Building Fund.

At the Annual General Meeting I asked for an explanation from the chairman, Mr. Nankervis, as to why the Building Committee had not met oace during its term of office. No explanation was forthcoming. Instead, Mr. Nankervis avoided my question by reviewing several vague schemes which have been suggested from time to time and which were already common knowledge. To make my position quite clear, I again asked the chairman to answer the question—namely, why the committee had not met. Again he merely hedged. It was not until Mr. Nankervis had been given full opportunity of presenting a satisfactory reply that I moved the motion of censure on the Building Committee. There was no discussion on the motion. After it had been carried with but a few dissentients and, incidentally, after a motion that the meeting pass on to the next business had been carried. Mr. Plank rose up in defence of the Building Committee.

He also, spoke chiefly of the suggestion made for obtaining a new building, which topic was outside the scope of my question. Mr. Plank excused the committee on the grounds that as the students had done nothing to further the campaign the committee could not have been expected to act. The absurdity of this opinion is obvious. Surely the function of the committee is to formulate a plan of action and give a lead to the body of students, just as the Executive is expected to act in the general affairs of the Association.

However, there is one point in Mr. Plank's speech that deserves consideration. He declared that the motion was an unfair and unwise reflection on those members of the committee who were not present students, and that it would result in their refusing to offer their services in the future.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Plank did not speak on the motion as this misunderstanding would then have been avoided. It is well known that the responsibility of calling a committee meeting rests with the students' representatives, and the spirit in which the motion was moved and supported amounted to a censure on these individuals. In passing the motion I think the meeting realised that their own representatives were to blame.

However, if it is thought desirable, I am prepared to move the rescission of the motion at a Special General Meeting but as the majority of students appear dissatisfied with the conduct of the Building Committee. I consider that a more definite motion should be passed. Accordingly it is suggested that disapproval of the slackness shown by the students' representatives be expressed and that it be a recommendation to the Executive to hold a thorough enquiry into the question of the Building Committee.

J. B. Aimers.