Desperate for a scoop on the recent Guild elections, Incite editors eagerly grabbed a scathing report presented by Michael Ondaatje (edited for length) :

'Now that the profound sense of 'excitement' and 'stimulation' marking the recent University Guild Elections has ended and the student victors declared, it is perhaps timely to review its major outcome and fundamental significance.

Strolling around the campus as a third year student, lapping up the political arguments being promoted by different factions of the so-called left and right, it became terribly obvious that student elections had been reduced to a sham in which the principle movers were self-serving, opportunistic young adults relishing in the prospect of acquiring a university post that would only strengthen their claims with future employers operating within the bleak confines of the current 'market'.

Between the refectory and the Reid Library there was hardly time to catch one's breath amidst the fervent cries - which incidentally were more like outlandish lies- of certain candidates whose very presence in the 1998 elections devalued even further the already diminishing validity of a farcical system crying out for a complete overhaul or, at least, basic reform. Sadly, however, neither seems likely in the near future and worst of all no one seems to care anyway!

And reform seems unlikely for the very reason that the mood on campus, even over the last three years, has changed dramatically. The collective feeling of student mateship is fast disappearing, and for this, the blame must rest with unrepresentative student delegates whose passionate pronouncements like "Vote for me because I will do this for students" actually translate, when analysed closely, into "Vote for me and help me set up for a prospective career in politics, law, diplomacy" - the list goes on.

Disturbing trends such as these will continue to characterise Guild Elections until such career-oriented political 'wannabees' are dealt death blows at the polling booths and condemned forever to the dustbin of University politics. Surely in 1998, faced with the possibility of more attacks to Higher Education individuals would be better off campaigning and then delivering on a platform aimed at mobilising students against the detached power elites by playing their part in the creation of a strong and unified student movement designed primarily to assert once and for all that "education is a right and not a privilege".'

Disillusioned with this permeating cynicism which seems to have infected everyone we talked to, three of Incite's editors went on a fact finding mission, visiting the 1998 Guild President Rosie Dawkins in her homely office which contained a very comfy and even more homely blue couch. None of us were familiar with the world of Guild politics or the Guild President, our only experience in this arena was the yearly harassment from earnest young men and women milling about at stragetic places throughout the university. They flog the dead horse of student interest with bright pieces of paper, catchy names, trendy acronyms, and colourful controversies over heady issues such as an extra vending machine in the Ref.

So we politely asked Rosie Dawkins to take us through the high stakes and deadly serious world of Guild politics. With a quite charm and charisma reminiscent of Dr Carmen Lawrence she left us in no doubt that the Guild was in capable hands, for 1998 at least. The Guild was in good shape, Miss Dawkins told us, indeed even Guild Catering was making a profit!!! Despite a $3 million debt to the university, the Guild has a turnover a $5 million dollars and a $1 million dollar budget $200,000 of which comes from Guild members.

Did you know that 3087 students are Guild members, out of 12,000 full time students enrolled in UWA? There was also a 20% retention rate of 1st years. Why the massive dropout after 1st year? The answer lies partly in why 1st years join. Political considerations are usually secondary, as a quick perusal of the infamous Guild 'pizzabox' will reveal. Often parents think it would be a good idea if their son/daughter join and pay in first year. Unable to point to how their expenditure has been recouped these parents think its less of a good idea subsequently. For those who join the Guild purely for what they can get in return, the decline in membership after 1st year should be of no surprise.

Miss Dawkins points to Child care subsidies, the fringe festivals, and faculty surveys as some of her most proud achievements of 1998. While these events obviously can't be seen to directly recoup the costs of guild membership (which has more than halved since the removal of compulsory membership) the quality of campus-life would significantly decline without them. The biggest failures were the Arts Computer Lounge, and a begrudging admission of mid-strength beer at Toga (Mike: "I KNEW IT!!!"). There was no mention of the NUS rally.

You may also like to know that 2,400 students voted in the Guild elections. Last year over 3000 voted. The elections cost $20,000 most of which went to the hired staff of the electoral commission. Fair enough.

It was only upon leaving the office we felt we may not have been the hard nosed political scientists we sometimes aspire to be. Some serious behind the scenes digging was required. Guild elections created cynicism and Miss Dawkins poohed-poohed it away. But there must be more to the story! Where are the bodies buried and the skeleton filled closets? So next issue Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Chapman Pincher, in the guise of Incite correspondents will start digging. Completely unburdened by axes to grinds, with no party agenda, free from fear or favour, we will dig, we will creep around the corridors of power, we will harass Guild Presidents, University Senators, and the assorted hacks, and we will uncover the truth.