Salient: Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Vol. 24, No. 8. 1961.
Sports Council also made some suggestions in its report. They wanted to see the Sports Officer elected by the Sports Clubs and sports finance to be dealt with in Sports Council rather than in the Finance Committee. In a quick run around the table, members gave their opinion of the suggested change in the mode of election of the Sports Officer.
Miss Reidy: against it because it created a dangerous precedent in other spheres, e.g. Cultural Affairs.
Mr Dawkins: against it.
Mr O'Brien: supported it because this was the same procedure as at the national level.
Mr Mitchell: supported it because it guaranteed an officer who knew his business. He thought a Cultural Affairs Officer should be elected in this way too.
Miss Frost; supported Mr Mitchell at least as far as the Sports Officer was concerned.
Mr O'Regan: against it because such an officer would be entitled to speak and vote on issues concerning not only sport but the whole student body. To do this he should be representative of the whole body and that meant elected by all.
Mr Tannahill had nothing further to add.
Mr Mitchell: "In what direction?"
Mr Tannahill agreed with Mr O'Regan and was against the idea.
Miss Picton saw something in both sides of the argument; she hadn't really made her mind up.
Miss Kerr: against it.
In reply, Mr Brooker used the analogy of a Member of Parliament elected, not by all, but only by a section whose interests he represented even at the same time as he spoke and voted on matters affecting all.
He didn't change anybody's mind. This will require a motion at the A.G.M. and should be contentious. Think about it and turn up.