OUSA Representative Jett Groshinski Refuses to Resign Amid Controversy

Jett Groshinski, the political representative for the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) and a Labour candidate for the Dunedin City Council, has publicly rejected calls for his resignation. The OUSA executive requested his resignation following an internal review that identified unmanaged conflicts of interest linked to his candidacy.

In a statement released on March 14, 2024, Groshinski asserted that his refusal to step down was a stand against efforts to silence his advocacy for the student voice. The OUSA executive expressed concerns that Groshinski had not upheld obligations to act in the best interests of the organization and its members, nor demonstrated the required transparency and honesty.

The internal review highlighted issues that Groshinski had faced in fulfilling his executive responsibilities, particularly in the context of being a Labour-endorsed candidate during a local election period. According to the executive, these conflicts compromised his ability to manage essential activities, including local body elections and Politics Week, necessitating the reassignment of these duties to other members.

Groshinski rejected the notion of misconduct, stating, “I have done nothing wrong. I will not resign.” Earlier in the year, he faced scrutiny from some students and OUSA members, which led to a decision allowing him to continue in a reduced capacity. OUSA President Liam White expressed confidence at that time that any potential conflicts could be effectively managed.

The controversy escalated after Groshinski called a student general meeting earlier in March to discuss a motion for OUSA to re-adopt the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which the organization had previously abandoned. The meeting resulted in a decision to re-adopt BDS, a move Groshinski defended as crucial for student democracy.

“I acted in good faith and will not apologize for giving students their say,” he stated. Groshinski contended that the push for his resignation was not genuinely about his conduct but rather a reaction to his efforts to facilitate open discussion among students. He emphasized the importance of allowing students to debate and decide on significant issues.

The OUSA executive, in its statement, did not reference the BDS meeting but reiterated that the decision to request Groshinski’s resignation was not made lightly. They cited concerns regarding trust, transparency, and effectiveness within the executive, stating that Groshinski’s actions had undermined these principles.

As the situation unfolds, Groshinski remains firm in his stance, arguing that if defending student democracy leads to demands for his resignation, the real issue lies with an executive that has strayed from its duty to serve students.