Are students uninterested in the student representation remodel?

After three years of messy governance, the student association finally had their first forum for redesigning the representation model — but awkward silence was the theme.  

About 25 attended the forum, most of whom were either reps or staff themselves. As the questions rolled in, dead air followed.  

The forum took place last week on the Wellington campus, hosted by the outside party helping with the remodel – Third Bearing.  

Third Bearing is a business development service, with an office based in Palmy Massey. Scott Haumaha opened up the PowerPoint presentation, looking at what changes could be made.  

He said this would be a “fundamental shift in what the association could look like”. 

A working group with student reps and Massey reps had been working on different ideas for the remodel. One presented, which seemed to be controversial among reps, was to have experts on the board to assist with governance. Non-student experts could bring skills into helping to chair and manage meetings.  

This suggestion comes after the previous rep manager and general manager both left their roles following issues with governance.  

Distance vice president, Brooke Mehlhopt, didn’t agree with this change, particularly if the expert got a board vote. She didn’t feel the change would honour the association’s promises, “Not sure about the vote though when it's ‘for students by students’.” 

Previous issues regarding why the remodel was even taking place were not mentioned. Some students seemed to be confused on the current structure, and when Wellington vice-president Takunda Mabonga asked if any of students knew what class-reps do, no one raised their hand.  

The hosts also suggested simplifying the constitution, describing it as “technical heavy”. Under the current 34-page constitution, reps have been removed from the board with few there for the vote, and conflict has arisen over who is and isn’t allowed to run for roles.  

A change that reps were for though, was doubling the rep terms from one to two years. While the room was 50/50 split on this change, the reps were keen.  

Māori president Ripeka said, “By the time you’ve actually got it down, you’re out. My vote on two-year terms is based on lived experience.”  

She pointed to how current reps weren’t elected till April and are expected to finish later this year. While the election usually takes place near the end of semester two, giving reps an entire year of work, last year’s election was cancelled due to the unfit governance model.  

Distance vice president Mehlhopt agreed with this vote, “You need to take the time to know your cohort.”  

“It’s not just learning your role either, the people you’re learning from are learning their role too.”  

A student however, disagreed, asking if there was a cleaner way to start rep roles so it wouldn’t take so long to get moving, “Is there a way to make the one-year term easier by facilitating a better start?” 

The student, one of the only ones to speak up, said, “Every year is completely different, and there’s different people. Every year is a fresh start.” 

And the ongoing debate of roles being elected or appointed came up, but a consensus wasn’t reached. The debate continues. 

The PowerPoint went on to say a new structure would be implemented after September. 

As the forum ended, and the usual encouraging students to make feedback commenced, it was essentially just reps and staff left. The food was gone, and in turn, so were the students.