name’s Bond, James Bond. And you are Plenty O’Toole, I presume.’
Girl smiles. ‘No, James. Fleur Hawes.’
Bond; ‘We can discuss that later on. Drink?’
Girl: ‘Why not?’
Bond: ‘So that’ll be one vodka martini, shaken, not stirred, and one…?’
Girl: ‘Wet pussy.’
Bond: ‘I just remember I have to meet someone. Enjoy your raspberry liqueur, milk and Irish Cream.’ (Runs from casino with a sardonically raised eyebrow barely concealing a look of panic.)

You are an odd person with strange habits.

I like it.

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’.

Lolwut academic exclusion? It’s pretty difficult to get to that point. I think someone had their priorities wrong…student politicians are hilarious.

colourful sydney racing identity1:57 pm 09 Mar 12

c_c said :

Merle said :

c_c said :

Here’s the official ANUSA Timesheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao4D7QDn8Et5dHpxOWNUd0thSUMtTWhlT1B0dUU0S2c#gid=0

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

How accurate is that time sheet? Because there are days Hawes claims to have worked 21 hours, and Dallas Proctor reckons he worked 48 hours straight on 3-4 March.

Not sure and no longer able to check. The first part of the time sheet referred to the total for the week ending on a certain date while the rest was for individual days, so those larger figures were probably for weeks rather than days.

Since revealing the discrepancies last night in the time sheets, ANUSA has quickly locked out access to the timesheet. There’s a saying, “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” – obviously there is something.

What is your interest in all this?

Merle said :

c_c said :

Not sure and no longer able to check. The first part of the time sheet referred to the total for the week ending on a certain date while the rest was for individual days, so those larger figures were probably for weeks rather than days.

Yes, I understood that. Perhaps Proctor and Hawes (which sounds like a great name for a TV show) didn’t, because those figures were for individual days, which is why I specified 3rd/4th of March.

Whole thing looks dodgy, whether it’s covering up someone who was absent or was just lazy record keeping. Smart thing would have been to release a note explaining the discrepancy, or faking a 404 error for the file even 🙂 Just locking out access is a very obvious admission that something isn’t right and engenders about as much trust as Zed submitting a years worth of time sheets from memory.

c_c said :

Not sure and no longer able to check. The first part of the time sheet referred to the total for the week ending on a certain date while the rest was for individual days, so those larger figures were probably for weeks rather than days.

Yes, I understood that. Perhaps Proctor and Hawes (which sounds like a great name for a TV show) didn’t, because those figures were for individual days, which is why I specified 3rd/4th of March.

Thoroughly Smashed1:15 pm 09 Mar 12

c_c said :

There’s a saying, “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” – obviously there is something.

Many sayings are a load of nonsense.

Merle said :

c_c said :

Here’s the official ANUSA Timesheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao4D7QDn8Et5dHpxOWNUd0thSUMtTWhlT1B0dUU0S2c#gid=0

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

How accurate is that time sheet? Because there are days Hawes claims to have worked 21 hours, and Dallas Proctor reckons he worked 48 hours straight on 3-4 March.

Timesheets don’t prove that someone did any work. They just prove that they filled in a timesheet.

Ray Polglaze said :

Fleur Hawes says in the Woroni article that “at a lot of Universities, you must be a current student to stand for election; you do not have to be a student during your term, allowing the President to defer their studies whilst they focus on students”.

I think she has a point here. Maybe the problem isn’t with her but with the rules.

It’s perhaps relevant that Camila Vallejo, the Chilean student federation president who in 2011 emerged as one of the most respected figures in Chile and the world (see Time, Newsweek and the UK Guardian), was able to defer her studies to focus on her work as a student advocate.

Perhaps the ANU and the ANUSA need to take a look at their rules.

Perhaps, but while the rules are what they are, she needed to be complying with them rather than ignoring them.

This issue looks like developing into “another” timesheet saga.

c_c said :

Since revealing the discrepancies last night in the time sheets, ANUSA has quickly locked out access to the timesheet. There’s a saying, “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” – obviously there is something.

Maybe they just don’t want internet detectives trying to leverage them into a conspiracy theory?

I don’t have anything particularly interesting on my timesheet, but I wouldn’t put it on a public website because it’s nobody else’s damn business.

Merle said :

c_c said :

Here’s the official ANUSA Timesheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao4D7QDn8Et5dHpxOWNUd0thSUMtTWhlT1B0dUU0S2c#gid=0

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

How accurate is that time sheet? Because there are days Hawes claims to have worked 21 hours, and Dallas Proctor reckons he worked 48 hours straight on 3-4 March.

Not sure and no longer able to check. The first part of the time sheet referred to the total for the week ending on a certain date while the rest was for individual days, so those larger figures were probably for weeks rather than days.

Since revealing the discrepancies last night in the time sheets, ANUSA has quickly locked out access to the timesheet. There’s a saying, “if you’ve got nothing to hide…” – obviously there is something.

c_c said :

Here’s the official ANUSA Timesheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao4D7QDn8Et5dHpxOWNUd0thSUMtTWhlT1B0dUU0S2c#gid=0

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

How accurate is that time sheet? Because there are days Hawes claims to have worked 21 hours, and Dallas Proctor reckons he worked 48 hours straight on 3-4 March.

NickD said :

c_c said :

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

That she knew that she was probably going to need to resign, though she was holding off on doing so until she knew the final outcome of the appeal?

Not so much that, but JB makes reference in his original post to her colleagues not knowing about her problems until the Monday before she resigned.
If she was taking all this time off, putting extra burden on them, makes you wonder how that could happen? Did they not care or was it a case of too much confidence and being too friendly to ask?

Ray Polglaze said :

Fleur Hawes says in the Woroni article that “at a lot of Universities, you must be a current student to stand for election; you do not have to be a student during your term, allowing the President to defer their studies whilst they focus on students”.

I think she has a point here. Maybe the problem isn’t with her but with the rules.

It’s perhaps relevant that Camila Vallejo, the Chilean student federation president who in 2011 emerged as one of the most respected figures in Chile and the world (see Time, Newsweek and the UK Guardian), was able to defer her studies to focus on her work as a student advocate.

Perhaps the ANU and the ANUSA need to take a look at their rules.

Not convinced. University is not a training ground for future politicians. If she wants to be here, she needs to prove herself in the classroom. She is just making excuses for herself. She should be ashamed of herself.

c_c said :

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

That she knew that she was probably going to need to resign, though she was holding off on doing so until she knew the final outcome of the appeal? I presume that she wasn’t being paid for the hours she wasn’t working.

Here’s the official ANUSA Timesheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao4D7QDn8Et5dHpxOWNUd0thSUMtTWhlT1B0dUU0S2c#gid=0

It’s well worth checking out because it reveals something scandalous, Ms Hawes did not work any hours between 19th Jan and 7th Feb and had not been working since Feb 25 to the day she resigned on Mar 6, even though her colleagues were all logging hours.

I think people can draw their own conclusions from this.

p1 said :

Ray Polglaze said :

Perhaps the ANU and the ANUSA need to take a look at their rules.

I think if you can’t enrol in, attend classes for, and pass at least one unit (and I’m not talking about rocket surgery here, just whatever the easiest thing offered that semester is) then you probably shouldn’t be paid to run the student union. Sucks to be her, but I managed to fail the odd unit (let’s not be specific how many) over several years (with deferments, par time enrollments etc) and never actually got kicked out. Allowing complete deferment will only encourage the type of party hacks someone said she isn’t.

I will say that she always had time management issues, even well before entering politics. So frankly it wasn’t a good move for her. And the exclusion was a result of academic failures before she became President so it was a dim move to run frankly if those issues were not resolved yet. This is why I was saying months ago the wrong people run and the wrong people get elected. I think this proves it.

I entirely agree with you, it is perfectly possible to combine the role and still study, it just takes the right person. The last ANUSA President Leah Ginnivan passed her final year of her degree while balancing a very heavy ANUSA workload, as evidence in this document: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=anusa%20president%20time%20sheet&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Funione.anusa.com.au%2FCommon%2FFiler.ashx%3FFID%3D22&ei=y0dYT-nVIMieiQfJ6ayzDQ&usg=AFQjCNEtmD8j_DhZ3iV8hIE-RsgCeD3sHA&sig2=x-P4GboEULQJyHj2r06pNA

So it is doable, just need the right people who know their limits, know their strengths and have the right skills.

NoAddedMSG said :

I feel a bit sad for her – she has lost her job (ANUSA president gets paid), her uni career, and quite possibly her housing as well.

I don’t feel sorry for anyone in student politics. They’re self-serving narcissists who all share one goal.

Yours, a reformed student politician.

Ray Polglaze said :

Perhaps the ANU and the ANUSA need to take a look at their rules.

I think if you can’t enrol in, attend classes for, and pass at least one unit (and I’m not talking about rocket surgery here, just whatever the easiest thing offered that semester is) then you probably shouldn’t be paid to run the student union. Sucks to be her, but I managed to fail the odd unit (let’s not be specific how many) over several years (with deferments, par time enrollments etc) and never actually got kicked out. Allowing complete deferment will only encourage the type of party hacks someone said she isn’t.

theaccusedthugsrelativeorfriend said :

Chop71 said :

She would have had more fun drinking beer and failing university.

She knew how to enjoy herself. Used to order a cocktail called a “wet pussy” http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink4979.html

The scene is a casino in say, Monte Carlo, about 1965, with Sean Connery as Bond:

‘Good evening. Name’s Bond, James Bond. And you are Plenty O’Toole, I presume.’
Girl smiles. ‘No, James. Fleur Hawes.’
Bond; ‘We can discuss that later on. Drink?’
Girl: ‘Why not?’
Bond: ‘So that’ll be one vodka martini, shaken, not stirred, and one…?’
Girl: ‘Wet pussy.’
Bond: ‘I just remember I have to meet someone. Enjoy your raspberry liqueur, milk and Irish Cream.’ (Runs from casino with a sardonically raised eyebrow barely concealing a look of panic.)

Without passing judgment, for the appeal against exclusion to be happening now, she must have stuffied up in Semester 2 2011 (when she was President) and also at some other point earlier on.

As others have stated, a little less focus on university politics, and a little more focus on study, might have avoided this situation?

BallOfMonkey8:38 am 08 Mar 12

why not? she paid and failed, like many students before her.
Just take a year or two off, get a job and earn some money and then come back and STUDY

+1
Too much emphasis is placed on having to complete Uni immediately. If she takes this as a learning experience she’ll be much better for it and can come back again and have another go. Not to say that it won’t be hard for her in the short term, but it’s not the end of the world.

c_c said :

Diggety said :

This is probably the best thing that could happen to Fleur Hawes (and possibly us).

Student politics/activism spawns terrible human beings, and in some cases that is foisted upon us later by their more aspirational political careers.

Case in point: the monkies throwing turd at each other in parliament house at the moment.

Some of these comments are messed up. Fleur’s intentions were in the right place, she worked hard. She wasn’t a hack just looking to pad a resume, she’s genuine. But she was also naive, immature and wasn’t great at organisation. And without these, even the most well intentioned and intelligent can be brought down.

I think people should show some regard for her feelings and take it easy.

I don’t know how academic exclusions work but I suspect it makes it very difficult to enrol at another University, or have existing course credits recognised. Meaning she may be without an academic future, yet have the bulk of a degree sitting on HECS. And she sure as hell doesn’t deserve that.

why not? she paid and failed, like many students before her.
Just take a year or two off, get a job and earn some money and then come back and STUDY

Well, they probably saved her 100k in HECS fees by putting an end to it and kicking her out.

I note in expectation of someone pointing out my own harsh comments about ANUSA and student society members including Fleur, that those comments were directed at their professional capacity and performance as individuals elected to a formal office. None of the comments went so far as to wish some personal ill on an individual, nor that such an ill would be deserved.

c_c said :

Diggety said :

This is probably the best thing that could happen to Fleur Hawes (and possibly us).

Student politics/activism spawns terrible human beings, and in some cases that is foisted upon us later by their more aspirational political careers.

Case in point: the monkies throwing turd at each other in parliament house at the moment.

Some of these comments are messed up. Fleur’s intentions were in the right place, she worked hard. She wasn’t a hack just looking to pad a resume, she’s genuine. But she was also naive, immature and wasn’t great at organisation. And without these, even the most well intentioned and intelligent can be brought down.

I think people should show some regard for her feelings and take it easy.

I don’t know how academic exclusions work but I suspect it makes it very difficult to enrol at another University, or have existing course credits recognised. Meaning she may be without an academic future, yet have the bulk of a degree sitting on HECS. And she sure as hell doesn’t deserve that.

1. Exclusion won’t block her from other universities.

2. My comment was not criticizing Fleur, rather the game she was playing. Many are well intentioned from the start, but student politics do not accommodate good intentions (or prioritize student welfare for that matter).

3. “I think people should show some regard for her feelings and take it easy.” – c_c

Read your own comments/articles, then try telling everyone else that.

4. Fleur will be fine.

Ray Polglaze11:48 pm 07 Mar 12

Fleur Hawes says in the Woroni article that “at a lot of Universities, you must be a current student to stand for election; you do not have to be a student during your term, allowing the President to defer their studies whilst they focus on students”.

I think she has a point here. Maybe the problem isn’t with her but with the rules.

It’s perhaps relevant that Camila Vallejo, the Chilean student federation president who in 2011 emerged as one of the most respected figures in Chile and the world (see Time, Newsweek and the UK Guardian), was able to defer her studies to focus on her work as a student advocate.

Perhaps the ANU and the ANUSA need to take a look at their rules.

c_c said :

Some of these comments are messed up. Fleur’s intentions were in the right place, she worked hard. She wasn’t a hack just looking to pad a resume, she’s genuine. But she was also naive, immature and wasn’t great at organisation. And without these, even the most well intentioned and intelligent can be brought down.

I think people should show some regard for her feelings and take it easy.

I don’t know how academic exclusions work but I suspect it makes it very difficult to enrol at another University, or have existing course credits recognised. Meaning she may be without an academic future, yet have the bulk of a degree sitting on HECS. And she sure as hell doesn’t deserve that.

Plainly, unless there has been some gigantic conspiracy or miscarriage of justice, she does deserve that.

The point of going to university is to be educated through enrolling in classes, attending the classes, taking exams etc. It’s pretty conventional and well understood stuff, and all else (drugs, sex, booze, politics etc) while a lot of fun, is secondary. So Fleur worked hard. it appears though, that she worked hard at being a student politician, but not at her classes. Being a student politician seems like huge fun, but it won’t get you credit for courses. Maybe she should’ve focussed her energies in more profitable directions.

She’s an adult. She made her choices about how to spend her time and energy, presumably freely and without coercion. Now she’s banged up against a bit of cold hard reality. Welcome to the world of grownups Fleur.

Diggety said :

This is probably the best thing that could happen to Fleur Hawes (and possibly us).

Student politics/activism spawns terrible human beings, and in some cases that is foisted upon us later by their more aspirational political careers.

Case in point: the monkies throwing turd at each other in parliament house at the moment.

Some of these comments are messed up. Fleur’s intentions were in the right place, she worked hard. She wasn’t a hack just looking to pad a resume, she’s genuine. But she was also naive, immature and wasn’t great at organisation. And without these, even the most well intentioned and intelligent can be brought down.

I think people should show some regard for her feelings and take it easy.

I don’t know how academic exclusions work but I suspect it makes it very difficult to enrol at another University, or have existing course credits recognised. Meaning she may be without an academic future, yet have the bulk of a degree sitting on HECS. And she sure as hell doesn’t deserve that.

I’m not so sure about her political career being cut short.

IIRC, Paul Howes used to hang around Sydney Uni during his yoof. He didn’t actually enrol or attend classes…he just hung around and agitated for stuff, attended demonstrations, annoyed the citizens etc etc. And now he and a couple of his mates pretty much run the ALP from behind the scenes without being elected by the people, appearing in parliament or anything like that.

I wish he truly ruly was an actual faceless man. If you see his face…

This is probably the best thing that could happen to Fleur Hawes (and possibly us).

Student politics/activism spawns terrible human beings, and in some cases that is foisted upon us later by their more aspirational political careers.

Case in point: the monkies throwing turd at each other in parliament house at the moment.

NoAddedMSG said :

I feel a bit sad for her – she has lost her job (ANUSA president gets paid), her uni career, and quite possibly her housing as well.

Yet if only she had gained some prioritisation skills, she’d likely not be in this situation.

NoAddedMSG said :

I feel a bit sad for her – she has lost her job (ANUSA president gets paid), her uni career, and quite possibly her housing as well.

Sad but exclusion only happens after repeated formal warnings in writing and meeting with staff. So many chances to stop it from reaching this.

I feel a bit sad for her – she has lost her job (ANUSA president gets paid), her uni career, and quite possibly her housing as well.

Chop71 said :

She would have had more fun drinking beer and failing university.

People called Fleur never drink beer.

theaccusedthugsrelativeorfriend5:47 pm 07 Mar 12

Chop71 said :

She would have had more fun drinking beer and failing university.

She knew how to enjoy herself. Used to order a cocktail called a “wet pussy” http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink4979.html

we couldnt figure how that worked been a feminist

She would have had more fun drinking beer and failing university.

Fail. Literally…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.