Clinging onto compulsion
March 27th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarI guess it was too much to hope for that most student politicians would see VSM as an opportunity to refocus their organisations into student-focused bodies which actually provide goods and services that students value.
The vast majority of student associations have done deals with their universities, where the university will fund them, so they can have a zero membership fee. This means that effectively taxpayers and students are being forced to fund everything a student association does.
There is a case for a university to agree to fund certain discrete services such as a class rep system. But the universities it seem have so much surplus cash, that they are funding the student associations to do everything they used to do. In fact some like OUSA are boasting they will have more income than in the past. If I was advising Steven Joyce, I’d be pointing out that the universities have just made his job a lot easier. If they have so much surplus money, that they can afford to fund social activities, clubs, political advocacy, student politician salaries, student media etc etc, then they obviously do not need any extra funding.
The rorting doesn’t stop there though. Never mind that Parliament passed a law saying no student should be forced to join a student association. by having the university take over their funding, some student associations such as OUSA have put a clause in their constitution declaring every single student at Otago is automatically a member of OUSA, unless they explicitly opt out. This I suspect is illegal, and would not survive a legal challenge. They do it to maintain the myth that they somehow have a mandate to speak on behalf of all students.
It is disappointing that so many student politicians have sold out for the money. By agreeing to be reliant on the universities for their funding, they have become like the trade unions in the former USSR. Those unions did not represent their members, but were in fact there to further the roles of the Government. By choosing to have the university fund them, instead of students, they will naturally over time put the interests of the university over the students they claim to represent.
A brave association would have said we’ll have a (for example) $40 membership fee, and we are confident we can persuade at least half the student on campus that we provide benefits worth more than $1 a week.
Related posts:
- Spending compulsory fees on a pro-compulsion party
- Dicks
- Another reason for VSM
- Leave us our compulsion
March 27th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
This should surprise nobody. One bunch of socialists helping another. I hope a legal challenge is soon forthcoming.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“A brave association would have said we’ll have a (for example) $40 membership fee, and we are confident we can persuade at least half the student on campus that we provide benefits worth more than $1 a week.”
This is still tricky though – it’s the same problem that Unions face with ‘freeloading’. If I am a student on a fixed income I can still benefit from the existence of a student advocay system even if I don’t contribute towards it. How does the student body stop non members from listening to student radio, picking up a free copy of the student magasine, participating in student body run events in university common areas? The fact is that it’s too difficult and would incur enforcement overheads far in excess of the membership fee if you tried, so instead freeloading is permitted and budget conscious students (which is most of them) will let their membership lapse.
I think the existence of student unions but with the university holding the purse strings is probably a good outcome. The university is the party which benefits the most (through enrolments) from a vibrant campus with lots of student run activities etc. The universities are likely to demand more in the way of ‘public good’ events and services and be less tolerant of some of the private gain and cronyism that has famously infested some of the student unions in the past.
[DPF: Sorry but this is a crap argument. It is simple to have some benefits reserved for members only like cheaper cafe prices, cheaper orientation tickets, a student discount card. Student media can be run without a subsidy also. Many faculty student assns in the past have convinced tens of thousands of students to join them for a fee]
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
I remember when I stayed at O’Rorke Hall when I went to Auckland, I was automatically made a member of the O’Rorke Hall Residents’ Association, which was compulsorily funded by all residents by way of their rent. Is this practice similarly objectionable, and will you be lobbying for it to be outlawed?
As I recall, most student associations were funded by students until quite recently…
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
If I was advising Steven Joyce, I’d be pointing out that the universities have just made his job a lot easier. If they have so much surplus money, that they can afford to fund social activities, clubs, political advocacy, student politician salaries, student media etc etc, then they obviously do not need any extra funding.
This is very silly. The universities spend a lot more on marketing than they do on supporting the unions, and this isn’t because they’re flush with cash, but because they’re in competition with each other to attract students, and universities that offer a vibrant campus life – ie social activities, student media – are going to take market share off universities that don’t offer these things.
This is just the free market in action.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Its a shame I’m no longer at Otago, I would have loved to challenge this. During 2010 I applied to withdraw from OUSA on the grounds that it was against my morals that my money was being used to fight the university code of conduct, which I supported, including legal fees to get a hooligan back into university after breaking windows in town.
They refused to let me leave, despite appeals. It did become entertaining when opponents of VSM claimed that we were free to leave if we wanted, and that no one had tried. The look on their faces when I told them was always priceless.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I bet the Soviet unions acted identically to the western unions. The goal of pretty much all unions is to support the govt of the USSR even though it doesn’t exiwst any more! Fucking troglodytes
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
But the universities it seem have so much surplus cash, that they are funding the student associations to do everything they used to do.
Everything? That’s not true at all. The Minister dictates what students’ associations can and cant do. There are things that students’ associations can no longer do with these funds, such as representation.
some student associations such as OUSA have put a clause in their constitution declaring every single student….is automatically a member
Some? Or just one?
By choosing to have the university fund them
Perhaps it didn’t occur to you that the universities can choose themselves whether they wish to fund students’ associations.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Heh Stuart, I was on the Committee (and the Executive) which would have processed your application, and you’re 100% correct. The policy at the time made no allowance for you to be able to withdraw from the OUSA (as much as I would have liked to let you out).
In fact, some on the Executive “suggested” that we ignore the policy and allow you to opt-out so that we would look good in the face of VSM. It was only when I applied to opt-out last year under for exactly the same reasons as you that they actually changed the policy just to get me out of the organisation.
Now their Constitution even has it’s own little clause just for me under the definition of “member”:
Member” or “member” means:
a. a student at the University who has not opted out of membership by way of notice in writing; and/or
b. a person that has been appointed a life member of the Association.
That’s the clause DPF points out as being illegal. Here’s a clause I’ll point out as being stupid:
5.3 The Association will not at any time exercise undue influence in encouraging students at the University to remain members. Therefore the Association will not restrict the privileges and rights of membership to members only.
So, there’s no benefit to actually being a member, as non-members get the rights and privileges of membership. I’m pretty sure there’s also something a little dodgy about the University handing over student IDs, and birth-dates to OUSA when they run their elections (although there’s probably something in the enrollment agreement which allows them to do so – even then, it’s personally identifiable information which falls under the Privacy Act).
Danyl, in 2010 or 2011, Otago slashed their marketing budget in order to reduce the number of enrollments because they were getting too many. They also introduced capped enrollment to help limit numbers after the natural limit (number of beds in residential colleges) was no longer effective.
DPF, I’m certain it would fail a legal challenge, but who are students supposed to go to for support for that legal challenge? They can’t turn to the University or the OUSA, so where is the advocacy when the two gang up on you?
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
James – interesting to see the other side, thank you.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
The universities involved are really declaring that they are sufficiently overfunded to think that subverting the intention of the legislation is a fine idea.
Time to cut their funding.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Exactly what is the problem here? Universities believe student associations add value to the campus experience through the provision of a range of services. They choose to contract with associations to provide those services. They then pass on the cost of those services to those wishing to enroll at the University, through a contractual relationship. And your reason for wanting to interfere with this chain of voluntary contracts is … what, exactly? Because how is tax-payer money involved, when the funding is obtained through direct service fee charged to the individual student? And who exactly are you (or the Government) to interfere with the decisions Universities are making about how to structure their on-campus services? I mean, imagine a Government intervening to tell Electricity Companies how much they think should be charged for power, on the basis that it knows best what is needed … how cool would you be with that?
As for your suspicion that the automatic membership/no-restriction on opt-out model “is illegal, and would not survive a legal challenge”, I’m tempted to ask whether this is the same legal expertise you applied when you declared Winston Peters’ candidacy was illegal just before the last election (i.e. it’s something you’d like to be true, rather than actually the case). The relevant section in the Education Act 1989 states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” Which is exactly the case with the automatic membership/universal opt-out model … anyone who does not wish to be a member of OUSA (or other student association) for any reason whatsoever simply has to tell the association that this is the case, and they are no longer a member with absolutely no penalties or harm following to them. Note that this automatic signup/no-strings opt out model is exactly the same as exists for Kiwisaver. Do you think anyone is “required” to be a member of a Kiwisaver ?
On a final note – James Meagher above indicates that there are students who would like to serve as test cases on this issue. As you are so sure it’s a knock-down legal win to challenge it, why not be a sugar daddy for them and fund the challenge? After all, you can be very, very confident of winning and getting your costs back … right?
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
So it turns out that the student association serve a useful purpose after all. Ha ha, like real ‘unions’ voluntary membership didn’t turn out to be so bad.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Not so. Universities believe the SA adds value that the University is not capable of adding themselves, otherwise they would do it themselves. So the question is, what is it that the SA’s do that the University cannot? Can they do it cheaper? Better?
In any case, the Universities are now on the hook for all the money wasted by student associations. It is no longer the Student Association that will get blamed for $10k wasted on a ski trip for the SA executives. It is the Universities fault for hiring rank incompetents.
Yes.
No.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
An organisation (substantially funded by the government and enjoying a protected market position) providing their own service to consumers (most of who have never paid the full cost of the service they receive thanks to generous government subsidies), has decided to donate funds to another organisation (one that has claimed a mandate to represent the consumers that history shows it was never really given) for the monopolistic provision of services to the consumers (at no charge to the consumers), in a process that did not include a tender (or any other efforts to determine the market price of those services) because the previous funding model for that other organisation (charging consumers for compulsory membership) was made illegal by an Act of Parliament.
Thanks DiM.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
AG, the issue most people have is with the student associations moving from adding value to the student experience, to becoming the youth wings of political parties.
The fact of the matter is that student association votes turn out a shockingly small percentage of the students, allowing minority groups to hijack the associations. The associations then purport to speak for all the students.
If student fees to the university are now being funnelled still into the associations, then nothing has really changed. All students money is still being used to fund political ventures they do not all support.
It is the tax-payer right to look into this, as universities do receive some government funds. The point is that if they have so much surplus cash, then why is the government propping them up at all when they could do fine just from student fees?
The associations certainly do some good student focused activities, and the hope is that with VSM they will focus on these activities that provide benefits and enjoyment to the university experience – not act as a political party. There are simply too many different political views at university for one group to represent them all.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
“So the question is, what is it that the SA’s do that the University cannot? Can they do it cheaper? Better?”
All valid questions. And the fact Universities are choosing not to do so is pretty compelling evidence that whatever it is, it’s stuff Universities can’t/don’t want to do themselves, that they therefore think they can’t do it cheaper or better, so see value in retaining the institutional knowledge/skills of students associations to deliver.
And once again, if Universities make this decision (and charge the students involved directly for the services they think add value to the campus experience), what business is it of DPF (or anyone else on this blogsite … or the Government)? Isn’t that a bit, oh I don’t know … Nanny State?
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“The fact of the matter is that student association votes turn out a shockingly small percentage of the students, allowing minority groups to hijack the associations. The associations then purport to speak for all the students.”
Fine – if students feel this to be the case and wish to disassociate themselves from said association, then all they need to do is say to the association “I do not want to be a member” and they will no longer be so … without any penalty or harm following. So, once again, how is anyone “compelled” to be a member? And if students are all so deeply unhappy with the current behaviour/stance of associations, why hasn’t there been droves and droves of them taking up their right to be non-members?
“It is the tax-payer right to look into this, as universities do receive some government funds.”
By the same token, many of the power companies are publicly owned. Therefore, it is the tax-payer’s right to say what power prices should be, what investment decisions power companies should make, and the like. Right?
“The point is that if they have so much surplus cash, then why is the government propping them up at all when they could do fine just from student fees?”
Universities get money for different things from different sources. The cost of providing services like lectures/research/etc comes from a mix of taxpayer dollars and student fees – the mix of which is tightly regulated by the Government. The cost of providing student services (like those contracted from associations) comes from a levy charged directly to students. So to say “Universities have plenty of money to pay for one thing, so we can cut the money provided for another” is a bit silly.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
AG
Vote:But, but, but, we don’t like student unions. Do you mean to say that they should be allowed to continue as if nothing had happened when we went to sooo much trouble to thwart them?
March 27th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
You would make a great Judge. “Your honour, my client clearly knew that stealing is against the law, and therefore cannot have actually stolen that car because… i mean… who would knowingly break the law?”
Lets just assume that the Universities cant or dont want to do these things. But still want them done. By only one group. Without considering whether other groups may do it better. Oh wait, thats right, you are just assuming that the Universities are getting proper value for their money.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Actually most people wanting VSM said that some things the SA’s did was good. But not everything, and there was no way for the SA to incur the costs of their poor decisions. There was no feedback mechanism to promote the good and reduce the bad.
If all the SA’s do now is provide those services that were good, on behalf of the University that is funding them from their own resources, then fine. I dont think it will happen. They are just as insulated from student dissatisfaction with their actions as they ever were, so wont change a single bit.
Now instead of being beholden to nobody (and acting like it) the SA’s are beholden to the University. The SA will change when the University tells them too (sure, after a bit of an adjustment period, and adolescent rebellion). So Students now have to influence the Uni to change the SA. And like was said above, who do they turn to for that advocacy.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Kimble,
I’m failing to see your point. Why do you think Universities are so stupid as to charge their students money for something that they don’t have to, thereby potentially setting themselves at a cost disadvantage to other suppliers of education?
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
It seems to me that the student associations will continue to be a voice for the minority of students that want to get involved in their activities. From your analysis Kimble, it appears that the change may have had the effect of entrenching the political behaviour that proponents of VSM sought to eliminate.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
David, Student unions never were there to represent students. Their function has always been to train future Labour flunkies in the arts of obfuscation and troughing.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
How does the student body stop non members from listening to student radio, picking up a free copy of the student magasine, participating in student body run events in university common areas?
I recall arguing with one student who thought that AUT’s SA scheme of giving away free lunches was a fantastic idea.
When I asked, she said that they didn’t ask for ID.
So I pointed out that, for all they knew, they were giving lunches away to corporate fat cats from nearby office buildings paid for by a levy on students. In other words, take from the poor, give to the rich.
As for the radio and mag – the very fact that *increased* readership or listernership is regarded as a problem by supporters of compulsory membership shows just how screwed up their thinking is.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Now instead of being beholden to nobody (and acting like it) the SA’s are beholden to the University.
Probably the best comment made in this entire thread.
I’ll try for no2 with this:
What does it say about them that they thought that was better than being beholden to their members?
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
What would she care? “It’s not her money”.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
First of all, students arent very price sensitive, so the idea of a “cost disadvantage” of the levy in relation to overall costs is absurd.
Why do you think Universities taking a particular action proves the action is correct or made for the right reasons?
No, the political action is fine, just not in the name of people they dont actually represent. Now they are representing the University, which is fine because the University is voluntarily paying them to do it.
This isnt the win people like AG think it is.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Yes, the winners would appear to be the student politicians who carry on unhindered by VSM, which so many had touted as a death blow to them.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“Why do you think Universities taking a particular action proves the action is correct or made for the right reasons?”
Why is it any of your business how Universities decide to order their on-campus services?
“This isnt the win people like AG think it is.”
At what point did I say this was a “win”? All I’ve done is respond to DPF’s claim that (1) the present arrangement is a problem that needs further Government intervention (be it direct or via threats of financial penalty) to fix; and (2) that there is unlawful action involved. Basically, now that the point of principle is satisfied by students being allowed to be in a student association or not as they see fit, I just think you all could step back and let Universities get on with running themselves as they see fit, rather than trying to micromanage them to fit your preferred political outcomes.
But then, I guess I just like freedom of choice a bit too much, and should just accept that a Nanny State which knows best for all institutions in society ought to be allowed to make whatever decisions for whomever it wants.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
They are doomed unless they change. It will just take a bit longer.
Maybe the Uni’s will only fund the proper student services, and stomp on all the political stuff. Even if they dont overtly, a culture change in the SA is likely to take place. Thats what happens when you have accountability.
Lets wait and see the reaction from the SA when the Uni’s try something on. Too mild a response and they are toast. Everyone will see them as shills for the man. Too strong a response and the man may require a readjustment of priorities.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Kimble,
I agree with everything you’ve said in that last comment.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I pay tax. They use tax.
Yep you love being able to choose for people what groups they automatically join before putting themselevs to the trouble of leaving.
Better the institution get to make decisions for whomever IT wants.
For all you guys claim that people can easily opt out, you would think that you would be just as open to allowing people to opt in. Thats hypocrisy for you I guess.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
“I pay tax. They use tax.”
So? The question is, why do you want to micromanage the decision of Universities as to what services they deem important enough to directly charge students for, and how those services can best be provided. Note there are no tax-dollars at stake here. So … why, of all the decisions taken by all the institutions in all the country that receive some taxpayer funding are you so worried about this one?
“Yep you love being able to choose for people what groups they automatically join before putting themselevs to the trouble of leaving.”
Students associations are free to say anyone is a member they want to (provided they do not break the law by “requiring” persons to be members, or using “undue influence” to make them become or stay members). Those deemed members are free to leave at any time for any reason. How is anyone’s freedom limited here?
Put it this way – I’ve set up an organisation called the “Blogger Commentator’s Club”? I deem everyone who comments on this site to be a member. You can resign membership by saying “I don’t want to be a member”. Now … is your freedom of association in any way confined by my action?
“Better the institution get to make decisions for whomever IT wants.”
You heard of civil society? The existence of a multitude of institutions/organisations beneath the State that order themselves according to their own view of what is needed to best perform their functions? Or do you really think that a system where the State exercises power over everything within it in order to bring about its view of the right political order is the ideal?
“For all you guys claim that people can easily opt out, you would think that you would be just as open to allowing people to opt in.”
Honest question – what’s the difference? Why don’t you think students will not vote with their feet by leaving an organisation that fails to meet their idea of what a good organisation looks like?
“Thats hypocrisy for you I guess.”
That is, of course, a label that can fit many, many different garbs.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
CPIT has been advertising that their student memberships are free for this year.
I wonder how they are being funded?
I suspect a cosy arrangement with CPIT, and hidden away in the fees somewhere.
Vote:March 27th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
I didnt realise it was called the freedom of disassociation.
You mean has my freedom of association been infringed upon by being forced into an association?
Kind of like asking if someones freedom of speech is infringed upon by legislating a requirement to apply in writing before you can be automatically granted permission to speak.
Its about inertia. Most people will stay where they are. If they are joined, they stay joined. They represent dead money; money that doesnt need to be won, it just sits there. The people using that money can do what they like with it, without ever really having to worry about giving the people who gave them the money something in return.
What do you call taking someones money and not giving them anything in return? Why does that change when the amount is small per person, but large in aggregate?
Imagine a Church (lets call it Destimy) that you automatically join by attending a doctors surgery. Destimy gets paid $10 per year from you. You can choose to leave Destimy, or if you dont want to join in the first place, you can CHOOSE not to go to the doctor. Destimy ends up getting a budget of several hundred thousand dollars. They use some of that money to help the poor, and do other good things. But they also use a not insignificant portion to fund a political lobby group that has an anti-gay agenda. Most people dont know about this, though. Few enough people know they automatically joined Destimy. Defenders of Destimy claim that people have freedom and the right to choose; they can CHOOSE to leave if they want to. Thats a their free choice, so of course they are free.
Now imagine the law changes from protecting this arrangement, to prohibiting it. But doctors decide to increase their fees to keep Destimy flush with cash. People will barely notice it, afterall $10 is a small line item on something that costs a thousand dollars.
Vote:March 28th, 2012 at 7:44 am
“I didnt realise it was called the freedom of disassociation.”
Freedom of association is freedom of disassociation … two sides to one coin.
“You mean has my freedom of association been infringed upon by being forced into an association?”
How has anyone been “forced” into an association here? Did I “force” you into being a member of my Blogger Commentators’ Club by deeming you to be one by virtue of your comments on this site (and, I note, you’ve yet to resign your membership … so obviously you don’t feel your freedoms are that infringed)?
“Kind of like asking if someones freedom of speech is infringed upon by legislating a requirement to apply in writing before you can be automatically granted permission to speak.”
No – not like this at all. What “legislation” is at issue here (there is no State compulsion involved)? Comparing one set of rights issues to another set of rights issues isn’t that helpful.
“Its about inertia. Most people will stay where they are. If they are joined, they stay joined. ”
Exactly. Why is this a problem for you? If people choose to stay members of students associations, even though they have an unrestricted right of exit, then why is this a bad thing?
“They represent dead money; money that doesnt need to be won, it just sits there.”
There is no money at issue in the choice to be a member/not a member. The University levies all students (members or not) a service fee and then contracts the association to provide the services to all students (members or not). You’re continuing to fight last year’s battles.
“What do you call taking someones money and not giving them anything in return?”
I am unsure of the relevance of this question, so will ignore it as I suspect (again) you do not understand the funding model in question.
As for your Destimy example … what is the problem with it? All you’ve done is (crudely) repackage the university/student association relationship under different names – how is this meant add to the discussion?
Vote:March 28th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Oh I love the smug comments from Dim and mikenmild saying that they prefer a system that doesn’t represent more than 10% of its members, and is funded by compulsion. Whatever happened to all the crybaby leftards who said VSM would kill unions? Were they… *gasp* lying?
Is this the type of democratic association you guys like to foist upon others?
If Universities have the funds available to throw at semi unelected student politicians and aspiring Labour flunkies then they are top of the list for funding cuts.
Vote:March 28th, 2012 at 11:19 am
AG, you don’t know how court costs work.
The Act does state “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.”
The instant you enroll at the University of Otago, under the OUSA Constitution, you are made a member of their association. There is no mechanism to avoid this (ie the process is not opt-in, nor is there the option to opt-out prior to enrollment).
Thus, you are required to be a member, even if one second after enrollment you opt out, you have still been forced to be a member at some point.
Even if you think that the word “required” is ambiguous, basic statutory interpretation requires you to look at the purpose of the enacting provisions to determine the proper meaning. The purpose of the legislation (the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act 2012) is clearly to end compulsory membership of students’ association. Any interpretation directly contradictory to that would be strained to the point of re-writing legislation – not something our judiciary is empowered to do (and nor should they be).
Considering such a challenge would need to be mounted in the High Court where the minimum fee for even starting a proceeding would be $1,300 (before legal fees which aren’t recoverable), it’s not surprising that students who live off less than the minimum wage cannot mount a challenge against an association which (a) uses the students’ own money against them, and (b) has millions of dollars worth of that money lying around to use.
Vote:March 28th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
This is precisely what I predicted when the bill was going down – that the universities would charge a compulsory fee to supply the same services – it was inevitable because when the bill came into law there was enough time to put in place any credible alternative.
In America one of the main reasons for rising costs of attendance at universities is non-Academic student services. The new means of providing these services in New Zealand look pretty cost efficient to me – the only downside is that students will have less say since the university now pays the piper and gets to call the tune.
Vote:March 28th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
@ James,
You say “The instant you enroll at the University of Otago, under the OUSA Constitution, you are made a member of their association. There is no mechanism to avoid this…” But that’s not really true, is it? Because as you’ve already stated in an earlier comment, the Constitution rule on membership is: “”Member” or “member” means: a student at the University who has not opted out of membership by way of notice in writing … .” So, someone who doesn’t want to be a member can, before enrolling at the University, tell OUSA “I don’t want to be a member of OUSA”, then enroll at the University, and never be a member of the student association (without any consequence whatsoever). So, even on your argument, no-one is “required” to be a member.
Further, the key word here is “required”. You treat this as meaning “no-one shall automatically be made a member of an association unless they voluntarily join it”. But this isn’t what “required” really means – it means “to demand; impose obligation”. Here, it is only OUSA saying “we deem such people to be our members” – they have no power/authority over the individual student to make them stay members. And if a student does opt out (whether prior to enrolling or afterwards) there is no consequence for them in any way, shape or form. So … to return to my example … when I deem you (and Kimble, and others) to be members of my Blogger Commentators’ Club by virtue of making comments on this site, have I “required” you to be members? Or have I, as an individual, simply said “this is how I view you in relation to the organisation I’ve just made up on the spot”? Equally, is anyone in New Zealand “required” to take part in Kiwisaver by virtue of the “automatic enrollment/voluntary opt out” model … is this actually “compulsory” superannuation saving?
(Incidentally, the fact no-one has bothered to opt out of my Club despite me repeatedly telling you that you are now members either indicates none of you really care that much about your freedom of association, or you view my deeming you to be members as a pretty silly thing that has no real meaning in the real world. So – how is being deemed a member of OUSA any different?)
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I don’t see all this as too much of a big deal – the University of Auckland has operated this way since 1999 when it became voluntary. However, unless things have changed in the interim, that University money was granted for specific contracted items and the AUSA was strictly audited. If other Universities do not do the same, they are going to get a speedboat or psychic hotline scandal on their hands fairly quickly, and heads will roll. If you are granting the money, then the buck stops with you, not the scarfies.
I think this is no cause for alarm – it will all sort it out and maybe we will have one or two VCs with egg on their faces in the interim. What fun!
Vote: