Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 8. April 17 1978

Otago

Otago

"Otago demands that I move this motion"—Otago President Andrew Guest on April 1st, speaking to his motion of no confidence in Lisa Sacksen, President of NZUSA.

In fact Otago has never demanded it. The executive and the Student Council have given Guest permission to support such a motion but that is a very different thing from moving it. There is certainly a large body of anti-Sacksen feeling but Guest seems some way ahead of the rest in thinking that getting rid of the top dog will bring NZUSA closer to Otago's way of thinking.

page 9

"You realise this could mean Otago will also withdraw"—Guest at the same meeting after his motion had lapsed for want of a seconder.

Otago has not withdrawn. Guest took the news back to his campus after the April 1st meeting and two forums were held. At the first he, the members of his exec who had been at the meeting (chosen by the exec as being the ones least likely to be swayed by National Office rhetoric), and ex-EVP Stephanie Dale outlined their version of what happened. The next day Sacksen and IVP James Movick went down to field the questions of Guest's "angry masses." By all accounts both sides took as good as they got, yet no motion to withdraw came up or looked like coming up. In fact, Otago has never officially discussed this course of action.

However three resolutions were passed. 1) Otago reiterate its dissatisfaction with NZUSA. 2) Guest was again authorised to vote no confidence in Sacksen should the matter come up. 3) A general meeting would be held with all interested students to discuss the matter.

Otago does not have an open SRC like Victoria. Each faculty elects reps onto the Students Council and the general student body must channel any requests or opinions through them. The general meeting might seem calculated to get over this problem of inadequate understanding of student attitudes and knowledge on NZUSA, except it was scheduled for seven o'clock at night. Not exactly the prime time for a large meeting.

Guest fancies himself as the enfant terrible of NZUSA. He has a severe tendancy to pursue his aims with a vendettalike obstinacy and displays a singular unwillingness to accept explanations for what he sees as unpardonable offences. He says he wouldn't touch National Office with a bargepole but one has the feeling he'd be in there like a shot if he had the chance.

Apart from wanting to roll the leadership he is also keen on some form of major structural changes. So far those suggested have been of a superficial nature, mainly made in conjunction with the other South Island constituents. For example, he thinks that consituents should get two votes on National Exec to the National Officers' one, instead of the present one apiece. Guest sees, from this, that the panacea to the organisation's present problems is to "relieve" National Office of their decision making power.

Given that this power resides in making everyday decisions (something which cannot be altered) the suggestion seems rather pointless. The only way to really change NZUSA is to change its policies. NZUSA would be doing the same work and be in much the same predicament whatever the leadership or structure.

Guest appears to be incensed at a lot of things. The Sexuality booklet and the NZUSA Handbook are two matters he has spoken particularly strongly about. He gets very annoyed at the lack of lengthy presence of NZUSA National Officers on campus and the way he thinks head office is run. He shares with all the other presidents the conviction that they were not properly informed about the Student Travel Bureau's scaling down. All those things any many more as he sees it, should be laid at Sacksen's door.

One of Guest's favourite claims is that however well specific complaints may be answered the overall problem remains. At the March 12th meeting he even went so far as to preface his "Otago has no confidence in everything that is happening" remarks with the line, "regardless of the answers, which I don't accept. . ."

However it seems evident from the fall-off in support that in trying to keep NZUSA viable the other constituents are taking a more reasoned approach to the whole situation. If Guest shares this aim it is difficult to understand why he has placed himself so much out on a limb.

Guest claims that for him not to take the attitude he does would result in no confidence motions being brought against him back at Otago. He has in fact survived two such motions this year, both aimed at quite different matters concerning his somewhat petulent approach to the running of OUSA.

What is Guest actually trying to do? Alter the "power base" of NZUSA in his favour is perhaps a good way to describe it. It seems doubtful in the long run that he wants NZUSA to fold and so is bent on creating such a split that the present leadership will just have to go, not through any misbehaviour of its own but simply because that would be the only form of compromise which might keep everybody together. It's a spurious idea to say the least.

To do this he must gain the support of others. Constituent presidents are not prepared to back him at the moment, but he has managed to form an interesting alliance with National Vice President David Merritt.

Merritt has come in for some stern criticism from many sources for his inefficiency. (One of his most recent [unclear: Iunders] was to give the Evening Post the idea that James Movick was about to leave the country. Merritt claims that the reporter deliberately misinterpreted his remarks, but he wasn't authorised to make a press release on the matter, didn't know all the facts and should have known that the daily press will always misinterpret if it can).

Yet Guest has said that Merritt is the National Officer most welcome at Otago. Why? Possibly because of some of the things he says about NZUSA while he is down there.

A recent Critic (the Otago student paper) claims he told the OUSA exec that everyone in National Office except Stephanie Dale and partly himself is heavily involved in international issues, with the [unclear: co] ference that not enough is done on education, welfare and other local priorities. This is blatantly untrue and could in the case of Research Officer Peter Franks be almost described as malicious. Franks works almost entirely on bread and butter issues and Merritt knows it well. But his claims are just what Guest wants to hear.

A few weeks ago Guest canvassed the presidents on Merritt's suitability for temporarily taking over if Sacksen was given the push. Needless to say he found no support.

HEY HEY!" -it's Andy! "We Might have Guest!"

Even if Guest does succeed in initiating personnel reforms in National Office he may well not find a place for himself in any new "power structure" which evolves. One thing he overlooks is that there is no real block voting in National Exec anyway. His attempts at creating factionalism are therefore resented by many.

Supposing for a moment that Otago does decide to pull out over the leadership question. It will still be eligible to vote in August this year for next year's officers. Supposing the candidates it supports win. Presumably Otago would then decide to stay in. In when you like people, out when you don't: Is this a responsible way to develop a national organisation?