According to C20.1, Union Council must meet once a month from February to November. Why then was the first meeting of the 101st Union Council in April? Why were there no meetings in February and March?
Why were there no meetings May, June, July?
– Laurence McLean
A good article for in The Weekend Australian. No show in the Courier Mail, perhaps because it’s Brisbane-based and wants to upkeep the Brissy rep. Maybe they decided it ‘wasn’t their thing’? Whatever reason behind it, I wasted a good half hour taking a photo for them to no benefit to my cause. Nah well.
Another article from the University of Queensland, but this one is a bombshell. Let’s hope we see some action!
We take very seriously all complaints and concerns and have initiated steps to gain further clarity on the governance and processes within the UQ Union.
– Professor Mike McManus, you are my hero.
– represent the students of the University in matters which may concern them:
– maintain communication between the students and other sections of the University community, and
– provide a range of services to the student body.
There is clear evidence now that on the 10th of August, 2012, the UQ Union held an ‘emergency’ meeting in which part of section 105 of their electoral regulations was repealed. This section protected the names of political parties for 10 years – including names such as the former main opposition party ‘Pulse’. [I note that the regulations and constitution for the Union only became available on their website late yesterday afternoon.] After this protection was repealed, the name ‘Pulse’ was taken by a group of students who are closely associated with the current incumbent party ‘Fresh’. For instance, Mr Colin Finke’s (the current UQU ‘Fresh’ President) brother, Mr Kelvin Finke, is registered on the ‘Pulse’ ticket as running for the administrative committee (http://i50.tinypic.com/vxegk.jpg). Further, the UQ Skeptics have shown the close relations on Facebook between Colin Finke and Rohan Watt (the Fresh Presidential candidate for this year): http://i50.tinypic.com/110isy8.jpg.
Notably, almost all of the members of the current ‘Pulse’ (fake) ticket attend either with Cromwell College (with Mr Finke) or St John’s College (with Mr Watt). Further, in an MX article earlier in the week (http://i48.tinypic.com/nl5z83.jpg) Mr Finke stated that he had never heard of one of the other ‘Pulse’ candidates, Mr Zac Draheim, despite Mr Draheim also attending Cromwell College and despite them both being Facebook friends and there being photos of the two together (available on Facebook). Mr Finke has refused to answer questions related to his involvement with the Pulse ticket, as reported by Crikey (http://tinyurl.com/ccc249m).
One student, who was put down on the ticket as ‘Pulse’ Treasurer – Tristan Black of St John’s College – has said that he was tricked into signing up by a Fresh member. You can see a screenshot of his statement on Facebook here: http://i48.tinypic.com/24y91ma.jpg . It is quite clear that Pulse this year is a fake ticket created by students associated with Fresh, after they removed the electoral regulation protection of the name. This is supported by the fact that the people who are on this ticket have not come out and campaigned in the election at all.
‘Fresh’ and the UQ Union are now posting a lot of spin on social media about the decision of the Electoral Tribunal (established under the UQU Constitution) on the evening of Thursday the 23rd of August which held that Fresh had not acted in breach of the regulations. This is 100% true in a legalistic sense. However, contrary to how Fresh and the UQU are portraying the ruling, this does not clear them of wrongdoing. It does not address any of the concerns which I outlined above. The Tribunal found that Fresh had not breached the electoral regulations – but that is because they set the electoral regulations to suit themselves. This does not mean that there will be a free and fair election.
There are also serious concerns about the transparency of the review process. Currently there is no publicly accessible information as to who is on the Electoral Tribunal or how to contact them. There is no information about how one can make a complaint. And there are no details posted about when and where any hearings are held. Further, in relation to the Returning Officer for elections (currently a gym owner from Caboolture), they can be appointed with the approval of only a few of the inner cadre of party members. They are not truly independent, as they should be – given they oversee the conduct of elections.
There are also a lot of false information flyers that have been strewn around the university. One claims to be from a 5th year student who is independent from any of the parties and merely wishes to inform students that the new Pulse ticket (despite the evidence I outlined above) is really just a factional split. The source of these flyers is not identified. There is a real concern that this – and other campaigning activities of the Union – are paid for out of university money. There are currently no publicly available audits of the Union or information as to what it’s money is being spent on. The Union’s current status as an unincorporated body means they are not subject to the same strict accounting measures.
– Rebecca commenting on my ‘How Far Can FRESHs Corruption Go?‘ article.
As far as they want it to.
Here’s an email I just received from the Returning Officer, stating how distribution of unapproved publicity material will be prohibited, as one can imagine. Will FRESH disallow any Democracy 4 UQU flyers whatsoever? We will see. This is yet another rule that can be bent to suit the incumbents in a corrupt system.
For me, it’s because of the nature of the changes to the Regulations. I mean, even if the real PULSE did know about these changes as they happened, which they didn’t, they really do set the thing up. You can’t tell me these changes are honest.
– Izzy Manfield
I think D4UQU should be believed because FRESH have had a history of corruption, and that Democracy 4 UQU’s voices are more diverse and not rooted in a singular ideology or have ties to a singular organisation or political party. Therefore, it can be inferred that their views are (at least in part, when compared to the incumbents) more objective and inclusive of other biases and beliefs. This makes Democracy 4 UQU’s anger more legitimate, and easier to justify.
– Otis Platt
FRESH has a history of not being very transparent (records of meetings, funds, policies etc) and I find it hard to believe that the names of existing tickets were taken for any other reason than to put the other teams at an unfair disadvantage. As said above, D4UQU has received a huge amount of support in the past week from a diverse range of people. They just launched a poll to restore democracy for UQ elections and in less than an hour has already received over 185 signatures. It proves there’s a strong support for their cause and this should be taken seriously.
– Emily Bahr