Mulrennan gains new-found friends

We have become increasingly concerned by the continued weakening of the effectiveness of SRC and individual members of the student body, because of petty argumenta between political factions. It is especially with regards to Patrick Mulrennan and his fellow Trotskyites that our concern lies.

The pettiness of the anti-Trot factions was demonstrated clearly to us in two different incidents. The first was an occasion when Maoists resisted the appointment of Patrick as a marshall on the recent anti-apartheid march. That people can be so narrow-minded as to consider that a person, because of his or her beliefs, will not be effective in any capacity even of the smallest influence, astounds me.

The other incident is more important as the anti-Trot feeling worked to the detriment of SRC and, therefore, student welfare. In the latest [unclear: eting] of SRC (Wed 23 March) Patrick Mulrennan attempted to move a procedural motion. The idea behind this was to table a motion in favour of another that was far more urgent. The first motion itself had been moved by Patrick, but nevertheless the procedural motion was voted out. A motion to extend the meeting to 2.10, moved by Patrick, was also rejected. To add insult to injury Patrick's original motion, concerning the re-registration of the Wellington Boilermakers' Association was also voted out. This would not have been so bad, if it was not evident that Patrick was not given a fair chance—neither by a specific body of the meeting, nor indeed, it appeared to us, by the chair. We cannot see how people who claim to be so concerned with Student Welfare and with fighting for oppressed peoples can themselves be narrow-minded enough to prevent an incredibly useful and hardworking member of the student body from working effectively.

This is a strange letter—mainly because the authors have failed to get their facts right. Only two people were responsible for the organisation of marshalls for the recent WAAP march, of which one was a long-time member of the Socialist Action League. All decisions on marshalls were made by those two, not your anonymous 'Maoists'. For the Varsity march, which was so small as to need very few marshalls, it was decided that members of the SAAM committee and the VUW SA executive were to be approached first. In addition, some marshalls for the main march, were present and lent a hand. Thus Patrick's offer on the day of the march was declined. So much for that conspiracy.

The other points about the SRC are equally misinformed. The more 'urgent' motion was only more urgent in the eyes of Mr Mulrennan and a few others, which is why his first procedural motion was opposed. The first two SRC's had had their time extended past 2 p.m. only to find that they lost their quorum. This time it was opposed.

The main reason that the motion on the Boilermakers was lost, was Patrick's 'political priorities', which resulted in him giving no factual details on the motion for SRC to make a decision, as he still wanted to consider his more 'urgent' motion before 2p.m. We understand this motion (which was supported by your villainous 'Maoists') is to be raised again at the next SRC.

Finally your opinions on Patrick Mulrennan's usefulness to this association are not shared by many with more experience of the antics of the SAL on campus. Perhaps you should investigate the history of 'poor' Patrick's political friends before you so naively jump to his defence.

—Ed.