Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 26, No. 3. Monday, March 25, 1963

The Ethics of SGMs

page 2

The Ethics of SGMs

The calling of Special General Meetings is becoming a habit in the affairs of the VUW Students' Association. This latest sore which appeared in the student body politic gives cause for uneasiness.

The manner in which it was called was highly irregular. The Constitution requires that 50 students sign a petition for an SGM.

The petition handed to the executive certainly contained 50 names—if you could read them. Of those which were legible there were certainly some who are not bona fide students. But the question arises of how many of them were forgeries.

The name of Mel Stone appeared at least four times either nominating or seconding motions for discussion at the SGM. Stone has told the President of the Association and the Editor of Salient that he did not sign his name to the petition and the only reason he has not gone to the police was because he did not want to injure the reputation of the Association.

Originally 14 motions appeared on the SGM requisition—only 6 of these appeared on the SGM agenda. The reason? Faked Signatures.

Some of the motions which had faked signatures were ones which alleged charges of the most serious nature, i.e. Number 11 which read: That this Association has no confidence in any members of the executive who to the exclusion of the good of students use their position of trust to: 1) gain personal profit and position. 2) rob students of rights, money and respect. 3) sell the student body down the drain.

Nominating or seconding motions which did survive the purge two names ominously repeat themselves. Dwyer, Magnusson, Magnusson, Dwyer. There was only one of the six motions where neither of them figured.

It is difficult to discover what principles of student organisation these men stand for. No constructive criticism was heard from their lips at the SGM. Both have stood unsuccessfully for executive positions in the past.

Last year Dwyer lead a revolt which was successful in unseating the then executive. The methods he used then were thought by some to be unsavoury. But he did hit on an issue unpopular with the students—the raising of fees by the government.

This time it appears Dwyer has shot his political bolt. All that remains is an unpleasant taste of contemptibly low political principles applied without discrimination.

Since Bill Dwyer retired to University from his Union activities on the waterfront, he has become something of an agitator. He has founded the Anarchist Society which stands to see all organised government done away with.

Ralph Magnusson has been to borstal and to jail. While this is not necessarily of any significance to his activities in student politics it may indicate that he is not endowed with a well defined sense of responsibility for one so critical.

However the ten votes in favour of no confidence in the executive show that these two men are now prophets without disciples.

Quite apart from the lack of principle demonstrated in the calling of the SGM, the attackers showed they had not examined the grounds for their indictment carefully enough. Magnusson, in a hesitant speach, asked a lot of questions which he did not attempt to answer.

Dwyer made the allegation of culpable negligence against the executive on their showing over the Cappicade shambles. He relied on a Salient report which while accurate enough in itself showed that Dwyer had made no attempt to investigate the facts for himself. He had attended none of the executive meetings.

To call SGMs with the aid of forgery is bad enough. To make unjustified and unsubstantiated indictments against students who are doing their best to serve their fellows on the executive smacks of political smear tactics.

There is perhaps one compensation resulting from the unseemly furore.

The agitators were not only unsuccessful, they failed abysmally. Their conspicuous lack of fair play earned their cause but 10 votes. Their fall from grace is commensurate with their paucity of political ethics.

G.W.R.P.