Who are the candidates?
Jordyn Gibson: ‘Go the Distance with ANUSA’. Currently Clubs Secretary
Ben Yates: ‘Proud! of our ANUSA’. Currently General Representative at ANUSA
Dominic HT: Independent.
Meghan Malone: ‘Brighter Together’
Dhruv Phutula ‘A New Way Forward for ANUSA’
On staying accountable
Malone contends that accountability is crucial for the role, and believes that her being a clear communicator will avoid issues arising as they have in the past due to misunderstandings.
Harvey-Taylor was heavily involved in sharing reports by social media. He takes issue with the secrecy surrounding minutes, and seeks to encourage student engagement in ANUSA and will publish mid-year student reports.
Yates has seen repeated instances of failed communication. He would have a Governance committee enable review of the discretionary decisions of the Gen Sec, enabling open scrutiny.
Gibson publishes reports and intends to continue doing this at every election/meeting, as well as making summaries of executive meetings. She promotes accountability and discretionary power, and wishes to continue the policies registry whilst utilising the ANUSA WeChat page to facilitate better communication.
Phutula argues for the importance of remaining transparent, a principle which applies to the individual as well as the organisation as a whole. He affirms the importance of ensuring ongoing peace between students and faculty.
On managing meetings
Harvey-Taylor seeks to make decision-making public and has sent emails on the topic in the past. He challenges the present interpretations of the Gen Sec.
Yates creates space to go from contested purview to reform. He argues for the need to create long-term space if governance review isn’t happening, as he believes that the SRC is unequipped to do so.
Malone wishes to make the entire process more approachable for students.
Gibson argues against the absence of a governance committee policy, as the result is an established tendency for the process being overrun with a certain type of person; those who wish to dominate the space. The result is an absence of inclusivity. She wishes to do consultation through SRC and collect opinions via this platform, resulting in increased approachability.
On their involvement with the ANUSA governance review
Gibson has missed out previously but has been on club consultation councils. She wants to make working groups more open and hopes to make them open unless otherwise specifically requested. Furthermore, she will publish minutes.
Yates has sat on the GRWG and worked on the first and second consultations. He is working on the drafting stage of the new definition for undergraduate students and has kept some matters closed as the ideas were not sufficiently solid.
Harvey-Taylor has previously been involved. He wrote submissions around the cutting of college representatives and spoke to the reps about disputes, whilst attending the public governance review consultation. He reaffirms that working groups are only open to Gen Reps or invitees.
Malone went along to public consultation and generally agrees that these need to be more open. She has experience of drafting constitutions as she drafted the B&G Constitutions, and believes this will facilitate an objective perspective when looking at reviews. She has autonomous consultations with offices and wishes to give departments the place to give their own perspective.
Phutula does not have prior experience with ANUSA, but believes that it is necessary to publish brief summaries about conclusions.
On how many SRC meetings they have attended
Malone has not sat through any, but picks up the knack of things very quickly. She questions why convoluted meetings are accepted as the status quo, and seeks to make meetings more accessible, reversing the onus to put it on ANUSA.
Harvey-Taylor has attended many meetings, apart from when he was ill. He believes that meetings are important, and there should be some scope for an outsider objective. However, when it comes to meetings, he believes there is a requirement of previous experience and being able to look deeper than current issues and challenge the status quo.
Yates has been to many meetings, mostly about understanding the subtleties of certain policies.
Gibson has attended every SRC this year and has also attended all the club council meetings this year. She has attended two CRCs and possesses the ability to chair an ANUSA meeting, which is uniquely complicated. She also wants to reform standing orders.
Phutula has not attended meetings but is up to date with all of them and possesses the necessary knowledge. He agrees that Gen Sec representatives should always be up to date.
On low engagement
Yates argues this is because people do it for CV bling.
Aside from the honorarium, Gibson says that it is a big ask for students to get involved in a process which is so arduous.
Harvey-Taylor argues that it makes sense for students to get involved, and that there aren’t many nominations because of poor communication.
Malone says that there is a stigma about ANUSA, which can be dismantled by utilising social media and facilitating open communication. She argues for the importance of reaching out to departments and maintaining open communication between them and ANUSA.
Phutula purports that there is a lack of incentives.
On maintaining relationships with different tickets
Gibson has made working relationships with many others from different tickets. She can be objective about things others are doing, and claims that doing the right thing by the standards of the association and by your own moral compass is imperative. She is committed to be being careful and objective in maintaining a working relationship.
Yates says that it’s important for Gen Secs to have a slight separation between the rest of the executive. He is confident that he can build upon the working relationships beyond the president etc. Furthermore, Yates argues that ticket lines are an arbitrary point, as there will always be some form of conflict of interest amongst students.
Harvey-Taylor believes in the need for degrees of removal, and this is why he is remaining independent.
Malone likes to think that she is easy going and a good team player regardless of who the team is. She lives with her workplace, which is an example of her ability to keep work and personal life separate.
Phutula believes in the importance of professional relationships, as there is a need to remain autonomous from other executives.
On their deliverable results
Malone is working on the pastoral care review, assisting in minute taking and helping Christian out as chair. Whilst at B&G a process for holding res-com to account was introduced, and she kept working all through COVID-19.
Harvey-Taylor moved motions and published reports, whilst advocating for free textbooks last year.
Yates undertook the governance review and is happy with working groups. He has advocated through his role at LSS and seeks to provide a space for those who don’t have a voice.
Gibson has worked with clubs.
Phutula has not worked with the student reps and has not been on the discussion committee, however he has contributed in other aspects.