The biggest betrayal to a reporter isn’t ‘not being let into the USU Board meeting until 47 minutes after the alleged time of entry’. No, this is expected from the USU Board by now. The biggest betrayal was my shock at the lack of wedges in the array of Hostco food options which had (typically) gone cold by the time I arrived.
Oh sweet wedges, with your icy skin and slightly warm mushy insides, with your drippy sweet chilli and gloopy sour cream coating, how I miss you. As I wrote my ode to wedges and mourned my delicious potatoey snack, the doors to the Cullen room slammed open, and the ex camera proceedings of the May USU board began.
Four of the incoming USU Board members were seated alongside the directors: Archie Wolifson (Independent), Annika Wang (Independent), Michelle (Independent), and Noah Rancan (Liberal).
The agenda began with discussing a statement from the USU Board regarding recent racially-motivated attacks near the UNSW campus. President Bryson Constable (Liberal) spoke to the statement, initially brought to the board by Shirley Zhang (Independent) to affirm support for international Chinese students on campus. Constable suggested approaching the SRC and potentially other student organisations to sign on to the statement, and called for a vote to not only approve the statement, but also to support his desire to seek other student council signatories. The vote passed.
Editor’s Note: The statement is now available on the USU website.
This brought us to agenda point 11.2, arguably the biggest issue on the agenda, which was a censure motion raised against Honorary Treasurer James Dwyer (Unity). A censure motion is a motion which formalises the disapproval of an elected body as to the actions of one of its members, without specific consequences. Constable outlined that this motion is regarding a document provided to the President after the recent USU election detailing a left bloc preference agreement.
The document in question, a copy of which was provided to Honi, is a 24-page agreement between seven USU Board nominees, dubbed ‘The Left Bloc’, to “maximise each other’s interests during the 2025 USU elections”. The signatories vouched, if nominated, to use their campaigns and power on the board to maintain the USU as “progressive, pro-worker, effective, and free from Liberal Party/right-wing influence.” The document mostly outlines a preference deal of how-to-votes provided to prospective voters between the seven nominees. The agreement was signed by the seven nominees named and their campaign managers, of which Dwyer was one.
Constable raised that the document incited the signatories to “exclude individuals from portfolio appointments… fettering one’s own discretion in the future” regarding their allegiance to the bloc. Constable supported a censure due to Dwyer’s signature appearing on the document, which allegedly confounded his ability to act in the interests of the USU during the period of the election, and for “maintaining the secrecy of the agreement.”
Dwyer provided a statement regarding the motion. He affirmed that he “understands the significance of this, a censure is not to be considered lightly… we should welcome scrutiny [as Board Directors] even though I obviously find it uncomfortable since I am the subject of the scrutiny.” He addressed the substance of the motion, and claimed that “the overwhelming legal consensus of the advice I’ve gotten is that I haven’t breached my fiduciary duty… I didn’t feel bound to the decisions of the bloc, and I believed I was making decisions that were best for the USU.”
Dwyer then broadened the discussion to the need for wider electoral and cultural changes with the Board and elections, suggested “there is a huge governance control gap regarding the way the board interacts with elections”, and affirmed his support for electoral reforms. He concluded with a plea to “vote against the motion because I don’t believe I breached my fiduciary duty… the USU has been my life and soul in my time here at university, and to serve as treasurer.”
Following this, Dwyer, Wolifson, and Wang, as signatories of the document, were asked to leave the room for discussion of the censure. Constable opened the discussion to any Board member who wished to speak to the censure. Senate Appointed Director (SAD) Tiffany Donnelly asked for more context as to the content of the document and how it fits into a general understanding of USU elections.
Constable acknowledged that preference bloc deals have theoretically been made in previous elections, but this specific one will “restrict directors who are signatories from exercising their discretion” in their capacity as elected Board members. He provided an example of a director who is bound to a bloc agreement to be “pro worker” being unable to consider all potential options when voting on the financial decisions of the Board.
Vice President Ben Hines (Independent) reframed the issue: Dwyer’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty was not in binding himself to the bloc deal, but endorsing potential incumbent Board directors to do so themselves by signing this deal. Sargun Saluja (NSWLS) was concerned about how exactly the document breached fiduciary duty, since the principles identified (such as being “pro-worker”) were theoretically aligned with the principles of the USU. SAD Michael Bromley insisted that the censure was necessary as a public affirmation of “our reputation, our integrity, [and] the integrity of the USU overall”.
Grace Wallman (Independent) was troubled with the lack of clarity about what specific fiduciary duties the bloc agreement allegedly violated. She announced that she intended to vote against the censure, favouring a more holistic discussion around electoral regulations and preference deals which, she argued, the “structure of USU elections encourages”. Constable asked what these holistic alternatives would look like, to which Wallman pointed to conversations within the Governance committee and long-term cultural and regulation reforms.
Grace Porter (Unity), “coming to this issue as calmly as possible considering James [Dwyer] is a very good friend of mine”, questioned why this was being brought onto Dwyer considering his candidate (Leo Moore) was not elected to the Board. She worried that the motion was scapegoating Dwyer for actions which most, if not all, Board directors had engaged in at some point in their student politics career. She stressed that politicking and factional splits on the Board “harm us more than help us”, but these issues extend beyond the bloc agreement, and she asked the Board to consider the utility of the censure against Dwyer considering his consistent work as treasurer on the Board.
Hines agreed with Porter that a censure motion with the intention to scapegoat Dwyer does not reflect Dwyer’s overall great work on the Board. However, Hines argued that a censure motion is merely “a motion where the Board acknowledges you kind of fucked up”, and it was important to pass the motion so the Board does not condone deals which bind you to “three individuals” as opposed to the priorities of the Board. He suggested that “if this didn’t come to Board, Archie and Annika would breach their fiduciary duty” with the implicit permission of Dwyer as the Board treasurer. Hines stated that whilst the censure should come with no binding repercussions as to Dwyer’s position, it was important to “send a message” that this behaviour is not endorsed.
With a final message from Constable that the Board needs to “come together and recognise… a clear wrongdoing has been taken and it is up to us to censure it”, the vote is called. Constable, Donnelly, Hines, Zhang, Bromley, Phan Vu (Independent), and Julia Lim (Independent) voted for the censure. Saluja, Wallman, Porter, Ethan Floyd (Independent), and Georgia Zhang (Independent) voted against.
The vote, which needed a two-thirds majority, failed.
Constable called this “incredibly disappointing”, and affirmed that while the issue will be taken to the electoral committee, it was still “incredibly disappointing”. In case it wasn’t clear from his repetition, Constable found the vote outcome “incredibly disappointing”. Dwyer, Wolifson, and Wang re-entered the room.
The finance report, delivered by CEO Janina Jancu, bodes well for the last period. There was an expected financial loss, though not as great as projected. The USU is still ahead of financial goals of the year by $139,000, with the assets earning the most revenue being Manning House, Fisher Coffee Cart, Abercrombie Terrace, Courtyard Cafe, and Hostco Sydney catering. Jancu interestingly noted that there were “lower payroll costs as a result of vacancies in the organisation”, which is a very positive way to spin vacancies in an organisation.
Lim’s Honorary Secretary report covered the launch of Club Community Connections, which aims to let executives from different USU clubs build, well, community and connections. Lim continued, stating that the Clubs & Societies team have been meeting with consultants regarding how USyd can better treat their international students. Lim praised the recent USU Gala, to which Honi was not invited :(. Finally, she congratulated the previous PULP team who recently launched their final edition, and welcomed the new PULP team in their steed.
Dwyer’s Honorary Treasurer report was brief, and mostly highlighted the “great suggestions” around sustainability in the new food and beverage strategy of the USU.
Vice-President Hines delivered a verbal report predominantly covering updates regarding USU incorporation. Turning and looking me dead in the eyes at the mere whiff of talking about incorporation, Hines updated the room on the new incorporation plan: following the failed Special General Meeting (SGM) in April, the newest consultation period saw “some feedback, though not as much as we expected” considering a key critique of the previous SGM was the questionable amount of community consultation.
The USU has now called for a new SGM on 25th June, on which USU members will vote on endorsing the incorporation of the USU as a ‘Company Limited by Guarantee’ and the proposed constitution.
Constable concluded with his President’s report. He updated the Board on his meeting with the Office of Student Life regarding the popular vending machine options around the campus. He added that the canteen working group is continuing to work at finding a logistically plausible way to introduce a canteen for students on campus. Constable congratulated the six incoming Board members, and noted that there was an uptick in voter turnout this year, with a total of 5,480 votes counted. He noted that the sausage sizzles held at some voting locations on campus were incredibly popular, and proclaimed “democracy sausage should be done every day of every week regardless of an election”.
And just like that, another USU Board meeting is over. Keep an eye out over the coming days for our coverage of the upcoming Student General Meeting. We’ll see you in a month, with hopefully more talk of making the USU affordable for students in the cost-of-living crisis and less failed motions.
Editors Note: Current Honi Soit editor Victor Zhang is an employee of the USU. He is not involved in any of the coverage of USU matters for Honi Soit.
