The Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) intends to put its ongoing membership of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) in the hands of its members.

In 2010 OUSA paid $86,169 in membership fees to NZUSA. The fees go towards national representation of students, advocacy of tertiary education issues and lobbying in Parliament. In the revised 2011 OUSA Budget, the NZUSA budget line has been increased to $90,939.

In the first draft of next year’s budget, the NZUSA budget line had been reduced to $0, clearly indicating OUSA’s intentions towards NZUSA. However, at the budget-setting meeting, OUSA voted to increase the line 5.5 percent in 2011 to allow for inflation, and an increase in OUSA members. It was also decided that the question of OUSA’s membership of NZUSA would be put to a student referendum.

The OUSA exec was evenly split on the issue. Humanities Rep Walker MacMurdo advocated putting the decision to the students.

Last year’s Finance and Services Officer Mike Bridges, who was sitting in on the meeting, asserted that this was a massive and complex decision which the exec was best informed to make.

It was decided that the exec should inform the students about the issue, and ask them to weigh in.

OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan could not comment on the decision, stating that she was not present at the meeting. It is unclear when the referendum will be held.

The University of Canterbury Students’ Association (UCSA) has pulled out of NZUSA on the grounds of “contractual breaches”. NZUSA accepted UCSA’s decision as valid.

No one on the OUSA exec has gone on the record to give Critic a clear indication as to why it should no longer be a part of NZUSA. There is a feeling that for the same amount of money OUSA could more effectively lobby the government itself.

NZUSA currently requires 12 months’ notice prior to universities withdrawing their membership.

OUSA is attempting to change the constitution to require only three months notice. OUSA is confident that the notice period would not change their budget, as NZUSA tends not to follow up payments during the year’s notice.

A referendum last week looks set to result in a significant change to the governing structure of the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA). Student General Meetings (SGMs) will also now be held online.

When Critic went to print last week the results were still provisional, due to then-unresolved complaints regarding possible breaches of constitutional procedure, however, there was a clear signal for change from those who voted.

1399 people voted on the motion to reduce the size of the exec, with 72 per cent voting for the change, 22 per cent against and five percent abstaining. 1391 people voted on the motion to “supersize your say” and move SGMs online, with 87 per cent for online SGMs, ten per cent against, and only two per cent abstaining.

Tension was rife in the OUSA office as the exec gathered late Thursday afternoon to hear the results. As the results were read, OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan looked ecstatic. “I’m happy all the work we have put in won’t go to waste.”

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the outcome. There have been formal complaints lodged regarding how the election was conducted, including the wording of the referendum question, the overall advertisement of the referendum, and the impartiality of OUSA during the referendum period. One formal complaint that was leaked to Critic stated that President Harriet Geoghegan did not remain impartial, and pushed her stance on her personal Facebook page.

The complaint also alleges that exec members on polling booths encouraged students to vote “yes” on the referendum. Another major complaint concerns the period of time students were warned of the referendum, which arguably did not comply with the requisite ten working days.

Some people have claimed that the whole process was incredibly rushed.

Despite the uproar, Geoghegan contends that the election was unbiased. “We talked to lawyers, and the claims about bias were unfounded,” she says.

Blames Salient

Otago University, the Dunedin City Council and the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) have come under tough scrutiny after Otago student magazine Critic revealed they collectively spent $40,000 on a four-and-a-half-page report on student drinking.

It appears that no concrete guidelines, expectations or clear terms of reference were given at the start of the trip.

Following a damning report in the Herald on Sunday last week, all parties are in damage control, maintaining that their contributions to the project were worthwhile.

The University and the Dundedin City Council spent $20,000 and $17,000 respectively. OUSA contributed a further $3000 from its professional development line.

A spokeswoman for the Vice-Chancellor’s office said that the ongoing contribution of OUSA staffer Vanessa Reddy, who used the money for a year-long tour of American universities, will be more significant than simply a written report. An Alcohol Issues Task Force has already been established based on the report’s findings.

Speaking to the Herald, Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin seemed unaware of the funding input of the Dunedin City Council. “The… huh… I can’t recall the details of the funding, that was not something that I personally had anything…”

Chin explained to the Herald, “I’m not aware of the full details of… Clearly by if it was paid by us, I accept it was paid. In terms of the management of that, which budgets, that’s not something that I recall that I actually had anything to do with.”

OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan maintains that despite media criticism that the report was insufficient given the money put into it, she would prefer an easily “digestable” report than a “waffly 40-page report”.

Geoghegan does not mince words when discussing the Herald article.

“I am really disappointed that the journalist misquoted and got facts wrong,” she says. “I explained [it all] to him but still he made it look as though we sent her off and spent $40k—seemed to be a real jab, and wasn’t surprising to find out he used to work for Salient.”

Otago still has Capping Week… Vic doesn’t

Enrolments at Otago are increasing beyond sustainable levels, forcing the University Council to take measures to limit them.

At Otago, enrolments for semester two are to be capped, with further caps for next year in the works.

The caps were part of a recommendation from the Senate that was passed by the University Council last week.

The caps are a result of the university’s enrolment growth, which is running at 4.4 per cent more equivalent full-time students than there were at the same point last year.

The caps will apply only to open entry undergraduate and sub-degree programsmes.

It is not clear how many prospective students will be affected by this, but loose estimates are around 100–200.

Vice Chancellor Professor Skegg says that up until now, the university has had a liberal policy, with the residential colleges providing an effective cap. Over the past years, there has been a steady increase in enrolments, which greatly accelerated over the last two years in particular.

Skegg says that the increase puts a “clear pressure on resources”.

The ratio between academic staff and students is deteriorating, and there are constraints on accommodation and university facilities.

The proposed cap involves a priority system for allotting available places. First priority goes to those who are already enrolled.

Second priority is to those who had registered prior to 28 April.

Third priority goes to those who “can establish they were actively advised … in a way that gave clear expectation of admission”.

Fourth priority is subject to availability, with admission on the basis of academic merit first and foremost.

Affirmative action in respect of Maori and Pasifika students, and those who have “exceptional circumstances”, will also be considered.

It will be possible to review and appeal the decisions “in accordance with normal university procedures”.

Both student representatives sitting on the University Council, OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan and exec-appointed Victoria Nicholson, voted for capping enrolments.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to, but if we don’t we are at risk of having more students that we can afford to in 2010, which stretches resources,” Geoghegan says.

“I think the way the university has gone about it is fair and they’re simultaneously trying to get more money from the government.

“If we don’t do this current students will be disadvantaged and fees will rise.”

Relations down south are on the mend

The OUSA exec has voted to drop their appeal against the 2009 High Court judgment which ruled that the University Code of Conduct (CoC) applies outside of the university.

The exec’s decision to drop the appeal comes after much discussion with the University Council, which has held out promises of a more convivial relationship between OUSA and the university.

OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan says the appeal was never a definite decision. “We were given a 30-day window to lodge an appeal, and the executive resolved that it’s better to lodge it and then look into it later and then withdraw it if we don’t want to appeal.”

Although Geoghegan now thinks that having a CoC is a good idea overall, she still has her reservations. “As much as I was happy with the High Court judgement in terms of the fact it gave some legal clarification which we didn’t have before, it’s a bit disappointing that it’s still too open, and that it’s a case-by-case thing.” According to the judgement, the CoC applies only if the incident has a sufficient nexus to the university, and would bring the university’s reputation into disrepute. Geoghegan says that this definition is still not a clear precedent. “The difficult thing is that it’s defined by what brings the university’s reputation into disrepute, and then it becomes defined by if things blow up in the media.”

In addition, Geoghegan is concerned about the lack of student representation on the appeals board. “The main thing we are concerned with is that students are excluded from the appeals board.” The lack of student representation was one of the main reasons why OUSA took the university to court in the first place.

However, Geoghegan says there are two major benefits to dropping the appeal.

Firstly, the relationship between OUSA and the University has been damaged by the court proceedings, something that the two parties can now seek to rectify. In the light of recent political developments, Geoghegan says “We need to start working with the university to make sure we’re getting the best outcomes for the students. It’s a total disservice to the students if we’re still stuck on all this stuff with the Code of Conduct.”

Secondly, Geoghegan believes there are other ways to achieve student representation on the appeals board outside of court, such as through negotiation.

The university’s main reason for refusing to allow a student representative on the appeals board was due to conflict of interest. The alleged conflict of interest is due to a motion that was passed in 2008, which stated “that OUSA opposes the Code of Conduct”. Therefore, Geoghegan says, the next step is educating students and getting them to overturn the motion so that it reflects the reality that the code applies, and so that students can be represented on the board. “It’s not about bowing down to the university and rescinding the motion totally, it’s about getting something that reflects that we want to work with the university to get the best outcomes for the students and to be fair.”