(Updated) EXCLUSIVE – TBP speaks with former Guild Councillor Katy Wedderburn
Dylan Caporn – UWA Student Politics
Yesterday evening it was revealed that Liberty candidate Tan Farquhar would replace the outgoing Councillor Katy Wedderburn. The result, which came as a surprise after most political pundits expected either Liberty candidate Selina Metternick-Jones or STAR candidate Priya Brown, was hinted at yesterday evening by Guild President Matt McKenzie during a press conference.
However, last night after the Guild Council meeting, Ms Wedderburn contacted The Body Politic to inform us of her decision to appoint STAR candidate Priya Brown as her proxy for the evening.
“I made Priya [my proxy]. I was being petty. I was really mad because I’d given up something I really liked, loved even, being in the guild, months earlier than I needed to because I didn’t want to f**k everyone around. And then it was all for nothing, I could have kept it for one more month, maybe even two.”
Ms Wedderburn then continues.
And it really annoys me that Yannis [Councillor, Yannis Vrodos] and I appear to be the only two people who have done more than glance at the regulations.
Regulations state that any change to the voting membership of the guild council must be voted on by the guild council before it is enforced. So, my resignation had to be voted on. This could have been done by circular, a councillor has three days to reply to a motion by circular, after this time, if quorum is reached, the motion is closed. Or it could have been voted on at the council meeting we just had (didn’t have)
Of course, neither Matt [McKenzie] or Amy [Fels] seemed to know this regulation. And if they did then they were just screwing everyone around. My intention in resigning at the earliest possible moment was to ensure that my successor had time to get used to the working of the guild before the start of first semester, and that my position as the Chair of the Memberships Committee and a member of the Activities committee could be filled as soon as possible. Considering that the Memberships committee is most active right now.
The statement comes after The Body Politic was also contacted by another member of the Guild Council who speculated that the relationship between the Guild Executive and the former Councillor may have been strained.
“[I think]… one of the reasons why Guild Councillor Katy Wedderburn resigned is because of personal history with Ms Wedderburn and certain members of the Guild Executive, who often verbally abused her and would yell at her, sometimes reducing her to tears. Katy’s fear of their actions caused her to cry at the last Guild Council meeting for fear of their retribution for voting the way Katy wanted.“.
This speculation comes from within the Guild Council during a particularly tense time – with relationships between the two major parties, Liberty and STAR, reaching boiling point at last night’s Council meeting, which has been described by onlookers as ‘farcical’ and ‘shambolic’.
Since the publication of this article, The Body Politic has been contacted again by Ms Wedderburn in response to the speculation from the unnamed Councillor, and she states:
“I had a minor personality clash with a member of the Guild Executive… I always found it hard to forgive them for an imagined slight. I tried to get back at them, and they didn’t really forgive me for that. I supposed that is just a long and complicated way of saying we have history. But I always respected the Exec, and Matt Mckenzie as President and I liked the policies [of Liberty]. I certainly didn’t leave because of them.”
When probed further, Ms Wedderburn revealed that tensions between her and members of the Guild Executive could have made others feel uncomfortable, but that the incident at the last Guild Council meeting where she was reported to have left the room in tears was a ‘total overreaction’ on her part.
The Body Politic will continue to keep your informed in the lead up to next week’s rescheduled Guild Council meeting. Stay tuned for exclusive access to the behind the scenes workings of the Guild during 2012.
Seriously, how hard is it to check your theories before publishing them? You ought to have told Katy what the speculation was and asked for comment before splashing it all over the internet.
Indeed, the very first point of the Media Alliance Code of Ethics (http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html) contains the following: “Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.”
Katy deserved the opportunity to hear your theory and give here explanation before it hit your blog. She should not have had to contact you and explain herself.
This is not the first time you’ve slipped up here either – I refer you to your coverage of George Smiley.
Frankly, for someone who positions himself as a primary source of UWA political information, this is just not good enough. All I’m asking is that you follow an ethical requirement that would apply if you were in mainstream media. Is that really too much to ask?
I would be wary before making assumptions Daniel – Katy was aware of what we were publishing before it was published, in fact she was told a full two hours before this article was first published, and did not feel compelled to further speculate until after she received threats and personal attacks (notably the spreading of false rumours about why she had left UWA).
I would also perhaps ask you to read again – the speculation from the unnamed councillor who asked to have their views aired was in fact, for the most part, true and Katy says so in her second statement.
We also had asked the President for comment and his preference was to write his own entire article, rather than being quoted.
So I’m not sure what your issue is? Seems to have just been a bit of a misunderstanding on the part of yourself and others.
I would also note that we sought out contact with her the second time, not the other way around. I agree the wording could be better surrounding that sentence.
Implicitly you’re admitting that TPB does have an obligation to give a right of reply. Is TBP going to apologise to the people it named as George Smiley without giving them a chance to respond before publication?
I agree I don’t know the full chronology – and I’m especially confused by your second comment – but I’m not sure that lets you off the hook.
It seems that, and correct me if I am wrong:
– Katy contacted TBP with the information you used.
– This was combined with anonymous speculation from someone in GC.
– TBP told Katy something; exactly what I’m not sure. Was it the full text of the article?
– TBP published.
– Facebook and Twitter, etc., exploded with not entirely correct speculation.
– Either TBP contacted Katy or Katy contacted TBP to update/correct some of the speculation: I’m confused about this. There was some exchange, leading TBP to probe Katy about bursting into tears.
– TBP published this correction/update.
Assuming this timeline is correct, I think it was incumbent upon TBP to contact Katy and ask the questions before the initial publication. To take a small example, why didn’t TBP ask the question about bursting into tears in the first instance? Katy’s response makes the story very different.
Furthermore, why does it matter that some of the speculation was confirmed by subsequent fact? That seems like you’re trying to excuse dubious conduct because TBP got the information kinda-sorta right.
Finally, to take up a point made by @jchiat, editor of the Pelican, on Twitter: these people are not career politicians. They’re students. They’re ultimately at UWA to study towards a degree, not to play Guild politics. They deserve more privacy, more leeway, and more proactive fact-checking than someone who does politics for a living.
TBP can and should do better. Why defend mediocrity when you could be striving for excellence?
Pingback: Morning Report – Friday, 27th January 2012 | The Body Politic – Australia
Pingback: Open Post – 29 January | The Body Politic – Australia
Pingback: A Note to Our Readers | The Body Politic – Australia