By John Eldridge. Photography by Alexandra Baldock

“It’s really hard to fuck up selling beer to students”. AUU Board director Lavinia Emmett-Grey, remains sceptical of the wisdom of delivering thUniBar from student control more than two years after the Union relinquishment of North Terrace campus food and beverage outlets

If the bar figures strongly in her thoughts, she is hardly alone.. In fact, the UniBar might be one of the last bulwarks of old undergraduate camaraderie. The Unibar serves as a rallying point for student politics, a launching-pad for myriad pub crawls, and for campus old hands, it’s the subject of many a fond half-memory. It is one campus institutions genuinely immune to cynicism in an era in which we seem to be marching inexorably towards the corporatisation of university life. A quick Facebook search will reveal the page ‘Saving The Adelaide UniBar From Closure’. Fans? 2,492.

Despite this strong student sentiment, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the control of Union House and its associated ex-AUU services. The dilemmas and conflicts of the last three years have centred on the question of who should be charged with operating key student services and what sort of campus culture the University should aspire to have.

The UniBar, along with the other major campus food and beverage outlets, was run by the AUU up until 2007, when the aftermath of VSU forced the Union to divest itself of some of its operations. The University presented the Union board, which was at the time led by David Wilkins, with a financial arrangement under which the AUU would be provided with $1.2 million in funding annually for ten years in exchange for a complete takeover of campus food and beverage services, the Union’s art collection and Unibooks by the University. The majority of the board had won their positions after campaigning on a ‘Save the UniBar’ platform, and as such, this was a key concern for the AUU in their negotiations with the University.

Negotiations with the Vice-Chancellor resulted in the agreement being amended – the Union was to retain the $1.2 million funding figure, but was to keep Unibooks, the art collection, and the UniBar.

Matters became more complicated at the next meeting of the AUU board. Former AUU Board directors claim that David Wilkins presented to the board two budgets – one modelling the scenario of the Union retaining the UniBar and taking a significant loss, and one modelling the UniBar being yielded to the University in exchange for the receipt of campus vending machine revenue, resulting in a projected profit. Due to key financial reporting dates stipulated by the University of Adelaide Act, Wilkins maintained that the board would be required to pass a budget at that meeting. A vote was conducted, and with nine directors voting for, six against, and two abstaining, the UniBar was lost.

Wilkins, despite running on a ‘Save the UniBar’ campaign, today stands by the decisions he made in 2007:

“This idea that the AUU Board was bullied or misled into ratifying the budget is absolute nonsense. That particular meeting went for 5 hours – one of the longest that I have ever participated in – in which the Board engaged in robust debate about either proposal. As board directors, we have a financial duty to ensure that the best interests of the organisation are put first. It was my strong belief that taking the offer from the University was in the best interest of the AUU because the alternative was that the organisation would have insufficient funds past June 2008. And it is with the benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the AUU still exists, stronger than ever before in a post-VSU environment, that I am confident that the AUU Board made the right decision.”

The University, after taking control of the campus food and beverage services, did not go down the anticipated route of handing the asset management over to Property Services. Instead, the National Wine Centre – a wholly owned subsidiary of the University – was selected as the new operator, and a contract was established under which the NWC would operate campus food and beverage outlets and manage bookings for rooms in Union House for a period of three years.

The relationship between the NWC and their student customers was rocky from almost the beginning. A disciplined commercial operation, the NWC policed its monopoly rights on campus zealously. Former AUU board director Paris Dean recalls ‘one incident where they attempted to stop students selling cans of soft drink on the Barr Smith Lawns for a dollar to raise money for their club. It was this kind of ultimately self defeating attempt at being ruthlessly competitive by throwing around their monopoly power that ended up making the students and clubs – that should have been the NWC’s mainstay – bitter and frustrated.’

Former AUU board directors found themselves inundated with student complaints. Students frequenting the Rainbow Room found that they were no longer permitted to refill their kettle from the sink in Rumours. Clubs found the NWC difficult to deal with when arranging room bookings in Union House. A joint Labor-Liberal Club function, planned to take place in the UniBar, was cancelled after the NWC deemed the event ‘too political’. Engineering students found themselves forced into hiring NWC staff for campus events, regardless of the competitiveness of the pricing. The Union was even prohibited from placing five new vending machines on campus, on the grounds that such an expansion would present an unacceptable competitive risk to the National Wine Centre’s operations on campus. Such incidents led to repeated complaints by the AUU, but these supposedly fell upon deaf ears. Says Emmett-Grey, ‘Every time we’d bring up a complaint – these rooms weren’t open, these students were kicked out of a booking – they’d either make up an excuse, or just deny that it happened.’

Mark Balnaves, Independent Chair of the board of the National Wine Centre, asserts that many of the scuffles between the AUU and the NWC were the result of breaches of University policy by student clubs. Balnaves claims that the NWC took seriously its commitment to upholding University regulations, and prohibited certain events or activities in line with these policies.

The NWC operated these services through 2008 and late into 2009, until December brought about a sudden and unexpected change. Despite having twelve months remaining under its agreement, the NWC announced that it was ending its North Terrace arrangement, with both the University and the NWC supposedly agreeing to a mutual contractual break. Staff found themselves out of work immediately before Christmas. Rumours persist on campus that the NWC lost a significant sum of money in its first twenty four months of operations, and that this loss contributed to the withdrawal, but this is denied by Balnaves, who argues that the NWC was more commercially successful than the AUU.

What of the nature of the contractual break? Paris Dean asserts that “The critical issue is that the NWC really didn’t have to respond to criticism. It was independent enough that the University couldn’t control it, but it was owned by the Uni and I think it was highly unlikely that the Uni would do anything more substantial than quietly rap it on the knuckles.” Further complicating matters, the NWC was contractually obliged to provide $100,000 each year in sponsorships to student groups on campus. In its final year of operations, the NWC had $24,000 left to allocate. Balnaves asserts that the NWC was only obligated to provide the funds if doing so would result in a commercial benefit, and that there was never an unconditional requirement to exhaust the funding allotment.

Following the sudden break with the NWC, a tender process was commenced in order to find a new service provider for the North Terrace campus. Subject to final agreement, the not-for-profit University of Adelaide Club will now operate the food and beverage services on campus, as well as room bookings in Union House. At the time of writing it has been confirmed that the UniBar, Mayo, Backstage, Briefs, and Rumours will remain operating, though Rumours will be available only as a bookable space for clubs and events. Negotiations over UBC are ongoing.

Paris Dean is enthusiastic about the change: “The problem with the NWC was firstly that it was a monopoly provider and secondly that the University owns it, and in my view, is unlikely to sue a company it owns to enforce a breach of contract. The staff club will be a monopoly provider, but from what I have heard recognizes that students are their customers, not their competition”

AUU President Fletcher O’Leary is also enthusiastic about the organisational culture of the University Club. “Our talks with the University Club have been overwhelmingly positive. They’ve volunteered to come along to a clubs council meeting and meet all the delegates and hear their concerns directly, some of the petty things that the NWC were doing they’ve told us is [sic] ridiculous and they’ll not repeat.”

Students have questioned why the 2009 prices have been maintained into the new year despite the takeover by the not-for-profit University Club. At the February 24 meeting of the AUU board, Fletcher O’Leary said that the Club is maintaining the old pricing as a short term measure in order to recoup the capital expended during the takeover process. The Club is of the view that prices may be lowered in the medium term.

And the future of the UniBar? O’Leary isn’t worried. “There is no cause for concern. The Unibar is one of the few outlets that makes money, rain or shine.”