Instead, the motion, which met a majority defeat, quickly resolved itself into an even-tempered and well-ordered debate in which a packed body of students in the Little Theatre heard Mr Hampton and the president of the association. Mr David Wilson, as the chief protagonists.

Association members remained unenlightened after some of Mr Hampton's charges, but most of the issues were adequately answered by Mr Wilson.

Classifying his main grounds for dissatisfaction wth the present executive (published in the last special supplement of Salient) Mr Hampton, in a 45-minute hearing punctuated only sporadically by good-humoured interjections, maintained that the executive had not attempted to make student life at Victoria what it should be.

The executive started with a secretary resigning at the fourth meeting because of a duplicating machine issue, although he had been told it was because the secretary "wanted to get units."

"And in the last three meetings there have been flowing criticisms by members of each other. If they lack confidence in themselves how can we have confidence in them," he asked.

"I believe there is personal animosity between the president and his vice-president. They do not see eye to eye in many things. The vice-president is usually expected to back up his president.

"I also believe there is a complete lack of team spirit in the executive and find it goes over into the mismanagement angle."

Tyranny

Referring to what he described as "tyrannous chairing" by the president, Mr Hampton said he had attended a recent meeting of the executive and heard the president order his group to keep quiet 13 times. There was insincerity at the meetings, with a cold-blooded feeling on one side and facetiousness on the other. There had been 15 cases of lateness at five meetings.

The university, he felt, should have been represented with a float in the recent Wellington Festival but it was not because of the executive's failure in checking its delegated authority.

He thought the visiting Australian debating team last year was not well treated. It should have been the executive's responsibility to make sure the team was fully conversant with the Victoria rules.

He claimed there was little liaison with the various student clubs and little knowledge of the names of the club officers.

Alleging irregularities in the selling of last year's "Cappicade" books, he believed several of the sellers had got "grog money" that way, and he understood no records had been kept.

Cafeteria

At last year's students' association A.G.M. the president had said that the cafeteria question would be investigated within one month, but that had not been done. An investigating committee had just been formed.

"The present caterer," I feel, "sadly lacks a reasonable way of distributing meals. There is always a queue. I checked tonight and there was a queue of 20 people for some time.

"I feel that the executive has to do what the students want and try to get it by hook or by crook. I don't think the present executive can do anything of this nature. Individually they are quite pleasant people, but collectively they have failed to function in the way they should."

Mr J. Laurenson, one of the first speakers from the hall, thought if the motion had done nothing else it had raised student enthusiasm, which was something no executive had managed to do for 10 years.

"But this is the only good point in what I consider to be a thoroughly ill-conceived motion." If the allegations put forward through Salient held any truth they were of a serious nature. Mr Hampton was casting a doubt on the integrity of people of high standing in New Zealand.

Apology

At this point Mr Hampton apologised for an allegation he had made of corruption (published in the Salient supplement).

"I think it was probably a case of my impulsive nature," he added, provoking a round of laughter.

Mr P. V. O'Brien, former executive secretary, said it had been stated that he resigned to obtain his units—he did not tell that to anyone.

"I may have disagreed with some of the policies of some of the members but provided the executive has done its job as a body I can see no reason for throwing it out. The executive was elected to do a job and in my opinion it has done it," he said.

Mr D. Brooker felt that Mr Hampton had brought forth a number of amazing revelations. The executive had no organised opposition, the only way they could be challenged was by a motion of no confidence. And every member of the association was entitled to present a view.

"If half the allegations are true I would suggest that something must be done about it rapidly. It may be said that only small sums of money are involved. Someone may see only isolated incidents. But if they are admitted they would require looking into."

Mr A. Mitchell, an executive committee member and organiser of "Extravaganza," pointed out that the float for the Wellington Festival was constructed by a timber company and was not evolved until the night before the procession. He maintained the executive had put in a lot of hard work in the matter of student councils and student flats.

Mr J. Gamby said practically no one attended executive meetings except himself. Mr Hampton attended only once and on that attendance he based his allegation of bickering. Bad mistakes had been made, but he believed the association would not be acting responsibly if they accepted the motion.

In Reply

Vacating the chair in favour of the vice-president, Mr J. Hercus, while replying to charges levelled against the executive, Mr Wilson assumed the role of mouthpiece for the majority of his committee.

"I have been accused of tyrannical chairmanship," he said, "but I hold the view that a person has a right to be heard whether other members of the executive like it or not. I think it is in our interest to have the other person's point of view.

"Mr O'Brien has spoken in favour of the executive as it stands. We did cross swords. But bear this in mind. It was 11 o'clock at night and we started the meeting at 7.30 p.m. It was a clash of temperaments and that I think was the essential point.

"As far as animosity against my vice-president is concerned when I was vice-president I disagreed violently with my president."

Referring to damage to the gymnasium he said it was caused by a misunderstanding over the future of the building. He had confirmed the cancellation of the Skyline reservation with the managing director. The matter was undecided—but on the part of Skyline.

He pointed out it was obligatory for clubs to notify the executive of the names of their own officers. Their accountant had prepared a guide for club treasurers and he did not feel enough attention had been paid to it.

The cafeteria had always been a bone of contention and he could recall an occasion when the contractors stepped out and left them with bills of £300 or £400. Students had also attempted to run it and incurred similar bills.

"The cafeteria is admittedly in a poor state of repair. I don't envy anyone working in the kitchen and I don't envy Miss Rosie. I have spoken to her on a number of occasions to get things cleared up, but it is difficult for her. She is there to make a living."

He agreed the executive might have gone back to the electors after being elected by the votes of only 600 students. Yet only 27 per cent, of the London University electorate voted.

He was glad Mr Hampton had withdrawn his allegation of corruption. He regarded it as an unfortunate choice of words.

Not Perfect

"No executive can be perfect. We are not professional politicians and administrators. We are here to get our units and we have done what we considered to be in the best interests of the whole student body.

Student flats were going ahead. It was a fact that the executive had set up a select committee and recognised certain deficiencies in their constitution. They knew of better ways of doing things, hence the report. Was that lack of progression?

"I think I can make a point in favour of the status quo. There is a lot started and there is a lot reaching culmination within the next three months.

"I don't think an executive of inexperienced people can come in March of any academic year and run affairs which have already been started.

"Six months trial have gone and I am confident this executive has the ability to carry out its plans within the last six months.

"Some of the points made are good ones. But I don't think they justify a vote of no-confidence in the executive."

Sums up

Summing up his case, Mr Hampton said he used the word corruption and he had apologised for it.

"I also said our student body s not properly alive, because of the part-timers who are not much interested in student affairs. It is only a glorified night school. It is not a university."

He claimed the editor of Salient had misquoted him and that he had not termed the executive "rotten."