On 4 March, ANU Environment Collective Officer Sarah Strange announced via a Facebook update posted on ANU Schmidtposting, that the collective unanimously voted to “oppose the abolition of the Environment Collective or any change that would remove [their] democratic structure”.

This announcement follows an independent report undertaken by ‘NFP Success’ – a not-for-profit consultancy organisation – in December of last year. This report outlined governance issues within the Collective which arose out of the spending of funds on non-environmental politics, violating service and amenities fee (SSAF) and fiduciary duties.

The most pressing problem outlined in the report was financial mismanagement by the outgoing collective. As ANUSA President Will Burfoot stated on 26 February, the Department’s past spending has not been contingent with its purpose. The report states that separate budgets of $3000 for the ‘2023 Marxism conference’ ($3,447.60 expended) and the ‘Keep Left’ conference ($295.10 expended) in addition to a budget of $4000 dedicated to attend demonstrations outside the Melbourne ‘Land Forces Expo’ in 2024 ($2,449.64 expended) were allocated.

NFP’s report outlines that all budgeted events fundamentally did not align with the Collective’s constitution, were not SSAF compliant, and potential conflicts of interest were not managed.

NFP’s key recommendations (within the executive summary) are listed as such:

• Develop a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Environment Department for greater clarity and alignment with the ANUSA Constitution.
• Implement refined governance practices, including regular reporting, budget transparency, and clear protocols for conflict of interest and accountability.
• Enhance training programs for new Environment Officers on governance, constitutional interpretation, SSAF compliance, financial management, record keeping, and strategic planning. 
• Provide additional training and coaching for trustees and officers to ensure understanding of their roles and responsibilities through a ‘critical friend’ approach. 
• Refine expenditure approval protocols to include ANUSA Executive oversight, which limits approval amounts for the Environment Officer.
• Establish improved communication structures between the Environment Department and ANUSA Executive to enhance transparency and collaboration. Provide training for the President and Executive to better support Environment Officers.

Following the ANUSA Governance Review’s recommendation to abolish the Environment Department, Burfoot announced plans to “transition the Environment Department to an Environment Committee” at ANUSA’s OGM 1 on 26 March.

Expanding on the motivation behind this proposed transition, Burfoot stated that, “The committee will be led by an Environment Officer and will enable them to pursue real environmental actions while ensuring we cannot have a repeat of the behaviour identified in this review.”

In Sarah Strange’s response document, she states that she does not have power to implement many of the 11 recommendations outlined by the report, but agrees to them in full. Strange, however, outlines some flaws in the report, including factual errors, such as the claim that the collective has four co-convenors when there are in fact two. 

In addition, Strange outlines concern with the distinction between impermissible ‘political’ and permissible ‘environmental’ discussions. She states, “While the Environment Collective can only spend money in compliance with its constitutional purposes, attempting to limit what can be discussed in our democratic meetings goes too far.”

Strange has set up a petition to ‘save the Environment Collective’ from proposed constitutional amendments to transition the organisation. 

The future of the ANU Environment Collective will be decided at the next ANUSA Ordinary General Meeting on 26 March.