The State of Our Union

The STATE of OUR UNION Report Demands Comprehensive Overhaul of Student Union Logan Linkston After three years of speculation, a comprehensive strategic review of the Tasmania University Union (TUU) conducted by the LH Martin Institute was received by the TUU Board of Management (BoM) in September last year, recommending total reestablishment of core TUU operations.

The report, which was commissioned by the BoM in March 2017, calls for sweeping reform of the Union’s structure and services, and concludes that “the issues identified by the review warrant immediate action.”

In a copy of the review obtained by Togatus, a series of systemic structural issues within the TUU are identified, concluding that the organisation is not transparent, and fails to represent UTas students. The review team also raised concerns of organisational bureaucracy, and questioned the ability of the TUU to make effective decisions.

The review, which was first mentioned in BoM minutes in late 2014, was conducted between April and September last year and cited interviews with the UTas Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, TUU staff, student representatives and UTas students.

According to the review team, the TUU is not representative of the UTas student body, and found the organisation to be largely irrelevant to distance and mature age students. The review found that the University’s growing international student population was most appreciative of the support functions of the organisation as a largely full-time on-campus cohort.

The team found that there are elements of the TUU which work effectively for the welfare of UTas students, including Clubs and Societies, Togatus and the student advocacy groups. It was acknowledged that Clubs and Societies has a separate budget and administration from the TUU. The review suggests that going forward, all three of these entities should continue to operate independently from the TUU. The report also recognised poor communication within the organisation. The communication between TUU and the student body was identified as a “flawed and a serious problem.” The team

also found the communication between the professional TUU staff and the elected student representatives as unsatisfactory and hampered by demarcation disputes.

The lack of transparency within the Union was identified as a major problem. The review found opacity in TUU affairs was most apparent in operational matters, such as budget, which was made public for the first time in 2017 but has yet to be released this year.

When members of the TUU were interviewed, they struggled to answer what the organisation’s missions and objectives were.

In the strategic review, it was mentioned that “mostly everyone” the review team spoke to questioned the relevance of the TUU. This report’s conclusion outlines two options to remedy the Union’s problems, but emphasises that serious overhaul must be made immediately.

The report first drafts a drastic plan of action that would dissolve the TUU completely and transfer its assets to the University, which would continue to operate TUU services. The review team found that the University lacks confidence in the TUU’s ability to do its job. It found that the TUU’s structure is inefficient, complex and cumbersome. This analysis, coupled with the information of the TUU being found to be irrelevant to most people, prompted the review team to suggest that this option is seriously considered.

Option two is to reestablish the TUU in a way that will better reflect the student body and represent their interests. The new organisation would restructure to become a professional student executive, employed full-time by the University.

This option requires a complete overhaul of the TUU, reconstituted as a new entity focused entirely on student welfare. The Board of Management would be replaced with a Board of Governance and “the student executive must be alumni and reflect all students across all campuses.”

“The issues identified by the review warrant immediate action.”

1

The second option means the current student representative councils would be dissolved, which the report found to lack engagement with all parts of the UTas student population as a consequence of an unreliable democratic process.

The student representative elections were marked as a significant cause for concern because the vast majority of UTas students do not vote. The last election saw just 610 UTas students vote in the election, a decrease from 900 students in 2016, which constitutes roughly 2 per cent of the UTas student population. The review team said, “such a small turnout raises questions about the legitimacy of the elected representatives and their mandates and student involvement in TUU activities.”

The review also suggests that if the TUU is reconstituted, a professional communications manager should be implemented to resolve the communication problems in the current organisation.

Both options explicitly identify the Union as incapable of operating effectively in its current form. The review team suggested that if the University moves forward to establish a new entity, a new mission statement would also need to be developed, to ensure that the focus is entirely on student welfare.

Jess Robinson, the TUU State President said the options recommended by the strategic review team will not be implemented. Instead, she hoped the decision will “take the best parts of what the review gave us and create something even better.”

Robinson told Togatus the review is now a “focus point” in picking a pathway to move forward. Jenny Hart, Executive Officer for the TUU, did not respond to Togatus’s request for comment before publication.

BOARD of SECRETS Monte Bovill A 20-page document that has been three years in the making. The findings of a $120,000 review into the constitution and makeup of the Tasmania University Union (TUU) has finally been discussed.

The extensive review was commissioned by the TUU’s Board of Management (BoM) which is “responsible for setting the strategy and direction” of the Union and is made up of three student representatives, elected by students at yearly TUU elections, and three University staff members as well as a Chair, who are all appointed by the University.

The BoM in 2017, led by Chair, Simon Overland, voted to approve a “review of the TUU and authorise the commitment of up to $120,000 from TUU reserves for this purpose.”

The BoM highlighted that the TUU’s lack of strategic direction and trend of student disengagement with the Union were deciding factors in the decision to commission the review with an aim to “make the TUU more relevant to current University student demographics.”

The Executive Director of Student Experience for UTas, Stephanie Taylor, was invited to a BoM meeting to engage with the preparation for the review, highlighting the confusion around the differences between the student services that UTas and the TUU provide.

The review was conducted by the LH Martin Institute at the University of Melbourne which “aim to develop more effective

2

governance, leadership and management capacity in tertiary sector institutions, so that institutions may fulfil their missions more successfully,” according to their website. $120,000 was taken from a surplus of TUU funds to pay for the review, which was conducted by two professors from the institute.

Publically available minutes of BoM meetings show that the strategic review has been on the board’s agenda since late 2014, coinciding with the start of Simon Overland’s term. However, the commencement of the review did not progress until last year.

Current TUU State President, Jess Robinson said it had taken a long time to get to this stage of the review process.

“The process from start to now has been really slow and poorly managed. It has been sitting there,” she said.

“The TUU as it stands can’t stay the same, it needs to change. I want those four years of talk to come down to actually something.”

Overland’s 3-year term as Chair was due to end in July 2017, but then UTas Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen approved him to continue as BoM Chair until the end of 2017.

The decision to extend his term was made even though Overland relocated back to Victoria in August to start a new role as the chief executive of Whittlesea City Council. In the months after Overland returned to Victoria, the BoM convened just once with Overland hosting the meeting via Skype.

The strategic review was due to be discussed in a November 2017 meeting, with incoming student representatives for 2018 to be welcomed as observers. This meeting never took place and the 2017 student representatives, who passed the motion to allow the review to take place, never saw the findings.

The final BoM meeting for 2017 was in October, a month after Overland received an interim report into the findings, when it was agreed the issues identified warranted “immediate action”.

Current TUU General Secretary and former BoM member, Dan Probert told Togatus that Overland’s term ending and his relocation to Victoria played a factor in the hold up of the findings being discussed.

“We had a meeting scheduled in November where we were supposed to go over everything with the incoming board, however there was no continuity there,” he said.

“Unfortunately, Simon Overland took the job in Victoria and was unable to make the meeting. We couldn’t get everyone together and we never met again after October.”

Togatus understands that Michael Stoddart took over as acting Chair of the BoM and has been been in the role since the start of 2018. Stoddart is a UTas staff member and has been on the BoM as one of the University’s representatives since 2014.

His appointment is a break from the tradition that the Chair has historically been someone who is independent from the University.

Jess Robinson said that it felt like she had inherited “a backpack that has lots and lots of rocks in it” from previous Union representatives.

“We’ve been taking out those rocks, lightening up a little bit. But there is one just sitting there and you can’t take it out because it is so much bigger,” she said.

“It is so much heavier than everything else because it has such a big ripple effect.”

With a decision still to be made on the recommendations of the review and future of the TUU, the current make-up of the BoM is one vote down from a complete board.

SMOKE & MIRRORS Logan Linkston Union : noun “the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context. A society or association formed by people with a common interest or purpose” [Oxford Dictionary]

After the TUU was informed of a lack of transparency with the students they are supposed to represent, the Board convened to discuss the results of the review six months after receiving it, on the 21 March 2018.

Historically, the student union of a university organises activities, provides welfare services and represents the students’ political interests [Collins Dictionary]

After the TUU was given the report indicting the organisation for struggling to make decisions for students, there is still no decision made regarding releasing the report to the public. The fact that the meeting in March was made months after the report’s release only supports the strategic review’s claims of a failure of transparency.

The Collins Dictionary definition aligns with the Tasmania University Union’s constitution. It says that the Union provides information and support to students, it represents students, and it aims to promote the livelihood of students in almost every aspect.

Nevertheless, the strategic review commissioned by the TUU Board of Management discovered that the Union fails in trying to do these things. In fact, the review team found the historic organisation to be overwhelmed with large-scale, systemic issues.

The large sign outside the TUU building proclaims, “Tasmania University Union. Serving students since 1899.” The review concludes that the TUU is currently not doing what it was established to do - serve students. The review obtained by Togatus reveal issues at the very core of the Union: it’s not representative.

It’s not transparent. It struggles to make effective decisions.

This is the sort of behaviour the review concerns, especially since the report specifically says, “the review warrants immediate action.” The language used by the review team is consistently serious throughout the report.

“The overall picture that emerged from the review is that the TUU is increasingly becoming irrelevant to students and the University as a whole.”

This opinion was constructed from extensive interviews with UTas students, teachers and TUU staff, and the vast majority told them they questioned the TUU’s relevance. The University itself told the review team they questioned if the TUU can do what they set out to do in 1899. Even TUU members were not able to tell the review team what the TUU’s mission and objectives are.

3

The conclusion of these issues was that continuing the TUU’s current operation and structure is not an option. The report, however, had two suggestions. Both very drastic but, in the eyes of the review team, necessary to reestablish the TUU as an effective organisation.

Jess Robinson, the TUU State President also said, “The TUU as it stands can’t stay the same, it needs to change.”

So, what does this mean? It is vital that students have some kind of representation and expression. The report suggests that the student voice can be organised by the University Council and Senate if the Union is dissolved. No matter what, there will have to be a platform for students to have a voice within the University, even if that is not through a student union.

The second option of re-establishing the TUU as an entirely new entity is nearly as drastic as dissolving the Union and will not be easy to implement, but it is the option the review team ultimately supported. The team expressed that the new organisation must be focused on student welfare and must be relevant and representative of students in a way that the TUU has been identified as lacking.

Even the student representatives were shocked by the results of the strategic review. Jess told Togatus, “I think it was hoped that the strategic review would come back and plump egos. Instead it was a slap across the face.”

No matter what, moving forward is going to have a huge impact on students and the future of the University. Jess agreed with the scope of the results, “This affects a lot of people. The ripple just keeps going out and out.” To some extent, warrants metaphorical yellow caution tape around the whole situation.

Caution, but not deception or dishonesty.

The report goes into extensive detail about how to create a new entity which will accurately represent UTas students. This includes a new student executive branch who will be employed, not elected.

Another recommendation is a professional communications manager, because the review team found serious communication issues at all levels within the TUU, including between student representatives and TUU staff, as well as with the general student population.

4

A once-in-a-generation opportunity has been given to the TUU to right the systemic wrongs in the organisation. Instead, a third option departing from the recommendations outlined in the review will be implemented, which is not surprising considering the discomforting conclusion of the review and the radical suggested remedies.

Jess believes there is a better choice outside of dissolving or restructuring the Union, “Personally I don’t think that [the findings of the review] are the best. I don’t think they benefit everyone.

They sort of cater for one or the other.”

By trying to come up with an internal solution to its own demonstrably failed decision making structure, the TUU is, in essence, trying to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Shouldn’t the students they serve and represent be a part of that decisionmaking process?

Those same people who the report identifies as being underrepresented are being excluded from any say in righting these wrongs. The review makes clear that the TUU fails to represent the large quantities of distance students, mature aged students and international students. These are the very students who should be involved in the processes of the organisation that represents them.

“The TUU is fraught with dark black holes where things have fallen through in the past. You can come stick duct tape over them but that will only last so long,” Jess said, with regret.

There’s still so much that UTas students don’t know about the review, but no matter what, the Union is supposed to advocate for students. This review cannot be something that disappears in a black hole. Students need to have a say in what their time at the University of Tasmania will look like.

editor@togatus.com.au facebook.com/TogatusOnline @togatus_ on Instagram and Twitter