Hello everyone! We are in the Green Futures Building (ew) for MSC 7, waiting to meet quorum.

Neither the President nor Secretary is here, so we're waiting for someone to take charge.

Scratch that they've arrived.

There's been a bit of a brouhaha on the agenda for this meeting - at first a confidential agenda was circulated, then just before the meeting began, a new one without any confidential items was sent out.

There's a very large turnout of observers today, more than 15. Perhaps it's good we're not in the Conference Room as otherwise we'd be absolutely boiling.

First up we have confirmation of minutes (which we note don't seem to be attached anywhere), followed as usual by reports.

We are still waiting, despite quorum clearly being present.

The meeting is opened at 11:22am.

Confirmation of minutes has been withdrawn as there "was a mistake" (Felix, Secretary).

OB reports accepted, motion carries without dissent.

An amendment is moved to the Lot's Report, to remove Radmon (as sadly, they didn't attend the extravaganza that was NUS EdCon).

Proceedings are momentarily halted while we fix the speaker, as those on Zoom can't be heard.

And now we can hear them at an excruciatingly high volume.

The Lot's Reports are accepted, motion carries without dissent (yay!).

We're onto a new motion about the rejection of an article in Lot's about misogyny in the MSA. Jay moves a procedural to skip the motion, and Grace Binns (proxy, the author of said article) notes that this is undemocratic.

The procedural is narrowly defeated, 12-10. Jay calls for a recount on the vote.

The recount fails, 12-11.

We proceed to consideration of the motion.

Charlotte waives her speaking rights to Grace Binns.

Grace explains she wrote to the MSA Exec to tell them she was writing an article about misogyny in the MSA, asking for comment. The email was not responded to. After the article was rejected, Grace was given no reason for the rejection, and no opportunity to amend the piece.

"This was not a political piece."

Grace concludes her remarks with an invocation of standing order 30.5, which requires that her remarks be directly quoted in the minutes.

Next we hear from Cass, an observer. She feels it is particularly disappointed in the exec "why are they not hiding in shame now?" She compares it to the trend across the world of authoritarian leaders suppressing journalism.

Next is Carina, who is well known for her work at Wholefoods and Stop Woodside Monash.

She thinks it is telling that the article was blocked, questioning the exec's motivations: is the reputation of men more important than the safety of women?

Next we have Toyo (Thomas), the former MSA ESJ OB, who calls us a staunch media publication (thanks). He notes the history of Lot's, that includes much publishing of controversial pieces, so why was misogyny the threshold issue that led to the piece being blocked?

Continuing the trend, he concludes with asking for his remarks to be fully quoted in the minutes.

Eden (Queer OB) notes that in their 1 year of experience they have been "revolted and disgusted" by the misogyny they have witnessed in the MSA.

Charlotte (D&C OB), who was interviewed for the article, emphasises she did it to start a conversation on the issue, not as a political hit.

Georgie (RadMon), who has much experience in the MSA and the MSC, says she understands the defamation risk as someone in the media space, but the risk was greatly overstated by the exec.

"I'm not a student politician, I run a radio station" Georgie emphasises.

If the MSA is going to clamp down on this type of article, it sets "an appalling standard" going forward, for media censorship and for the MSA overall.

She hopes the exec can acknowledge these issues and take constructive action in future.

Angus (of Lot's Wife fame) tries to speak, but forgets the mic is off.

He notes that previously Lot's has had much freedom in communicating with the MSA lawyer to determine whether an article is defamatory, but for this article, the Exec failed to share the legal advice.

He notes the Exec does have the nominal power to hold articles for defamation, but they way they have gone about it for this article is "an overstep".

"We won't publish something defamatory, we're not stupid". Mandy's nominal enrollment in a law degree is also featured.

He notes he has also witness some horrible acts of sexism in his time in the MSA. He is now scrolling the Constitution to find a provision, has failed to find it, and is muttering to himself.

Now we have from Khoa Tran (observer), who is a frequent instagram poster about MSA affairs, and notes that Felix and Sasha have communicated with him about his posts. He thus finds it "astonishing and appalling" that they failed to do the same for Grace.

He notes that the first steps of the Exec should have been to give Grace advice on how to improve her article so as to get it published. He also mentions that there were many examples of misogyny during the MSA election campaign.

We're yet to hear from any of members of the Exec or anyone opposing the motion - will it go through on the nod?

"it doesn't start and end with just one article"

He ends with a rousing call to action "make sure you do not mess this up."

Now we have Tyra (Treasurer), who notes she was deeply disappointed by how the Exec handled the article. She says despite being in the MSA for only 3 months, she has seen more misogyny than here in the rest of her life.

Grace has the mic again, to read a statement from last year's Women's OB Zoe Binns (no relation).

Zoe says she experienced what the article discusses in her term last year. She expects all members to be in favour of this motion, as they have a duty to improve the situation for OBs next year. She urges members to exercise their own judgement when voting.

Now we hear from Sasha (President). She thanks Grace for sending the email informing them of the article, and explains the timeline. She says the only advice received stated the article was potentially defamatory, with no more details, and it came in too close to the deadline.

She notes she has been involved in stupol for many years, and agrees that misogyny is an issue in the MSA. She states the reason for blocking was purely based on the legal advice, not for personal reasons.

We move to Jay, who doesn't feel it is fair to argue there was censorship, as they were acting solely on legal advice. Charlotte asks for a point of clarification - why did they try skip the motion then?

Jay says that it doesn't seem like they wanted to hear other opinions.

Jay is disappointed he wasn't contacted for comment.

He urges people with legitimate complaints to follow the formal MSA complaints process.

Madi (EdPub) says she hasn't seen the article, but "censorship generally is not good". Her experience with Lot's has involved feedback on potentially defamatory passages, which she thinks would have been helpful in this situation.

She feels uncomfortable making a call on whether the MSA is institutionally sexist, but it is important to have an atmosphere of open debate.

Now we move to Alex Self (MAPS), who agrees the MSA is definitely a sexist institution. He has read the amended article during the meeting, and doesn't think its defamatory.

Felix (Secretary) argues the Exec has a duty to stop defamatory material being published. He reiterates it was a legal decision, the only consideration being whether to put the MSA at legal risk.

We're back to Grace again, who agrees that she could have given more notice of the article to the exec, but wished that she could have heard the exec's concerns before she had started writing, which is why she reached out in advance.

Grace argues she also has a duty of care to the women who she interviewed, and apologises for not contacting Jay for comment as well.

We move to a vote, not before Leroy move a procedural to consider the related motions en bloc.

The procedural passes 12-11.

After a bit of back and forth, Sasha reads the other motions, and given the speaking time assigned has elapsed, we'll move to a vote directly after.

The motion fails on the tiebreaker cast by Sasha, but a recount is granted.

The same result occurs, but there is confusion as 24 votes were cast with 23 members present.

We're going to a physical division, the first time this has happened like ever.

And the motion carries 11-10 on the final recount.

We're onto the next motion to fill some vacancies on the ESJ Collective, the proposed members being the 2026 ESJ OBs, Anushka and Penelope.

The motion carries without dissent.

The next motion is to approval an amendment to the MAPS constitution, to bring it in line with the Constitutions of the other Divisions.

The MSC has appointed Alessandro as a late proxy to Paul-- shame we've had to let him go from the hot desk (as he was doing the tweeting) but you've got me now.

Back to the vote- motion carries 18 for, none against (wonder where everyone went).

The next motion pertains to the MSC's support of the Global Sumud Flotilla and demanding sanctions on Israel.

Madi (mover) adjusts the motion with an amendment, to change some wording and to endorse the Students for Palestine rally coming up. Madi has noted that this amendment was emailed but was not present in the revised agenda. Mover et seconder are amenable so we shall speak on it

Madi speaks about the bravery and inspiration of the Flotilla, and how the MSA should bring the conversation back to Palestine (like, more generally. Not just now)

Seconder speaks to the importance of the anniversary of October 7th, and not letting a moment of opportunity pass us by. Also speaks to the inaction of the Australian government.

Penelope (incoming ESJ-elect) condemns Albo's October 7 statement.

15 in favour, 1 abstention. Motion carries

The next motion focuses on Monash's decision to build a new residential hall, and recognises it as a step in the right direction to alleviate the student housing crisis. It also casts doubt on the uni's ability to build this with student's best interest in mind.

Members of the MSC clearly not locked into the meeting and are on Instagram are reminded to focus!

Charlotte asks to clarify why we're praising the university for building a new hall. An amendment is proposed to remove point one (recognises the creation of a new hall is positive step towards alleviating the student accommodation housing crisis) as to not praise the university

Felix asks why "replace" with "have both" clauses in the motion (commending + demanding university accommodation prices go down)

This was proposed as an amendment to the amendment: the amendment to the amendment passes 13-2, 1 abstention. So now the motion calls for commending Monash, recognising issues with the build, and calling on Monash to reduce housing prices.

17 in favour, 1 abstention of the amended motion.

Next motion accepts the 2025 MSA Financial Statement Summary from May-August, 14 in favour, 1 abstention, motion carries. A number of members have left the room

Motion #12: This MSC calls on Monash University to change its teaching schedule so that the mid-semester break falls between Week 6 and Week 7 of Semester Two

Remus (mover) speaks to the unpopularity of Monash's Week 9 midsem break, and how students feel burnt out way before the break. Remus also clarifies that this motion is unrelated to his Academic Board candidacy, and that he has supported this motion long before this.

Alex (MAPS) feels best equipped to talk about how families and Mature Age students are disproportionately affected by the week 9 midsem, especially because its during school holidays and coincides with the AFL Grand Final (FLAGLIONS UP?!??!)

Wait he actually spoke against but mentioned the points above ^^ 9 in favour 1 oppose I think? I kinda missed the vote

Lot's Wife contract extensions- contract extensions for handover purposes. The mover amends the motion to spell Aish's name correctly, and to encourage the incoming exec to fix the discrepancy in the OB regs that require this fuck ass extension to be passed in the first place.

We are not optimistic that this will be passed, even though we would really like to be paid for doing work. It just feels right.

Tyra waives her speaking rights to Angus who explains the nature of this provision, which basically boils down to for some reasons our contracts end at the end of Oct (for independence reasons? We're not sure?) whereas everyone other OB's contracts end at the end of Nov I think

Felix replies asking why the wording of the amendment- "incoming executive" is noted when the current executive supports the OB reg change, which Angus acknowledged in his speaking time.

Georgie (RadMon) supports us wholeheartedly and speaks to how unsteady the media world is, and how RadMon's equipment and shit breaks all the time, and how a proper handover would mitigate this issue. She proffers her full support (yippee)

12 in favour: 1 abstention, motion carries.... that's nice!

Wait it failed because it wasn't an absolute majority because we are barely quorate

That's not nice then :(

Meeting closes 1:28 pm. Live laugh MSC