Supporters' Networks

A big thank you to everybody who has expressed their support for me and offered to help to get me elected. I now have supporters' networks on every campus and am planning to get around and meet members around the country over the next couple of weeks.

I am really looking forward to these trips as they will give me a much clearer sense of what local and/or national issues are of most importance to members.

If you are inclined to help, I have a number of suggestions of things you could do that would involve very little effort - and some things that would require more time :-) So please get in touch (david.small@canterbury.ac.nz) and I can put you in contact with my supporters on your campus.

It's rather disappointing to see signs of a dirty tricks campaign emerging (see the Anne Rogers post in the Comments section of Amalgamation: For or Against), but I'm hoping it's a one-off and will not allow it to distract me.

Interpreting the Ballot

We had a very interesting Canterbury Branch Committee meeting last Thursday. One of the issues we discussed was how we would interpret the results of the amalgamation ballot.

We have given members an assurance that Canterbury's voting delegates at Conference will decide how to interpret the ballot and cast their votes only after close consultation with members. Two alternatives approaches were discussed: one that delegates split their vote in proportion to the views of Canterbury members in the ballot; the other that the Canterbury votes be interpreted as either favouring or opposing amalgamation and that all votes at Conference be cast one way or the other. There are probably other ways of deciding as well but the branch's commitment was to consult members at Canterbury about the best approach to take.

We also decided to share our deliberations on this matter with other branch committees and to see if any other committee has come up with a good formula or good arguments that we haven't thought of.

I am also writing to the returning officer to suggest that the ballot be opened in the presence of Wellington-based scrutineers from the pro and anti camps in order to avoid any accusations about the way the ballot was conducted.

Addendum to this post:

I've just been speaking with Auckland and this is their current thinking (although they too are not certain about the best way forward):

• If the yes vote is less than 65%, conference delegates to unanimously vote No;
• If the yes vote is 65% or more, they need to decide betwen unanimously voting No or dividing their vote in proortion to the way it was cast at Auckland.

I hope we can have some more discussion and clarity on these points before the vote is counted and announced. Discussing it in the abstract is probably preferable so we can really focus on getting a formula that most faithfully reflects the will of the members.

Suggestions or comments on these matters are welcomed.

Amalgamation: For or Against?

This exchange with a member from Auckland raises important issues about my position on amalgamation, so I have copied it from the comments section into its own separate thread. I appreciate members taking the time to raise issues with me on this blog and always welcome more questions and comments.

Mike Hanne, U of Auckland said...

I favour amalgmation because it will create a single, stronger union voice in the tertiary sector and reduce duplication of effort. I want to vote for a presidential candidate, who unequivocally supports amalgamation. Maureen Montgomery clearly does. Before I make my choice, I want to know if David supports amalgamation or, as his answer to 'Anonymous' might be read, he doesn't.

Dr David Small said...

Thank you for your post, Mike. Your declaration that you will only support a Presidential candidate who ‘unequivocally supports amalgamation’ helps to illustrate my sense of unease about this issue. I have had messages from other members who vow that they will leave the union if the amalgamation goes ahead. These passionately held and mutually exclusive positions are occurring in a context where members are being lobbied hard by the leaders of our union to vote yes to the amalgamation.

We entered this amalgamation discussion from a position of strength. And I do not believe that the interests of AUS members will be imperilled by either a yes or a no vote. We do not need to amalgamate to continue to be a strong and effective union. If we do amalgamate, we can devise ways to be as strong or stronger with our newly-merged members.

Legitimate Arguments

Unlike some issues, I think that there are entirely legitimate reasons for people to vote yes or no to amalgamation. On the yes side, I think that the arrival of a large number of ASTE members in universities through College of Education mergers and AUT removed an institutional distinction which was the historical basis for them being in a separate union. If AUS simply poached those members, it would cripple ASTE and severely undermine the strength of the tertiary unions so there is a logic of logistics and efficiency to amalgamation. And duplication is wasteful of scarce resources.

On the no side, unlike some of my academic colleagues, I believe the greatest risk for existing AUS members is to general staff. Through the tripartite talks, the government has made the unprecedented step of providing direct additional funding to university salaries. This has been primarily based on the compelling argument about the need for academic salaries to be internationally competitive, but it has also benefited general staff in universities. The risk in amalgamation for current AUS general staff is that there may be pressure for their claims to be linked less with university academics and more closely with general staff in the wider tertiary sector.

I have drawn my own conclusions from these and many other arguments, have expressed my personal view about amalgamation in various contexts including the Canterbury Branch and the National Executive, and have cast my vote. In the current context, however, I have chosen to hold my own counsel on this matter rather than nailing my colours to the mast. This is because, notwithstanding my public reservations about the undue haste in this process, I think members should now be allowed to consider the arguments and form their own views. And frankly, I don’t see why my view should be worth any more than any other member’s view.

Emerge Strong and Positive

One of the most pressing challenges of the new National President, whoever it is, will be to ensure that the AUS emerges from the amalgamation decision in a strong and positive way. That is my primary orientation at present and I believe that I would be in a better position to meet this challenge if I am not perceived as being a strong advocate of either side of the amalgamation debate.

There are a number of potentially problematic scenarios that are possible after the current ballot closes:
• There may be a majority in support of amalgamation, but one that is insufficient to mandate such a radical change;
• There may be some campuses strongly in favour amalgamation and others strongly opposed to it;
• There may be an evenly spread and sufficient support all over the country, but also a sizeable minority (including many active members) who are so disaffected that they want to resign.
• And even if the vote is clearly yes, people may consider that a no vote from TIASA (which I believe is highly probable) would change the situation sufficiently to require ongoing consultation and negotiation.

In the event of a difficult scenario emerging, my commitment would be to find the best way for us to all move forward as a united and effective union.

As AUS National President, I would put my energy more into listening to members and less into lobbying them. The lobbying and advocacy I would like to focus on would be directed less at AUS members and more at government and the VCs.

The Amalgamation Process

Given the interest among members about the amalgamation discussion, I have copied this exchange into a separate thread. Questions and comments welcome...

Anonymous said...

Yes well really not impressed that the President has nailed his colours to a successor's mast, and not impressed that she has allowed that and other endorsements to be circulated to us- though not surprised that AUS leadership are trying to stitch up their successor as well as their conference vote.

But David, you mentioned in your June blog that you want the vote on amalgamation to be carried out by an open and communicative process- Now that its August, how do you think it is shaping up to that. Many of us, including your own branch, feel that the whole thing has been railroaded through on a false understanding of what last year's conference was voting about- as future President, what do you say to that?

28 August 2007 20:20

Dr David Small said...

Thank you Anon for this important question. Since your question is focussed on process and not on the merits of the amalgamation itself, that is what I will address. I would be very interested to hear Maureen’s reply to the same question.

As Canterbury Branch President at last year's Conference, I argued and voted against the ‘in principle’ vote for the amalgamation. I did so out of a concern that Canterbury had not had a chance to adequately consider the matter. In the preceding year, we had had an unprecedented assault on the Arts Faculty to resist, at the same time as a blitzkrieg of other restructuring that attacked 26 units within the university. And this was on top of our normal (ie heavy and getting heavier) workloads. I thought we had done pretty well to organise even the one meeting that we did which was moderately well attended, seemed broadly in favour of amalgamation but did not (in my view) come anywhere near giving us a mandate to vote in support of amalgamation. The notion of ‘in principle’ always struck me as conveniently imprecise; lending itself to being downplayed to get people to agree to it, and then beefed up once agreement had been reached.


What’s the rush?!

At that time, I could not see, and I remain perplexed as to why this matter was pursued with such urgency. It is the kind of urgency that I would advocate only in exceptional circumstances such as imminent financial crisis or a looming legislative threat. With no apparent urgency and considering the radical nature of the proposal, I argued that consultation with members should be as wide as possible, and that it should proceed at the pace of the slowest branch committee. I argued that the potential advantages of an amalgamation would be realised only if we approached it in a unified and positive manner and that this would be undermined by proceeding with undue haste. I said several times that I believed this was a process that could not proceed too slowly.

I reject the argument that, without a vote for ‘in principle’ support, AUS would not have been able to progress discussions with the other unions, ASTE and TIASA. And I firmly believe that, unlike ideas that emerge as a result of pressure from the members, top-down initiatives of leaders take a long time to percolate into the consciousness of members. If they are progressed too rapidly, they create suspicion, hostility and division. Irrespective of a visitor's intentions, I am much more comfortable with someone knocking at my front door and asking to come in than finding someone sitting at my kitchen table having made their way through the back door that I left open.

Ruled ‘Out of Order’ by National President.

Although there was some support for my arguments, the discussion was moved along and put to the vote and the ‘in principle’ support was decided. I also supported an attempt led by Grant Duncan (who’s standing for Academic VP) to allow the conference to make a decision on a ballot of members, but this discussion was closed down and ruled ‘out of order’ by President Nigel Haworth. By preventing a directive from the 2007 Conference, he ensured the ballot could have no formal status beyond acting as a guide for voting delegates at the 2008 Conference.

At the first Council meeting after the Conference, I argued that the consultation process that was being proposed by the General Secretary was tighter even than that which was required by Conference. I was also concerned that the proposal was not given to Council delegates until we actually came to that item on the agenda of the meeting, thereby curtailing our ability to give it due consideration. Again, I argued for the process to be slowed and broadened.

At both Conference and Council, other delegates advanced similar arguments as well, but we were unable to convince enough other voting delegates to support us. It felt rather like trying to score points against the Wizard on his soapbox in the Square. The top table has a lot of influence in these situations and the views they advanced were accepted by a majority of those who were mandated to make the decisions.

Accept the Democratic Decision of the AUS

Once Council had approved the consultation plan, I accepted that the democratic decision-making bodies of the AUS had spoken. Conference had decided. Council had decided. And so I resolved to accept those decisions and not relitigate them. I also chose not to air them publicly on the National Discussion Forum on the amalgamation, an idea that I proposed in order to ensure that debates and discussions on the amalgamation that were occurring locally could be shared more widely between campuses.

From this point on, my aim was to try to get the best model possible for a new union and to try to get maximum awareness and involvement of members in the decision. I was an AUS rep on the inter-union group that met twice to talk through the detail. The first meeting determined the content of the first discussion booklet. The second meeting considered feedback and fleshed out what the new union could look like. I was heartened at this meeting to hear the General Secretary’s suggestion that we organise a call centre to follow up members to ensure that participation in the September ballot is as wide as possible.

Harness the Collective Wisdom of the AUS

The amalgamation process highlights some significant ways in which participatory democracy has been compromised within the AUS in recent years. I genuinely believe in the collective wisdom of human associations, especially in a union of university staff. As National President, I would pursue organisational structures and decision-making processes that would harness that collective wisdom to advance the aims of our union.

31 August 2007 23:23