President: Joel Cosgrove
Education Vice President: Paul Brown
Welfare Vice President: Mellissa Barnard
Treasurer: Alexander Neilson
International Officer: William Wu
Queer Officer: Rachael Wright
Enviromental Officer: Mark Newton
Women’s Officer: Georgie Dickson
General Exec (5x): Fiona McDonald, Katie De Roo, Seamus Brady, Mellissa Barnard*, Sunny Thomas, Stefan Tyler
Council Rep: Christopher Bishop
Publications Committee Reps: Jordan King, Matthew David
*Mellissa will have to drop this position after winning Welfare VP, meaning Tyler gets the last spot
Full results when I have time to write them up.
RSS
Well thats a beating for the right,
By: Matt on September 28, 2007
at 10:52 pm
Not really a beating for the right, looks more like apathy beat a merry path away from the polling booth.
I know the A Team would of got a lot of experience from this campaign, notwithstanding the nasty types of campaigning and slander put against them. Good on them for trying!
By: Clint Heine on September 29, 2007
at 1:36 am
Woohoo, go Bish!
By: watcher on September 29, 2007
at 10:47 am
A-Team got smashed!
By: Phil Mince on September 29, 2007
at 11:24 am
They got smashed due to their clubs and rep groups policies and the negative campaign was by Young Labour.
The A-Team in effect got around 500 votes and Young Labour got 700 votes across the board and they benefitted from anti A-Team votes especially in General Exec positions 4/5 I am pleased that the quiet guy Stefan Tyler who works hard and doesn’t complain at least prevented them from getting a 5th General Exec member.
As for President Cosgrove ran a clean campaign, I KNOW it and the A-Team KNOW it as I one night after a late night at Salient I walked around the campus with Heleyni as she chalked (as it gets lonely and creepy for women on campus at night) and I carried a bucket of water and brush and removed the anti A-Team chalkings by Young Labour that tried to implicate Joel (they had skinny vote for Joel Cosgrove chalkings beside them, Helelyni like the A-Team crushed chalk with water and brushed her chalkings on fat) with things like “Just like Brutus the A-Team will stab you in the back…” (which were made to look like he said it based on the intellectual use of language used…). I also bumped into Mike Heine and the three of us chatted. After I left and Joel and Heleyni had gone home Mike texted me 10 minutes later informing me that there was some fresh anti A-Team chalkings that had gone up, Young Labour had done some shadowing that night… This chalking mentioned an anti A-Team Bebo page that was so poorly designed that you had to log in to view it, this was also obviously a cynical implication of other non A-Team candidates, the problem being that some of those other candidates are too tech savvy to be so sloppy and those other candidates already had much better designed blogs already set up…
As for Salient, I have no say over what went into Salient, I was asked to write some odds so I wrote them and I got them correct except for failing to take into account the Young Labour block that benefitted by the Anti A-Team votes that they helped muster up…
Salient can print what it wants as the Salient Constitution and Salient Charter indicate this, END OF STORY… The views in this blog comment/reply are my personal views and not Salient…
The A-Team were always going to be up against it, their policy to remove affiliation for clubs is a stupid policy as the whole point of affiliation is to provide liability cover for clubs. The merits of the cutting of funding is instead debatable and I am pleased that the A-Team had the guts to raise the deabate for this. One positive thing for clubs and rep groups is to at least foster closer relationships with their members and encourage their members to donate more money to their clubs as $25 per member donated volunatarily doesn’t require a refund to do (despite the debate over the refund)…
Clint quite rightly mentions the slander against the A-Team and he is definitely correct in regards to the anti A-Team posters and the Anna Duggan death rumours…
It has yet again been a cynical and dirty campaign from Young Labour and they have benefitted from it. They ran a negative campaign for President where their candidate Geoff the Maori didn’t even campaign and relied on his Young Labour cronies to spread slander and engage in dirty tricks which is something they have a history of doing…
By: Nick Archer on September 29, 2007
at 4:24 pm
actually no the negative campaigning wasn’t done by Young Labour. You make it sound like a conspiracy. Sure there was some unsavoury stuff going on on both sides but to implicate that Young Labour were working as a team to mastermind it is silly and insulting to members like myself!
Sorry Nick but get real
By: actually no on September 29, 2007
at 5:07 pm
I might add that its far from certain that Tyler will replace Barnard on the general exec. There is nowhere in the constitution saying that this will happen. The only thing it does say in the constitution is section 20 saying an applicant may only hold one of the positions on the exec. Thus Barnard can’t be WVP and General Exec at the same time. She will therefore have to resign one of these positions. Tyler is not elected if she resigns General Exec, because under section 45(h) of the constitution only the 5 candidates (including Barnard) polling the most votes are declared to be elected, and tyler is not one of these candidates. All sections refered to so far are in schedule 2 of the Constitution. Barnards resignation as general Exec member will therefore have to come under section 6 of part 3 of the constitution which makes it clear there will need to be a byelection.
By: Nicholas O'Kane on September 29, 2007
at 5:13 pm
Ahh I think “actually no” you are far off the mark. Most of the anti A team stuff I read was from pissed off YL members slagging off Anna as a bitter ex member.
The A team did not deserve the shit they got slung at them, especially as most of it was personal and nothing to do with the policies.
By: Clint Heine on September 30, 2007
at 5:47 am
actually no, it definitely wasn’t by Joel, Alex, Melissa, Rachael or Georgie or their supporters so who was it?? Hmmm It Makes You Think…
By: Nick Archer on September 30, 2007
at 4:17 pm
Maybe the A-Team slagged themselves off, hoping to invoke an anti-slagging vote from the right-wing? (Doubt it!)
By: SteveC on October 2, 2007
at 9:23 pm
Georgie is a lesbian, as women’s officer, how can she adequately represent heterosexual or ‘genetically well-functioned’ women?
By: Phil Mince on October 2, 2007
at 11:54 pm
fuckin’ lesbians…
By: Phil Mince on October 2, 2007
at 11:56 pm
Georgie is a woman, as women’s officer, how can she adequately represent ‘men’?
By: peteremcc on October 3, 2007
at 12:38 am
She will only be able to represent men in the governance role at Exec meetings, i.e. the parochial concerns of their agendas/portfolios come secondary to the interests of all students collectively. But I do agree that there should be debate about the position of the womens rights officer and what they achieve for women (and others) on campus…
I think Georgie will be least of your worries…
By: Nick Archer on October 3, 2007
at 1:15 pm
Mick Archer posted the following:
“I do agree that there should be debate about the position of the womens rights officer and what they achieve for women (and others) on campus…”
Translation: I am a faggot.
It is wonderful to cast rhetoric over debating this issue but if you do not clarify where this debate will take place, how on earth can you expect people to turn up to it.
Furthermore, the debate needs to be in an arena where everybody present can hear what the debaters have to say.
Unless of course Mick, you have some sort of secret agenda which will ensure that the debate never takes place.
Mick, I think you will find heterosexual women can entertain various positions. This blog, reminiscent exterminate, should not be a forum for misogynist views.
By: David Gourmet on October 24, 2007
at 4:02 pm