Everybody loves a scandal. Especially when it concerns politicians. Right now universities throughout the country are buzzing with rumours about NZUSA—the New Zealand University Students Association. Victoria has, so far, remained relatively untouched by the gossip and intrigue: no one has suggested that we should pull out, as three other campuses have resolved to do, no one is screaming for blood, no one even seems particularly worried.

The articles on the following pages attempt to pinpoint the main areas of controversy, to analyse what is happening on other campuses and to outline the stand of some of the protagonists.

Some things are deliberately not covered here. The state of the Student Travel Bureau (which has recently announced a scaling down of operations), the position at Massey (the third campus to opt for withdrawal after Canterbury and Lincoln), and the criticism of Research Officer Dave MacPherson (who has been a little too active, and quite a bit too blunt for some people's taste) are all hanging in limbo at the present moment and very little information is available. We will be running stories on them as soon as possible.

NZUSA is facing a crisis. Constituents have threatened withdrawal before, but not to such an extent and in concert with such fierce attack on the national leadership.

In spite of this, things don't look as bad as they did a few months ago. At a meeting of the National Executive on April 1st there were clear indications that the tide was turning.

Canterbury President Mike Lee, once the leader of the breakaway faction in NZUSA, has gradually aquired a more neutral position. Both he and Lincoln President Guy Macindoe now seem to be seeking the formula by which their associations will stay in the organisation; but not without some fairly major changes. These will undoubtedly involve policy, but their exact nature has not yet been discussed. This must occur at the following May Council.

At the same time Otago President Andrew Guest has pushed his barrow right to the front. Guest has become the belligerent provocateur at a time when everyone else seemed to have moderated their stance and adopted a more positive outlook. On the National Executive support for his tactics has gradually diminished, although many constituent presidents still identify the same points to query.

Right now little in the way of extreme action or significant change can be attempted. May council is still three weeks away. This year it will be held at Lincoln College and could well reveal the wide ranging changes that have been in the offing for so long.

Structure

There are seven universities in New Zealand: Auckland, Waikato, Massey, Victoria, Canterbury, Lincoln College and Otago. All have compulsory membership students associations which are constituents (member bodies) of NZUSA. This means every student is a member of NZUSA.

Policy is decided by May and August Councils to which every constituent sends a delegation. Voting is done on a rough pro rata basis, that is according to the student population of each campus.

Policy is administered by National Office, made up of elected and appointed officials. The elected positons are President, National Vice President, Education Vice President and International Vice President. Voting is not done directly by students, but on the pro rata basis, usually at Councils. Two Research Officers, a Secretary/ accountant and the Managing Director of the Student Travel Bureau are appointed.

All the constituent presidents (or their nominees) and all the national officers together form the National Executive, which oversees the work of National Office. On administrative matters every member of National Exec has one vote, but when it comes to matters of policy, finance, or elections to National Office positions (all of which can arise outside of Council) the pro-rata voting system applies.

Council is therefore the highest body, National Exec its method of guiding the association through the year, and National Office the group with immediate control.

Breakdown of National Office

Position	Name	Campus of Origin
President (elected)	Lisa Sacksen	Victoria
National Vice President (elected)	David Merritt	Auckland
Education Vice President (elected)	vacant (held by Stephanie Dale until April 1st.)	(Otago)
International Vice President (elected)	James Movick	Victoria
Research Officer (appointed)	Peter Franks	Victoria
Research Officer	David Macpherson	n.a. studied in Australia
Accountant	Peter MacLeod
Commercial manager (appointed)	David Cuthbert	Canterbury

Breakdown of Constituents

Constituent	President	No, of Votes
Auckland University Students Association (AUSA)	Mervyn Prince	8
Waikato Students Union (WSU)	Doug Drever	4
Massey University Students Association (MUSA)	Mike Pratt	6
Victoria University of Wellington Students Assn. (VUWSA)	Lindy Cassidy	6
University of Canterbury Students Assn. (UCSA)	Michael Lee	7
Lincoln College Students Assn (LCSA)	Guy Macindoe	4	Otago University Students Assn. (OUSA)	Andrew Guest	7
		————
		Total: 42

page 7

Sexuality Booklet

"NZUSA has proved beyond all shadow of doubt that it is a collection of fuckwits and fools who haven't a shred of integrity amongst them"—a member of the Dunedin Sexuality Group in a letter to the Auckland studetn paper, Craccum.

In August 1976 a group of Dunedin students took on the job of updating the NZUSA's booklet on sex. They called themselves the Otago Human Sexuality Group (later changed to the Dunedin Sexuality Group) and in the next five months they devoted over 1,000 hours to discussing and writing the contents. It was a dedicated effort.

After NZUSA had made its comments on the first draft, and the group had done the appropriate rewriting, the booklet came to me for the job of doing the layout.

As I understood it from a discussion with group member Jane McChesney, the thing had to be ready for university enrolment and I was free to sustitute graphics for some of the photos, which we both agreed were not particularly interesting or relevant. And there the trouble began.

McChesney denies she gave me this permission, I claim that she did.

Unfortunately the group objected to the nature of the graphics I chose and brought down on the heads of National Office the twofold charge of breaking the copyright agreement and "reducing the book from something intended to be moderately serious on the subject of sexuality to no more than titillating capping book material." They asked that an apology be published and distribution stopped until a disclaimer from the group could be inserted in every copy.

None of the campuses (to the best of my knowledge) except Otago, or National Office was prepared to do this. The booklet was proving popular with students and people professionally involved in the field throughout the country, there was no contractual obligation in the first place, and the taste of the graphics was an open matter of interpretation. For my part it surprised me that the group could not see the place for humour when they themselves had allowed such phrases as, "Masturbation is. . . the easiest way of coming to grips with yourself" to get in.

When the booklet was published just before enrolment a number of rumours over just what the group found objectionable were bandied about, and they even threatened to sue NZUSA, but by April 1st the main argument had been concentrated on the communication breakdown between National Office and the group. Although there was general agreement that there was no point in debating the merits of the changes, things were not made made any easier and a long, stormy and at times quite nasty wrangle over what should be done was held.

Part of the problem was that there had been an ill-defined change in personnel making up the editorial committee. Last year's Education Vice President Mike Shaskey and National Vice President David Tripe handed over responsibility to this year's incumbants Stephanie Dale and David Merritt in a somewhat haphazard way, and with the only constant member of the committee (President Lisa Sacksen, who is serving her second term) out of the country for most of the time the layout was being done, no one was too clear about who was supposed to be in charge at the NZUSA end. Dale approved the changes, while Merritt, who had seen the booklet in varying stages of layout completion, declined to have a final look through it when it was finished.

There was agreement that for the sake of integrity all round and because some of the group's objections were valid (regarding the cover for instance) changes would be made before the rerun. A compromise was eventually arrived at, including this last point and an apology for the fact that changes had been made without the group's approval.

However, although the group itself appeared content with this Guest was not happy and even now remains unsatisfied. In view of his own personal opinion, (expressed before the whole matter blew up) that there was nothing wrong with the booklet, it is interesting that he has stuck to his guns so long after everybody else has stopped shooting. Not surprisingly, he blames Sacksen.

One thing the Sexuality debacle has shown up is the general tendancy whenever anything goes wrong for people to jump in and scream blue murder at National Office. Underneath all the recriminations and viciousness (as expressed for example in the quote at the beginning of this section) was a genuine communications misunderstanding. That was where the real problem lay and that is what NZUSA needs to look at most carefully if it is to retain its credibility. But it took a long time for people to gather together enough sense to see the problem in this way.

NZUS'A Handbook

"If National Office can't see how offensive this is to Lincoln students then it just shows how far removed they are"—Lincoln President Guy Macindoe at the National Executive meeting, March 12. "The book has failed. It split us. We handed it out as a joke"—Andrew Guest, March 12.

The debate over the NZUSA Handbook is one of the clearest indications of all of the kind of problems NZUSA is trying to cope with. On the one hand the handbook is an uncompromising account of policy and that has not enamoured it to many, on the other the constituents were given ample opportunity to supervise its content, did not take sufficient advantage of this and rushed to blame National Office.

I doubt if anyone will now deny that the Handbook does go too far in certain areas. For example, NZUSA has a lot of policy opposing various pieces of legislation brought in by both parties in recent years. But there is nothing which specifically aligns the organisation against one particular party. Thus the adjoining photographs of Muldoon and South American troops in full battle dress, with the caption "Many students think the joker on the right and his mates are planning to use these types below," have been singled out by many constituents as indicative of the sort of thing which is guaranteed to drive a lot of students away from NZUSA. There are eight pages of songs which are widely considered a waste of space.

However, as Victoria President Lindy Cassidy has said, the Handbook "can't be apolitical because NZUSA is a political organisation." Constituents accepted last year that a main aim in bringing it out was to spread information on NZUSA's policy. The point has been made several times that if constituents now object to the content the proper thing to do is change policy. Arguing against its presentation has often been merely a smokescreen for policy complaints.

Nevertheless, there are many things the Handbook does not do. These have been best expressed, not by the South Island Presidents who are in the forefront of the opposition to it, but in the Auckland student paper Craccum. There is no diagram to explain the structural workings of the organisation, and no budget. There is little in the way of practical advice on getting activities underway, from social events to political lobbying. There are no lists of organisations which can help students with landlord hassles, childcare facilities, etc. Assuming that students do accept the policies of NZUSA (and there must be something for everybody in there somewhere) there is nothing which can help them get in touch with like minded people.

Given these criticisms, we must turn back to National Office's explanation of how the Handbook came to assume its present form. Firstly, a page plan was distributed to all constituent presidents. No one made any comment. The copy was available and presidents were invited to inspect it. They didn't. Photos like the one of the South American soldiers are there because campuses were asked to provide National Office with photographic, and graphic material and by and large they didn't. It was a National Exec, decision to include songs. Again, copies were circulated; again there was no comment.

Nevertheless complaints abound. Some are misdirected some are petty, some are merely an excuse to attack NZUSA, but many are valid. The style in which policy is presented has alienated a lot of students.

It is not a valuable exercise to rush in and point the finger. Constituent presidents did not fully appreciate their own overseeing responsibilities National Officers were out of touch with the probable reaction and possibly out of touch with each other, and no one had enough foresight to ensure that proper communication channels were kept open and USED. Everyone will be wary of making the same mistakes again.

EVP Resignation

"I have no wish to be a member of an organisation where senior members of National Office mislead National Executive in order to save their own necks"—Education Vice President Stephanie Dale in her letter of resignation.

"Some people might think I'm irresponsible but quite frankly I'm past caring"—Dale on April 1st.

On the evening of April 1st the meeting turned to the question of Stephanie Dale's resignation. She had been unhappy in National Office, and felt "torn between two loyalties": Otago from where she originates, and NZUSA. As she explained it, she expected a rather different kind of role for herself when she stood for the job at the end of last year; not the hard working and largely unthanked officer which everybody expects from those in National Office but, "a more decorative function chatting up Gandar". Dale owed her selection, not to her potential competence, but to the fact that her opponent (Lindy Cassidy) was from Victoria.

She described herself as the "token non-Maoist" in National Office, and quoted National Vice President David Merritt's assertion that everyone on National Executive (sic) is a member of a Wellington Marx-Marxist-Lenninist organisation. She said she was "not a political person"

Events leading up to Dale's resignation throw light on her attitude to NZUSA. During the preceding week she went to Auckland on NZUSA business. While there she decided she needed a break, so without telling National Office she left for Hawkes Bay. During that time an important bursaries meeting, which she was supposed to chair, was held. Without returning to Wellington Dale then flew to Dunedin. She enrolled at Otago, was elected as a student rep onto the university Council the same day, and on the next day handed in her resignation to Otago President Andrew Guest. It was not for 3 days that the NZUSA President was even informed.

At the April 1st meeting, most members took strong exception to the unsubstantiated nature of the accusations made in the letter, to Dale's offhand attitude to NZUSA procedure, to the timing of her departure, and to her generally flippant attitude to the very serious problems that face the organisation.

Right now NZUSA is in the middle of its biggest [unclear: caiign] of the year so far: bursaries. Even though bursaries is the number one priority, Dale did not feel any qualms about leaving everyone in the lurch. She had not been able to get the campaign rolling and it is doubtful whether she really tried.

page 8

Dale's "Maoist" accusations in concert with Merritt were nothing short of "redbaiting". Political beliefs are no grounds for prejudice if the accused is doing his/ her job.

At this point Dale announced that she was not going to stay and be criticised, and was leaving for a prior engagement anyway. NZUSA President Lisa Sacksen was in the midst of telling her that she was still a National Officer until midnight when Massey President Mike Pratt jumped angrily to his feet. "You're a servant, paid by us, and you must stay while we sort this out," he boomed. There was no doubt that he spoke for others. No matter how people saw the present leadership no one was prepared to tolerate a casual approach to the very problems they were trying to solve.

Time and again the meeting returned to the question of a National Officer's responsibilities. Dale said that she was unwilling to explain to students NZUSA policy which she did not believe in. Said Pratt; "What have you been asked to do that you're against?" Dale had no answer.

"Why did you stand?" he continued. She had an answer to that one: Last year year's EVP and Otago President had both pushed her into it, and when she found that Lindy Cassidy was standing she made the final decision. An Otago person in National Office would have kept Otago in NZUSA, she claimed.

However it was Sacksen who hit the nail on the head. When one is elected to represent a body of people, she stated, one must do just that. Those people have the absolute right to control you, and the only virtue in what you do is when you are efficient and involve the largest possible number of people in your work. It is not a special favour to your constituents when you actually do something as instructed; likewise it is not a matter of personal choice when you do not act as you are told.

We are not elected to resign, she remind ed the meeting. There are only two ways to get out of an elected responsibility: to be sacked or not to be re-elected. Matters of policy and personality do not come into it.

And what of the accusations in Dale's Letter (see box)? She could not or would not support any of them. Some displayed an extraordinary lack of knowledge on just how NZUSA is run. "Lack of any real work on the creche report," for example, was an attempted slight on Research Officer Dave MacPherson. But it [unclear: hver] been given to him as a priority, and certainly wasn't one of hers. The list goes on and on.

National Office is now working very hard making up for lost time on the bursaries campaign. With James Movick out of the country its effectiveness is severely depleted. In the long term Dale is right; she didn't have her heart in working for NZUSA, but right now she has done her best to precipitate an organisational crisis which is proving hard to cope with.

Canterbury

Canterbury was the first to indicate it was pulling out of NZUSA, making the formal announcement at August Council last year. Anti-NZUSA feeling was running very high at Canterbury at the time and it was probably a significant factor in current President Mike Lee's electoral success. Lee stood on a platform of secession (among other things) and began his term in office this year apparently fully intending to carry through the proposal.

He has taken very little part in debates at National Exec, and in fact until recently would only be drawn into discussion if directly addressed or if the subject directly concerned his campus. Quite simply, he has seemed to be not interested.

The actual reasons why Canterbury should feel so strongly have not been clear. There are long standing doubts about the commercial direction NZUSA has been heading, differences of policy and methods of auctioning them (Canterbury, like Lincoln, tends to be opposed to demonstrations as a means of political expression) but these are probably not the significant factors.

There is also the feeling that the needs of the South Island are largely ignored. But this again is hard to pin down to specifics, apart from an obvious dissatisfaction with Victoria's present monopoly on National Office positions. Yet there was a time when Cantabrians used to run NZUSA and there is no reason to believe it might not happen again.

Distrust of the leadership is a big factor, possibly the biggest. Lee was quoted on radio earlier in the year saying that "National Office is dominated by trendy Maoist lefties" and it often seems as if a fear that NZUSA has been taken over by secret forces bent on manipulating the organisation to serve their own ends is the guiding inspiration behind Canterbury's position.

However of late Lee seems to be shifting his ground, or having it shifted under him. Last year's Canterbury President Nigel Petrie, a major advocate of secession when he was in office, is reported to have changed his mind and now favours staying in. Petrie still has a lot of influence at Canterbury, especially over Lee, and he is by no means alone in holding this view, both on the exec and among students generally.

Lee continues to make strong statements when it suits him, and no one will criticise that, but he is becoming prepared to listen to answers. He took as much offence as anyone else over the unprincipled nature of Stephanie Dale's resignation letter and even led the demand for an explanation. That in itself shows a significant turnaround.

Most importantly, when Guest put his motion of no confidence in Sacksen on April 1st it was Lee who seconded it proforma (the technical way of allowing the mover to speak without necessarily showing support from the seconder). He listened to Guest's argument, which was basically that Sacksen is responsible for NZUSA's "lack of success everywhere" and displays a style of leadership which NZUSA cannot afford in the present crisis, and promptly withdrew his seconding. Three months ago he would probably have been in like a shot.

Sacksen's approach to the whole matter of secession has been the subject of considerable debate at National Exec. She has consistently arged that National Office cannot go down and coerce Canterbury and Lincoln to stay in the organisation, that in effect it must be a decision taken independently on each campus. This meant very little was actually done about the problem. It looked for a while as if the two constituents would just drift out with nobody saying anything from within NZUSA and they themselves not being quite aware of what was happening.

It is partly in reaction to this that Andrew Guest has been so vociferous in his condemnation of Sacksen.

Now, with Canterbury and Lincoln both showing signs of looking for ways themselves to stay in it is difficult to say whose attitude has been the more fruitful; Sacksen has been correct in recognising Canterbury's displeasure with National Office and herself in particular as a good reason why she must keep a low profile, but if Guest has succeeded it is almost by default: everybody, it appears, has reacted against the extremity of his criticisms and the narrowness of his approach.

To date Lee's actual proposals for change have not always originated at Canterbury and display a degree of confusion. On a suggestion from Otago President Andrew Guest he moved recently that National Exec meet every month, instead of the usual six weeks. There is a widespread fear which Lee shares that National Office is not being held accountable enough to National Exec and because of this tends to go its own way. More frequent meetings are seen as a way of overcoming this.

Victoria opposed the motion, President Lindy Cassidy saying that it will make NZUSA even more bureaucratic while there is no guarantee that accountibility will improve at all. Lee remained adamant yet commented on another issue in the same meeting., "I don't think I should have to come up to National Exec to supervise".

Canterbury shares with Otago the idea that major structural changes are needed in NZUSA. Its proposals, which have not yet been clearly formulated, will go before May Council and should be widely debated there.

Lincoln

"I suppose it is government interference in student affairs, but we aren't keen to make a statement on it one way or another another"—Lincoln President Guy Macindoe at National Exec, 18 February.

Of all the threatened withdrawals, Lincoln's is the easiest to understand. The Lincoln College Students Association has never wanted NZUSA to be a political organisation. In its opinion work should be centred exclusively on education and welfare. How even these areas are approached without getting into the political arena has never been adequately explained, but it is clear that international issues and those of a direct political nature (like the SIS act and abortion) Lincoln thinks NZUSA should have no part.

This has meant that the current President Guy Macindoe consistently abstains in voting on such issues. Lincoln does not necessarily oppose NZUSA policy on, say, superpower contention, it just does not think there should be any at all. No other campus takes such an extreme view, and some (particularly Victoria) argue very strongly that NZUSA must play a strong role in placing student requirements in their broader context, must work to make students aware of the wider community around them, and must fight political attacks on student welfare and education in a political way.

If the organisation is working for better bursaries it is immediately dealing with government. If it is campaigning against racism it is doing no more than saying that we have a responsibility to combat injustice because not to do so is, in effect, to condone it. It is probably fair to say that from NZUSA's point of view, adopting an apolitical role would be tantamount to admitting that universities are ivory tower institutions which owe nothing to the community around them and have no effect on that community. Lincoln, as far as can be ascertained, argue that universities are educational institutions and should function within an educational ambit. In the end it gets down to the question of how one defines education.

I say all this because the most significant thing about Lincoln's position is their request for a qualitative difference to NZUSA's makeup. How this might come about so that NZUSA remains even potentially worthwhile is not at all clear,

It is interesting to look at Lincoln's attitude to bursaries. Last year when every other campus was campaigning vigorously for significant increase in the STB Lincoln's stand was opposed to any increase at all. While the other student papers carried stories and graphics summarising the student plight Lincoln's Caclin ran a cartoon of a student sitting in his study surrounded by expensive toys: stereo, skis, etc., writing a letter to the Minister of Education demandinga bursary increase.

Yet this year, after Lincoln students have faced probably their hardest holiday employment situation ever, a large number of them are reported to have applied for the hardship allowance. Therein lies the clue to Lincoln's position. Most of its students do not see the relevance of most of what NZUSA does, and possibly to not know how it works in those fields where they do accept its presence. NZUSA leaders had to do some hard political lobbying to get that hardship allowance.

Lincoln is committed to the principle of a national student organisation, but does not feel it is being adequately served at the moment., either by policy or by the present setup.

It wants the positions of NVP and IVP scrapped and a Welfare Vice President created in their place. It wants one of the Research positions eliminated, and commercial operations scaled down even further than is at present happening.

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.

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?