The University of Sydney Union (USU) is holding a Special General Meeting (SGM) on 17th April, 2025 to pass amendments to the current USU constitution. Notice for the SGM was provided on 2nd April, ahead of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) where the incorporation of the USU will be voted on as a substantive matter.
The incorporation process so far has been spearheaded by USU President Bryson Constable and Vice President Ben Hines. The incorporation would see the USU become an independent legal entity, as opposed to its current unincorporated state.
SGM Constitutional Changes
The tranche of five constitutional amendments proposed at the SGM seeks to alter the structure of the USU Board of Directors to more closely match the proposed governance structure of the USU post-incorporation.
The proposed Board structure will see the voting members of the Board be five student directors elected in even numbered years, four student directors elected in odd numbered years, the Immediate Past President (IPP), Immediate Past Vice President (IPVP), and two University Senate appointed directors.
The first constitutional amendment refines the definition of IPP and IPVP. The amendment also clarifies that should the IPP or IPVP be unable to fill the role, the directorship may be appointed to any immediate past Executive Director.
The second constitutional amendment drastically alters the composition of the Board of Directors. Currently, there are 11 elected student directors and two directors appointed by the University Senate.
The change will see five directors elected in even years, four directors elected in odd years, two directors appointed by the University Senate, and the inclusion of the IPP and IPVP as voting members of the Board. Whilst this technically affirms the promise of eleven student representatives, two of those positions will be held in extension to the duly elected nine other positions.
The third constitutional amendment adjusts Section 10 — pertaining to elections — to reflect the proposed Board structure above.
The fourth constitutional amendment inserts a transitional clause to clarify that the 2025 Special Meeting of the Incoming Board — to elect the Executive Officers of the USU, chairs of USU Committees, and portfolio holder positions — will be by the Board as reflected in the above amendments.
The fifth constitutional amendment amends the duration of office to reflect that under the proposed Board structure, the IPP and IPVP will serve a three year term.
Why?
The proposers of the amendment believe that the altered Board “aligns the USU’s governance structures more closely with best practice”, citing “additional continuity” brought by the IPP and IPVP. They claim that the inclusion of the IPP and IPVP as voting members of the board will not result in a “reduction in elected student voices.”
The claim is put forth that an additional year of voting rights on the Board would incentivise the IPP and IPVP to engage with the Board and provide continuity in projects that they have started. It is claimed that “incredibly important [initiatives] fall victim to external considerations and myopia” without this.
Perhaps if an outgoing President or Vice President thought that their projects would not be seen through, and they could not impress upon the incoming Directors the importance of continuing them, they should seek election again on Board. After all, if one were truly invested in these “incredibly important [initiatives]” for the USU, they would have the incentive to see it through using the avenues already provided, much like the other Board Directors.
Honi finds the change from 11 to nine Board Directors to be a reduction in genuine student representation, and questionably democratic. We believe there is insufficient evidence for the claim that the IPP and IPVP can be considered ‘student directors’, considering that Board Directors are elected by the USU membership on a mandate of a two year term.
The claim is made in the proposed amendments that the new Board structure increases student control from 84.6 per cent to 89.3 per cent. The 84.6 per cent figure is straightforward (11 divided by 13 = 0.846). The 89.3 per cent figure makes the assumption that the IPP and IPVP are counted as ‘student directors’ and that students have 50 per cent control over the three external directors post-incorporation. For clarity, the proposed post-incorporation Board will have three external directors, but the proposed post-SGM Board will still have two senate appointed directors.
Say we suspend these assumptions: suddenly, the student control percentages look much less rosy. By our account, the changes at the SGM — reducing the eleven elected directors to nine and giving the IPP and IPVP voting rights — reduces democratically-elected student control over the structure of the Board post-SGM to 69.2 per cent.
Thus far, ‘consultation’ with the USU membership has been done in the form of online surveys. The most recent survey, a thinly disguised push-poll which received 170 responses, had 84.7 per cent of respondents support incorporation and 77.6 per cent of respondents support the proposed governance model. One is reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s explanation for how surveys actually work. Closer to home, SRC Environment Officer Lilah Thurbon summarised the survey aptly: “Incorporation of the USU will give everyone a kitten and a puppy. [Do you support it?]”
Honi wonders what the USU has shown their notable supporters and endorsers? We are told that the “USU did not receive any response that was not supportive of the proposal to incorporate”. One cannot imagine it would be difficult to endorse the concept of incorporation in the abstract, much like one would support the concepts of transparency and integrity. Gilbert and Tobin, the legal firm the USU has engaged for incorporation, will only produce a draft constitution on the 14th of April.
The proposers of the constitutional amendments, and incorporation, have advertised the fact that they consulted with “former Prime Ministers/Party Leaders” who gave their approval. Honi feels compelled to ask what relevance the advice of politicians has to the incorporation of the USU.
At the March USU Board meeting, Honi queried Constable as to whether the University had thus far endorsed the incorporation plan, to which Constable suggested “in-principle support from key members of the University Executive.”
Honi has confirmed through a University of Sydney Spokesperson that key members of the University executive gave “in principle support for the USU’s proposed direction… however no formal constitution has been presented to the University for consideration.”
Honi is to understand that the University has made demands on the governance structure of the incorporated USU. In the proposed incorporation structure document, the USU lists “non-negotiable…priorities and imperatives” the University has set forth, considering that prior “proposed [incorporation] model[s]… failed to get the approval of the University”. The exact demands of the University and their justification have not been communicated to the membership. It is unsatisfactory to Honi the lack of information provided to the USU membership around the demands of the University, considering their claim that the incorporation will provide greater independence to the USU to act on behalf of the student body.
What Now?
With short notice, the USU membership body will be voting on proposals based on an incoming constitution that will fundamentally alter the independence and student representation of the USU Board.
The USU is and will remain a significant part of student life at USyd. With oversight from their Board of Directors, they host and manage Welcome Fest every semester, govern and fund almost all clubs and societies, and operate facilities and food and beverage services in some of the most popular buildings on campus. The USU also manages autonomous spaces, Foodhub, free period product distribution, and other essential services which are outside of the Mandate of the University Executive.
While Honi theoretically supports incorporation for the USU, we are deeply concerned by the exact governance model proposed, and the haste with which it is being formalised. This is because of the lack of clarity around the University executive’s involvement in the incorporation plan, and the mere fact that this proposal will directly affect the outcome of an election for which nominations are already open.
The benefits proposed, whilst seemingly benevolent, arguably do more to bolster the voting power of the President and Vice President than to resolve issues of continuity and legal status, which could be achieved in more equitably democratic Board structures.
Further, Honi does not believe that, in spite of the USU’s months of vague notice and presumably thousands of dollars in consultancy fees, the membership body has been genuinely consulted or educated on the specific incorporation model, or that the process has been engaged in with sufficient transparency.
Overall, Honi remains unconvinced that these proposed changes put forth at the SGM will truly benefit the student body. It remains to be seen whether the student body will stand by the governance changes.
The SGM will be held at the Holme Refectory and online via Zoom from 4:15pm to 5:15pm. Register for the SGM here.
Editors’ Note: Current Honi Soit editor Victor Zhang is an employee of the USU. He is not involved in any USU coverage for Honi Soit.
