- Daniel Rose
My nightmare scenario:
John A. Citizen (sorry) is a rather outgoing and well-connected student at ANU. He has grand designs for his life, probably including becoming a member of parliament or a lobbyist. John is your typical ANU student politico. John has submitted the required three pieces to Woroni to be nominated for the board of editors (they were of poor quality and therefore never published). Luckily for John, he also lives at one of ANU's residential colleges. When a position opens, John is nominated, and being the cunning politico that he is, he campaigns heavily at his college to have everyone cast a vote in favour of him, thus electing him to the board.
Jane B. Cool (worst) is a dedicated and talented sub-editor for Woroni. Jane lives in a share house in Braddon and values her position at Woroni greatly. She has written for Woroni for a couple of years and many of the writers look up to her. Jane does not, however, have college connections or a political career in mind. When a position opens Jane is nominated – but as she doesn’t campaign for the votes she probably deserves, she is beaten by John A. Citizen.
What I am trying to show here is that by allowing open membership, we will not be getting the best possible editors for the publication. Rather, we will more likely elect students who live on campus and are not afraid to campaign heavily for votes. I know of a couple of very talented contributors this year who did not run for Woroni 2011 either because they were “townies”, or because they were not lucky enough to be painted with the golden “Young Labor Left” brush that wins the ANUSA election every year.
Do not underestimate the power of the college vote. Especially if the voting will be electronic – all one needs to do is log on to their computer, navigate to a website and cast a vote in favour of who the poster in their hallway told them to.
This argument stems from my anxieties over the fact that the board of editors could become just another apparatchik circle-jerk, and likely deny a fair opportunity to those hard-working subbies and writers who would, in a sane world, be elected for their merits.
If the “fair-go” argument doesn't sell you, let us look at some analogues. Do most ANU clubs and societies have membership requirements, whether it be a fee or even a piece of paper that you sign to say that you want to be a member? The answer is yes.
What about our large corporations? Does every Australian get to decide who runs Rio Tinto? No, only the shareholders do.
So, if you haven't already set course for my college to drag me out of my room and throw me off a balcony for being undemocratic, I want to suggest a solution to the dilemma presented. Simply put: to vote you must be a contributor to the publication. A contributor is somebody who regularly submits publishable material, not a letter-writer, nor somebody who half-arses a few articles to meet a quantifiable standard.
Those of you who might feel cheated, or are screaming “ELITIST”, step back, and think about this. Do you really think that you, an outsider, has the knowledge to elect a competent editor? Or perhaps do you think that the only people who have the real insight into who the next editors should be are the writers, those who have worked with the budding editors?
Furthermore, North American university publications all have strict requirements for those who are eligible to vote. If we are trying to copy their successful model, why are we dismissing a very large aspect of the way they operate, the way those publications elect their leaders?
Let me also ask you, if you were a writer (as some of you no doubt are), would you feel comfortable working under some politico hack who wants to pad their resume, or working under a former colleague who you had a great say in electing?
Careful thought over the election process of the board of editors would surely lead to a competent and harmonious board of editors. I hope your comments will set a mandate for the drafters of the new Woroni constitution.
