Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University, Wellington. Vol. 21, No. 8. 2nd July, 1958
Lively Annual General Meeting
Lively Annual General Meeting
A number of constitutional amendments of considerable importance were voted on at the A.G.M. on Wednesday, June 25.
As a result of the first, the V.U.W. Students Union once more becomes the Students Association, reversing the decision reached at the S.G.M. earlier this year. The reversion to the old name was supported by Exec. and passed 64 to 16.
- President: David Wilson
- Men's Vice-President: John Hercus
- Women's Vice-President: Cherry Pointon
- Secretary Peter O'Brien
- Treasurer: Barry Hume
- Men's Committee Members: David Davy, John Hercus, Armour Mitchell, Neil Plimmer
- Women's Committee Members: Elizabeth Beck, Margaret Williams, Bernice Jenks, Sharon Thompson.
Mr. Mason was elected a life member of the Association by an overwhelming majority.
John Hercus has been elected to two positions and will have to resign from one.
A motion to reduce women's representation on Exec. to a minimum of two introduced some light relief by way of a discussion on the general usefulness of the fair sex between Messrs. Maxwell and Marchant, but was lost 32 to 26.
A further amendment aimed at reducing by fifteen shillings the Association fees paid by students attending both Vic and Training College was lost 45 to 25.
As a result of the rather large number of Association officers elected unopposed, it was proposed that nominations for the positions of President, Men and Women's Vice-President, and Secretary be left open until at least two candidates presented themselves. This was lost on a voice vote.
The last amendment passed gave Exec. power to reorganise the Blues Committee and to set up a Sports Committee for overall control of sporting matters, a change which seems long overdue.
A proposed amendment which would delineate more clearly the scope of the powers of censorship vested in the President of the Association was withdrawn with the consent of the meeting. The existing powers, vested in the President at the insistence of the Professorial Board, provide for the censorship of anything deemed in any way unsuitable for publication. The proposed amendment was to restrict censorship only to what is libellous, seditious or obscene. When it was pointed out that such an amendment would have no binding force as it was contrary to a Professorial Board ruling and would merely put the President of the Association in the position of having to choose between two courses of conduct, both of which would be unauthorised by one body or the other, it was decided to withdraw the amendment and replace it with a motion urging the Executive to approach the Professorial Board on the matter. Eventually a motion was passed recommending to the Executive that it urge the Professorial Board to reconsider its ruling on censorship and to suggest that it should alter the ruling in such a way that censorship would be related only to what constitutes sedition, libel or obscenity.
In a later issue "Salient" will publish the exact text of the proposed amendments and resolutions. All of these are not yet available.
Discussion on the cafeteria was lively but unfruitful—as usual. Croz. Walsh opened by complaining, as he did last year, that the amount of food supplied was insufficient. John Marchant disagreed with this, and revealed that Miss Rosie would be very glad to meet the complaining Mr. Walsh with a view to increasing his dinner ration. The chairman then called for a show of hands on whether the meeting agreed that the food supplied was insufficient; 25 thought it was; 5 were quite satisfied with things as they were.
Urged to introduce a specific motion, Mr. Walsh moved that (1) concession tickets be issued to regular diners, (2) provision be made for a vegetarian dinner at cut rates, (3) that the spud ration be increased.
Keith Campbell asked if the caf. could be kept open all day, and Terry Kelliher wanted to see the balance sheet published.
Tom Goddard complained about Miss Rosie, the manageress of the cafeteria, and maintained that she was unduly strict in her attitude towards discipline. Though the majority of students present thought that the quantity of food was insufficient, there was no indication that they had any sympathy with Tom Goddard's contention.