Recap: July USU Board Meeting (31/7/20)

Nicolette Petra reports.

We begin the monthly Board Meeting for July with an intense round of rapid fire questions for President Irene Ma. 

Pulp asked if the Board could comment on Honi Soit’s recent assertion that Senate appointed  Directors played  a more hands on role in the Board’s recent decision to cut USU staff hours from 60% to 40%.  President Ma, who sported a USU Orientation Week zoom background, did not agree with the statement, citing, ‘each of the thirteen Board Directors have one vote.’

Pulp also asked the Board to clarify whether there is potential for the USU to be partially or fully taken over by the University. To this, President Ma said, ‘The Board is well aware of external impacts and their risks, but the USU Board is a student-run organisation for students. We try to remain independent.’

The Board was asked by Honi if the cuts were necessary as there has been both ambiguity as to the USU’s current financial position and rumours that the CEO and senior management were at odds.

‘Things are extraordinarily difficult at this time,’ said President Ma. ‘We have lost 97% of customers, and $5.2million in quarter two. It’s undeniable the USU is going through financial difficulties at this time. Jess and the team have provided the Board with many scenarios, and this one [reducing hours to 40%] is the middle ground between staff welfare and the management of our finances.’

Regarding why the Board’s decision about the cuts was moved from 23 July (before President Ma’s induction) to 28 July, President Ma stated, ‘The reason for the delayed meeting shows the Board had robust debate and didn’t want to rush the decision. We considered all scenarios.’

Also concerning Tuesday’s announcement was the issue that only senior management was consulted about the cuts, while staff were left in the dark. The Board put this down to the USU’s structure whereby ‘there’s no staff to talk to the Board.’

On to the actual meeting, and we begin with amendments to the USU’s new COVID-19 Response Committee. Senate-appointed Director  Marie Leech suggests that while there is a focus on the Committee’s short term actions, it would be beneficial to add something about ‘ensuring the long-term survival of the USU.’

Board Director Ben Hines agrees and also suggests including a ‘focus on committing to helping staff through this and getting them back to full capacity as soon as possible’ so as to ‘enable greater levels of transparency with staff at this time...and have accountability with the Board.’

Initially planned to be a three-Director-strong Committee, the Board passed a motion to add Ex-President Connor Wherrett as a non-voter, after he volunteered himself, suggesting he could ‘come and give his opinions’ as well as the previous six months’ worth of knowledge and experience he has garnered surrounding coronavirus and the USU. 

Four Directors - Ben Hines, Ruby Lotz, Vikki Qin, and Nick Rigby - threw their hats in the ring during the election of the COVID-19 Response Committee. 

Hines, a Finance student, put forth the goal of returning staff to full capacity as soon as possible.

Lotz, who has studied political economy and international relations, voiced her aim to foster a relationship between the Board and staff and consider the longevity of USU while ‘monitoring the everchanging pandemic and contextualising govt policies, university strategies and assessing how those will impact USU.’ 

Qin, who also drew on her Finance background, ex-USU staff experience, and coffee-shop business savviness, said she would bring her strategic planning experience to the position. 

Finally, Rigby recalled his long-time efforts to convince the Board of the need to have this ‘topical and relevant’ Committee. As the Chair of the Finance Committee and part-time government policy analyst covering COVID-19, Rigby said he aims to update the Committee more frequently on the coronavirus situation and set up briefs.

Ultimately, the Board entrusted Rigby, Lotz and Qin as the COVID-19 Committee.

The Finance Report saw Marie propose that the impairment of wages and JobKeeper supplements between April to July be mapped out so that the Board can assess if its strategies, like reducing hours from 60% to 40%, are the best ones available. 

President Ma applauded the Board for the first thirty days of their term, with it having been ‘demanding on everyone’s effort and time’. She also committed to organising for ‘more financial information [in order] to provide further financial literacy.’

Ruby Lotz and Benny Shen volunteered to take on the Disability Portfolio. The position was given to Ruby, whose election policy focused heavily on accessibility.

After going in camera for over 30 minutes, the Board returned with some spicy motion-blocking. 

Vice President Nick Forbutt intended ‘to move a motion today that was centred on increasing transparency around decision making about staff capacity.’ However, because the motion was entered into the minutes 29 minutes before the meeting began, Marie Leech said there was ‘insufficient time to consider’ the motion before or during the meeting.

‘This feels like a very undemocratic silence of a motion arguing for more transparency,’ said Forbutt. ‘It’s now been expressed there isn’t enough time to ...I do think that it is expected from Board Directors to stay on [the call]. The only Director that noted they needed to leave at 3 o’clock was Irene. There is capacity to move the chair to someone else. I think it is important that we discuss the merits of this decision.’

While President Ma agreed that ‘the merits of the decision are good,’ she stated that because the motion included confidential information it required the Board to go in-camera to discuss it, and there was not enough time for this.

Forbutt disagreed that there was confidential information and also said he ‘flagged that he intended to bring this motion on Wednesday,’ and that he raised it ‘twice within the group chat without dissent.’

Hines and Rigby made their opinions heard, that it was not ‘undemocratic’ and could instead be passed by circular motion tomorrow.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat pointed out some flaws with this decision-making option, stating ‘One person can shoot it down with no discussion, and it’s [also] not public.’

But with the confidentiality of the motion up in the air and the meeting already having run 8 minutes overtime, President Ma declared the meeting closed, ironically leaving Forbutt’s motion on transparency to be considered out of the public eye.