Former ANUSA General Secretary Found to have Exceeded Powers after Bitter Dispute

Madeline Birdsey, Skanda Panditharatne, and Jason Pover

The former ANUSA General Secretary, Kat Reed, has been found to have acted beyond their powers in overruling an interpretation of the Queer* Department constitution by then Queer* Officer, Ariel Scott. This is the first case brought before the ANUSA Disputes Committee in two years, which is ANUSA’s final appellate body for disputes. However, the Committee found Reed did adhere to procedural fairness, and did not find evidence for claims of collusion between Reed and other parties, or motivations of malice. The decision was met with a mixed response by the current Queer* Officer Matthew Mottola, saying that “this decision has strengthened the convention of department autonomy, at the potential cost of oversight and accountability”, while former Officer Scott praised it as a “strong win for the autonomy of our Collectives”.

The interpretation concerned the attribution of honoraria in October of last year, which are traditionally tokenistic payments made to volunteers for exceptional contributions to an organisation. At a late October meeting of the Queer* Collective, residual honoraria was awarded to nine individuals. Section 10.5.2.1 of the Queer* Department constitution stipulated that “the Officer and Deputy Officers are to bring a motion to a meeting notifying the Collective of the distribution of honoraria between the Officer and the Deputy Officers. This motion is to be put directly to a vote.” The motion brought to the meeting had not been approved by the Deputy Officers and was allowed to be amended before being put to a vote. Two members of the Queer* Department, Deputy Officers Matthew Mottola and Florin Douglas, arguing that the motion was inconsistent with 10.5.2.1, later made a request for interpretation to ANUSA President James Connolly, who referred the request to General Secretary Kat Reed. In response, Scott argued that the relevant section of the Queer* Department constitution was broadly inconsistent with ANUSA’s payment regulations and thus inapplicable. Speaking to Observer, Mottola refused to comment on the start of the dispute, saying it would “tear the proverbial scab open”. Scott told Observer that the decision to bring the dispute to the General Secretary rather than the Queer* Collective was  “regrettable, causing distress and anxiety to members of the Collective”.

Reed, acting in their role as General Secretary of ANUSA, attempted to overrule Scott by making a countermanding interpretation of the Queer* Department constitution, finding that it was in fact consistent with the ANUSA constitution and thus 10.5.2.1 should apply. Reed told Observer that “There were many different responsibilities and priorities at hand (including the wellbeing of some individuals and a concern for possible incorrect use of ANUSA’s financial policies) and all were considered carefully. At the time, the powers of the Gen Sec in this unique circumstance were unclear and I regret the outcome was not as intended.” As there were not enough teaching days left in the academic year to call a meeting, the Collective was unable to meet again to discuss the matter. Scott claimed that Reed had voiced concerns before the meeting, but attended themselves and did not overrule then.  Most of those involved in the motion were not notified at the time, with all nine’s honoraria reduced to zero by Reed’s intervention. Mottola, who had not assumed the role of Queer* Department Officer at the time, noted that the delay was “unfortunate” but maintained the delay was “better than giving recipients money, knowing something may have been awry and then having that money taken back from them.”

In an email chain between Reed and Scott prior to the disagreement being brought to the committee, Reed was not willing to share with the Collective that they had overruled the motion of the Collective. In a statement to Observer, Reed said that “This matter required delicacy due to concern for the wellbeing of some individuals. I wished to complete the process to ensure proper care was taken to ensure their safety.” The email chain itself ultimately formed evidence considered by the committee. The pair eventually agreed on a compromise in mid-November where the nine affected members of the Collective would be informed.

On the evening of the 30th of November, Scott made two posts to the Collective page informing the rest of the Collective of the dispute. Scott claimed that in those posts they named those (Mottola and Douglas) behind the original request for interpretation to Reed, which they claimed was fair under both due process and their authority as Queer* officer. Both posts were removed by group admins, the two Queer* deputies, Mottola and Douglas. Mottola, told Observer that it was “regrettable” that Scott’s posts were not “redacted to prevent harm to individuals.” Scott, also speaking to Observer, said it was “disappointing that Mottola, who is accountable to the Collective, does not believe the Collective should be aware of his actions”.

GenSec Powers

The disputes committee ultimately found that only the Queer* Officer and the Collective itself had interpretative power over the constitution of the department and that ANUSA officer’s outside the Collective had no such power, rejecting a number of potential heads of power raised by Reed. The first line of argument, that the monies fell under ANUSA payment regulations and policy and thus under the General Secretary’s purview, was rejected as such a power did not extend to determining how honoraria itself was spent or divided. Another argument rested upon the proposition that the ANUSA constitution in forcing Departments to give copies of their constitution to the General Secretary thus giving the General Secretary authority over Department constitutions. This was also rejected by the Disputes Committee as being inconsistent with other parts of the ANUSA constitution. The final argument on this point considered and similarly rejected by the Disputes Committee was that the Queer* Collective Constitution was a policy of ANUSA and thus subject to the General Secretary’s interpretation.

The Disputes Committee has ordered that the Office of the General Secretary now acknowledge they have no such inherent power to interpret Department constitutions. The current Queer* officer, Mottola, took umbrage with this aspect of the committee’s decision telling Observer that while he believes “the relationship between collective and their elected leaders is unique and vital, I have no trouble reconciling this with the interconnected relationship we ought to have with ANUSA. This opinion is obviously different to the decisions reached by the Disputes Committee.”

Given that the committee found that neither it nor the General Secretary are empowered to interpret the Queer* Department constitution, the committee did not make a finding about the validity of Reed’s interpretation.

The committee also considered the issue of the putative breach of department autonomy. The committee found that Reed had breached autonomy but that department autonomy is only a convention and not codified within the ANUSA constitution. Scott expressed concern about the intervention to Observer, saying that Reed “doesn’t seem to believe autonomy applies to them [Reed],” and questioned what the reaction to the intervention would have been if Reed “was a cis straight white male.” Reed told Observer that “As a former Queer* Officer, Departmental autonomy is very close to my heart and I did not take this situation lightly.”

Procedural Fairness

Particularly contentious was the accusation by Scott that Reed did not act in compliance with procedural fairness. Their original allegation was based on what Scott argued was an unreasonably short period of 48 hours given by Reed to appeal their own decision. The committee rejected this, finding that the length of the appeal window was “fair for the circumstances”. While Scott argued that the proximity of the 48 hours to the marriage equality survey results day, which they had stated was triggering for them, made this period unreasonable, the committee found that circumstances including the impending examination period and imminent end of the General Secretary’s term demanded fast action.  Significantly, two of the three members of the committee, Joel Baker and Eben Leifer, recused themselves from the deciding the matter of procedural fairness; this left Rhiannon McGlinn as the sole sitting member of the committee for this aspect of the dispute.

Collusion and Malice

In a later submission, Scott claimed that Reed colluded with redacted persons to increase their honoraria, and that Reed’s motivations were malicious. They claimed that the decision made by the General Secretary was intended to “fix this problem of so-called [un]fairness” in the amount of honoraria given to two redacted members of the department. They claimed that Reed had colluded with these persons beforehand, and had taken “unilateral executive action, in violation of the intent and clear resolution of the Queer* Department” in support of these people and in bad faith against Scott.

The report issued by the Disputes Committee notes that there “are concerns surrounding the meetings between the interested parties and the General Secretary” and that Reed’s interpretation can be viewed as favouring the unnamed parties. However, the Committee found no evidence that this rose to the level of ‘collusion’. It also found that the evidence presented at the Committee “does not show that a malicious intent”, and therefore rejected both the claims of collusion and malice, describing them as “unfounded and unsubstantiated”.

A version of this article was posted last week. We made the editorial decision to remove and update the article in order to ensure that it was able to give the most accurate depiction of the events possible.

Observer received the redacted version of the public report. Some of the redaction was not effective, but we have chosen to respect the spirit of the redaction in the interest of autonomy.

Where we have used information that is covered by department autonomy, we have done only with the consent of the individual/s involved.

Jason Pover worked on an early version of this article, but recused himself from playing a role in the final edit due to personal issues. Eliza Croft and Michael Turvey were not involved in the writing or editing of this story. Ebe Ganon and Joel Baker do not have a role in the Editorial Process. News Editors Eliza Croft and Michael Turvey, Digital Editor Ebe Ganon, and Secretary Joel Baker have personal ties to some of the subjects of the story. Digital Editor Ebe Ganon has financial interests in the subject of the story. Joel Baker sits on the disputes committee and is the Secretary of Observer. Kat Reed and Ariel Scott sit on the Observer Arbitration Panel but have no role in the Editorial Process.