The Referendum from Hell continues to cause controversy, despite an independent arbitrator throwing out all objections to how it was run. Last Monday independent arbitrator Prof Paul Roth dismissed all the appeals that had been made. In total eight formal complaints were lodged (and rejected) against the referendum on the grounds of insufficient promotion of discussion and debate, biased promotion, inadequate referendum wording, and faulty referendum wording. Four of the complainants were then appealed to Roth. In his report, Roth noted “lack of intense student interest should not be equated with a failure to promote discussion and debate.” Roth also states that bias was understandable given the referendum had been put by OUSA itself. He further stated that “to accuse the OUSA Executive of having hoodwinked students or leading them by the nose is to underestimate the intelligence of the OUSA membership.” Roth states that he did not have jurisdiction to consider compliance with the Constitution, or whether the referendum was constitutionally binding. Despite the final outcome, in-fighting and finger-pointing continues to plague the Executive. OUSA President Harriet Geoghegan fingers Clubs and Socs Rep Dan Stride as the leader of the anti-referendum movement, a role Stride seems to accept. Stride says that much of kerfuffle stemmed from the improper process taken, rather than the actual content of the referendum. When asked her view on why the proceedings turned sour, Geoghegan said that the process was new and pressure was placed on the Executive from groups outside of the Exec. Although he was not present at the meeting, Geoghegan fingered Stride as the ringleader behind the “walkout,” claiming he perpetuated the assumption she was trying to do something malicious. Only a week before, Geoghegan had pointed the finger at both Queer Rep Ros MacKenzie and Stride, saying they were obstructing proceedings by speaking out so late. MacKenzie has reiterated numerous times that she felt “gagged” by
the convention of collective responsibility, and thought she was unable to speak out against the policy. Stride commented that collective responsibility is a convention that is something of a grey area. Meanwhile, controversy raged outside OUSA HQ. An email leaked from the Young Nats shows them urging National supporters to vote in the OUSA referendum: “It takes two minutes, and you’ll get rid of the socialist-dominated executive.” Even the right-wing Kiwiblog was excited by the changes, publishing a post entitled “well done OUSA.” Kyle Matthews, a member of the committee the reviewed the Constitution in 2000, maintains the referendum was a screwup. “I don’t think I have ever seen a more inept attempt to change the OUSA constitution.” Matthews is concerned that the referendum failed to implement constitutional changes, as the referendum questions didn’t specifically mention the constitution. Further he alleges the Executive never gave the standing committee that passed the proposal binding power to pass motions. Geoghegan poo-poos these claims, insisting OUSA was getting legal advice throughout the referendum. “You would have to be an idiot not to see it was a constitutional change,” she opines. The forgotten controversy of the whole debacle is the motion to move SGMs online, which Stride highlights as his main concern. Matthews and Stride worry that simple motions such as electing an auditor and honorary solicitor, may struggle to get quorum under the new online SGM policy. Despite the messy formal complaints, the walk-out, and the allegations of lying, bribery, and bias, Women’s Rep Shonelle Eastwood, who was one of the walkers, assured Critic that the Exec is not rife with scandal. “We’ve all sat down and talked about everything to get all our feelings from the past events out in the open.”
09