Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 23. September 20, 1976

Why An SGM?

Why An SGM?

A Special General Meeting of this Association has been called for Wednesday 22 September to discuss, among other things, the catering situation.

The first six months of the 1976 year were somewhat of a financial disaster with the loss for the period being $32,568.

This is an entirely unacceptable situation and has not been allowed to continue. Steps taken by the Catering Sub-Committee have begun to take effect and resulted in the loss for June being $507 compared with previous losses of $9000 per month. It was hoped that profit had been made in July but inaccurate stocktaking produced meaningless results which did not give a true view of the situation. The lack of accounts and timely information provided by the catering staff to the committee is a matter of continuing concern.

At the end of June it was decided by Executive and Union Management that the catering operations would "start again" as of 1st July 1976. Thus the financial position of the catering operation as of 30th June was:
1976 loss(six months) 32,568
Previous years' losses carried forward 14,605
Total 47,173
The decision to 'start again' left the Executive with 2 problems:
1. To ensure that a similar situation does not occur again.
2. Recovery of the losses i.e. $47,173

The solution to the first problem lies in a medium to long-term policy rather than in a series of short-term stop-gap measures. Thus the entire catering operation will be reorganised from 1977 to ensure closer control of costs, prices and profitability.

The issue that will be the subject of debate at the SGM is the second problem the raising of $47,173. There are three possible ways or raising this money and repaying the University which is at present financing this loss.

1. Use money from the building fund.
2. The students association raise a bank loan and repay it over a period of years.
3. Allocate a portion of the Studass fee for a period to repay the loan.

The third alternative is that most favoured by the Executive. It does not use money collected for other purposes or jeopardise the Southern Extension to the Gymnasium as would happen if the[ Building fund was raided. Also it does not encumber the Association with a bank loan that will require interest payments of about 8% p.a. and restrict the ability to borrow money in the future.

Consequently, the Executive has decided to approach the university with a proposal to repay the catering losses at a rate of $ 12,000 p.a. over 4 years.

As the Association does not have sufficient reserves or income to make such payments the money must be collected as part of the Studass Fee. Thus the following motion is proposed:

Moved Underwood/

"That Part Fsl(1) of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

The Annual Subscription paid by ordinary members to the Association shall be $39 = and shall be allocated as follows:
(i) $10.50 to the Association General A/c
(ii) $9.00 to the Student Union Building Fund.
(iii) $11.00 to the Student Union Building Maintenance Fund.
(iv) $1.00 to be paid into the Victoria University and Wgtn Students' Assn. Inc.' Building Extension Trust.
(v) $2.00 to be paid into a general a/c to be administered by Sports Council.
(vi) $2.50 to be paid into a general a/c to be administered by the Publications Board
(vii) $3.00 to be paid into the Student Building Fund No.2"

The proposed change is in (i) above which increases the allocation to the general account from $8.50 to $10.50. This should be less than 6000 fee paying members in any of the next four years the Executive can make up the balance of the annual payment from the general account.

This is a most regretable situation as there are many important proposals that should have $48,000 allocated to them. However we must face up to our responsibilities and ensure that this situation does not occur again.

Wommen's Commission

You wouldn't believe the pessimistic mood surrounding the Women's Commission at August Council this year. Either it was a big laugh, or else it wasn't going to work, as far as many people were concerned.

Council opened with Canterbury stating that they believed the Women's Commission was sexist (!), and should disband so that the women could attend the other commissions to push their viewpoint there. Canterbury's delegates to the women's commission had in fact put the motion on which this was based, to their SRC and had it passed.

Once the Women's Commission got underway it was patently obvious that we had a mountain of work ahead of us. We went through each motion regarding women that had been passed by other commissions at previous Councils.

We considered only one worth keeping. The remainder were vague or said nothing, and were generally inactionable. So much for letting other commissions deal with women's issues !. Not only would they have little time for this, given all the other "more important" issues they have to deal with, but the fact that the majority of delegates are men (since, as is most often the case, men are more outspoken, and dominate) means that they cannot be expected to fully understand the needs of women in the universities.

Students attending a Special General Meeting

This problem was recognised by the male delegates from Waikato, Auckland, Canterbury and Otago, who put complete faith in the judgements of their women delegates, especially in instances when there was no SRC policy to refer to.

Victoria was in a bit of a Catch 22 here: we could only put motions on the basis of SRC policy - but we hadn't known this in advance - and we could not vote for motions where we had no SRC policy to go by. This accounts for Victoria's abstentions.

I think that the Commission proved its worth. We passed some very constructive policy (see August Council notes) including the setting up of a Women's Rights Action Committee (WRAC), whereby Women's Rights officers from each campus will meet to coordinate activity and discuss ways in which policy can be actioned. The value of WRAC is that, as well as coordinating action on the campuses, it can pressure and work in conjunction with National office to get things done.

One thing WRAC cannot do, however, is make policy. This has to be done at May and August Council, and although the WRAC would be meeting at this time, a number of people (including many Victoria delegates) do not believe they should be able to meet as a commission: They believe that not enough will come forward to warrant a commission (I'll bet that no less would come up than on any other commission), and that the other commissions, where relevant, should handle women's issues.

This presupposes that they will regard women's issues as important, that they will be prepared to devote time to it, and that they will take heed of what the women say they want. I, for one, would not be prepared to risk this. Besides, there is no need. The Women's Rights Officers would all be at the Councils, so that it would not even incur any extra cost to have them meet as a commission.

As far as I can see, and from my experience of a very successful Women's Commission, a permanent Women's Commission would be a logical complement to Wrac. One would be a policymaking body, the other an actioning and coordinating body. It is, of course an ideal way of getting more women into the policy-making areas, a place where they are sadly lacking at present.

I would urge everyone to vote for continuation of the Women's Commission for the reasons I have outlined, at the Special General Meeting (SGM)

Executive Meeting

Last Monday's Students' Association executive meeting spent several hours debating the merits of donations and club affiliations.

The donations were for the Black Power Defence Fund (passed at the last SRC meeting), and the Gregory Minor tour (nuclear expert), with a grant needed for sending two association representatives to a national meeting of overseas students in Christchurch.

On the Black Power Defence Fund donation the executive decided to hold off making the decision until after the specially requisitioned SRC, which was held last Wednesday.

The donation to defer expenses entailed during the Gregory Minor tour was made to the Auckland University Students' Association following their provision of a set of accounts for costs incurred in bringing him out from the United States. A.U.S.A. had requested $250, but as $100 had already been collected from his public meeting in Wellington, the executive donated $150 (Massey have donated $100, Canterbury $200, Lincoln $60, and Otago $250).

The money needed to send the two association delegates to the Overseas Students meeting was about $50. It was decided to send the matter to SRC to be discussed and for two representatives to be elected. Man Vice-president Steve Underwood suggested that the overseas student clubs had plenty of money and should pay it themselves, but president Gyles Beckford countered this by commenting that if he had so much money locked away perhaps he could pay for trips he had made in the past on behalf of the association.

Three clubs were up for affiliation the Victoria University Campaign Against Nuclear Warhsips club, the Irish Intellectuals on Campus Club, and the Emergency Committee for World Government Club. The first club was affiliated without much discussion (Peter Thrush and Steve Underwood abstained on the vote). The second club was affiliated after a prolonged discussion (dissents from Anthony Ward and Steve Underwood and abstention from u ike Curtis). The third club was not affiliated after an even more prolonged discussion when Gyles Beckford cast vote against the affiliation breaking the 3-3 deadlock.

The discussion was too inane to go into, but the questions were mainly directed at what the club could provide that other clubs weren't already doing, and how many students did the club think would be involved in its activities. Classic comments of the evening went to Steve Underwood, when he remarked that the Irish Intellectuals On Campus sounded more like the Communist Party, and when he asked the Emergency Committee for World Government what they were going to do about the class struggle.

—John Ryall