A knotty problem that arose was that of Congress finance. Subsidies to last year's Congress came as follows: AUC, VUC and OU £50 each, and public support. £150. Canterbury had contributed nothing, neither had the Agricultural Colleges. The Canterbury delegates then introduced a remit: "That the cost of Congress be reduced." They stated that they were against College associations making subsidies to Congress, and suggested that in future no subsidies should be paid. It should be paid by the students attending. Mr. Taylor (President) pointed out that as the chance of further public support had been seriously prejudiced by Rev. Martin Sullivan's irresponsible statements to the Press concerning the Congress, the need for subsidies from the College associations was even greater this year. If Canterbury's proposal was adopted, the cost to students attending would be something like £8 or £9 each, and "we might as well give up the idea of Congress now."

Mr. Robinson (AUC) said that each year, Students' Associations paid large subsidies to tournaments, so that students could come together and play sport. Auckland's attitude was that it was just as important for students to come together and think, and therefore these subsidies relatively small as they were, were entirely justified.

Motions...

The next hotly debated question was that of the appointment of a Controller for the next Congress to be held in January, 1950. at Curious Cove. An application for that position had been received by the Executive of NZUSA from Rev. M. Sullivan. The exec, for reasons which we will consider later on, refused to recommend him and referred the application to their Council. Otago University moved "that this application be supported." Their case seemed to have only one relevant point—that the Rev. Sullivan was an experienced and capable organiser; in fact, more experienced than the last Congress organiser Mr. Dowrick. Such flimsy grounds for support scarcely warranted the heat with which they were put forward, and it seemed to us that personal allegiance rather than merit was at the back of it. Mr. N. Taylor vacated the chair to speak on the motion.

He opposed the application on the following grounds:

1. That the Rev. Sullivan was not capable as organiser. Remember the £5 per students appeal?

2. That the Rev. Sullivan had shown by his statements to the press after the last Congress that he, at least in this instance, was capable of acting stupidly. His statements to the Press were not correct and a man of his experience should have realised the interpretation that the press would put upon them. He waited till the Congress was over and made his criticisms to the press without having put these forward to the people concerned—though he had every opportunity to do so both at Congress itself and on the NZUS Congress Committee. These press statements have done untold harm to the University in general in N.Z. They have earned the censure of prominent University men who were interested in Congress. A person who could be so short-sighted as to behave in this fashion is not one in whom the faith of NZUSA could be reposed. Mr. N. Taylor went on to say that, when asked to explain his actions, Rev. Sullivan admitted that he was in the wrong, but the damage was done. He concluded by saying that the residents of the NZUSA were not prepared to let Rev. Sullivan have anything further to do with the running of NZ students' affairs.

Mr. K. O'Brien also opposed the appointment, citing a breach of faith which had been committed. The Rev. Sullivan had been asked to write to the press correcting the published statements. This he agreed to do within a fortnight, the letter to be referred to the Exec, for approval. This he did not do eventually handing in the letter at such a late date that there was no point in reviving the issue.

...mules...

In fact of this idisputablc evidence. OU, backed by CUC continued to support the motion. It was obvious that the support was not grounded on the capabilities of Rev. Sullivan. At this point it was clear, that if the original motion had been voted on then and there it would have been defeated. There followed a rapid succession of amendments, withdrawar or motions, and intricate manoeuvring, until finally AUC moved a 10-minute adjournament. When the meeting resumed. Mr. Evison, of VUC, moved that "while Rev. Sullivan had certain undoubted ability, it was unwise to accept his application without giving others interested a chance to apply, or giving other colleges a chance to consider nominations." He therefore moved that Rev. Sullivan's application be received and referred to the resident Exec, for consideration along with any other nominations which might be received within a set period.

...and messes

OU then withdrew their earlier ment of Congress Controller for 1950 motion and moved "that the appoint be made at this conference." Mr. Tizard (AUC) and Mr. Evison (VUC) objected strongly to this, since there was no mention of it on the agenda paper. There was no remit submitted on the subject by OU and therefore, no other college had any opportunity to offer nominations for the position. This motion was carried, the chairman called for nominations, OU immediately nominated Rev. Sullivan, and as no other colleges had nominations ready, he was automatically appointed. To us, it appeared that the Controller was not appointed on his merits, but due to some clever manoeuvring by OU and CUC for reasons best known to themselves.

Lincoln and Massey stated that it was unlikely that any of their students would be able to attend Congress; CUC refused to subsidise Congress for no obviously good reasons. CUC's miserable attitude in refusing to pay their share of Congress expenses was matched only by their impudence in seeking to dictate the choice of Congress controller. Some CUC students may attend, but entirely at their own expense, which will be prohibitive to many students. That means that AUC, VUC and OU are going to be the colleges interested. Of these three, both AUC and VUC opposed the appointment. Further. VUC will have most of the work to do and it seems distinctly unfair that they should work with a controller in whom they rightly have no confidence.

Finally, it has been noted that the resident Exec, of NZUSA refused to recommend Rev. Sullivan, so that the action of the Council, and particularly that of OU and CUC is tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in their own Executive.

Together with Mr. Taylor. Salient has nothing whatever to do with Rev. Sullivan personally; we wish this to be understood. But the manner in which this appointment was made, considering the lack of confidence in Rev. Sullivan, which has existed since his unfortunate press statements, leaves Salient staggered at such ineptitude.