The dissension erupted into the open at the last executive meeting (on March 23). Here follows a report of the discussion.

Apologies Not Accepted

The evening opened with some sparring over the apologies. Mr Tannahill moved his usual motion that no apologies be accepted, but it lapsed for want of a seconder. (Mr Tannahill I has a fixation about this: he doesn't like to discriminate against Mr Hercus, he says, so don't accept any apologies at all!).

Mr J. Watts moved, and Mr O'Brien seconded, a motion that all apologies, except that of Mr Hercus, be accepted; the motion was lost 5-3 (with Mr Tannahill abstaining).

A motion that all apologies be accepted was moved. A discussion ensued (kept up by Mr Watts and Mr O'Brien) until Mr O'Regan arrived. The vote was put and resulted in a tie. Mr Mitchell, using his casting vote, voted for the status quo.

This means that for the second time in succession Mr Hercus's apology has not been accepted. According to the constitution, if his apology is again refused at the next executive meeting, Mr Hercus will no longer he President of the Students' Association.

President's Status Questioned

The meeting continued, with this bad taste in its mouth, for another three hours, until Mr O'Regan raised a point about the status of Mr Hercus.

In deadly silence and with the full attention of every member (this is unusual), Mr O'Regan proceeded.

He pointed out that there was only one meeting to go and that the issue must be settled. He asked members to think about It and make up their minds now. He made his position clear: they needed a president, but they had none, and that this showed executive in a poor light in students' eyes, "It is time the situation is cleared up," he said; "we are in a mess!"

Miss Frost: "You think, Mr O'Regan. we are in a mess till what you consider the appropriate measure has been taken."

Mr Mitchell then aswered a constitutional query by Miss Picton, who wanted two presidents, one at Waihi, the other at Wellington. She dropped the idea, and Mr Watts spoke.

He made his position very, very clear. "Mr Hercus," he said, "knew the position in December: he could resign or hold the office of president in Waihi while letting someone else do the donkey-work in Wellington. He should have taken the first alternative, but he chose the second." He deplored the "half-baked position we are in." He suggested that executive should make up its mind to elect a president from the committee.

Acting-President's Anger

The Acting-President, Mr Mitchell, then vacated the chair and delivered a polemic. He felt that there was a slight majority forcing Mr Hercus to resign. But he did not want to see any "legal trickery"! This was "backstabbing" and "hyprocisy." Why not write to the president or see him at council (i.e., during Easter Tournament; executive had earlier passed a motion approving the payment of £21 7/- for three-quarters of Mr Hercus's return air fare from Waihi to Dunedin)? "We shouldn't resort to a legality to get him out when he isn't aware of what is going on."

If Mr Hercus appeared stubborn, Mr Mitchell added, it was only because he thought it was pointless resigning only six weeks before the presidential elections. "But," he concluded, "please be honest, please be open about it."

Mr O'Brien Objects

Mr O'Brien took exception to the references to "backstabbing" and "legal trickery." He didn't see why people who had stated quite clearly and openly what they intended to do should be accused of that.

"It is a reflection on myself and Mr Watts," he objected.

They had stated openly and repeatedly that they were opposed to this position and to Mr Hercus's stand. They had gone to the constitution, as they should have, to guide them. There was no "trickery." Mr Watts had discovered the rule that three unaccepted apologies could force a resignation and they had fought for the implementation of this constitutional measure openly and honestly.

They did so, he explained, not just against Mr Hercus, but because they felt the president must be working here. Mr Hercus had referred to himself as a spokesman for the student body: how could he be a spokesman if he was not here to speak?

"This executive is in a regrettable position: depending on who is here, you can predict what will happen. This is most undesirable."

Mr O'Brien concluded by agreeing with Mr Mitchell that it could perhaps be discussed with Mr Hercus. "But," he made it clear, "if Mr Hercus doesn't agree to a solution, then we will continue to fight this matter."

No Backstabbing

Mr O'Regan endorsed Mr O'Brien's speech. There had been no "backstabbing"; it had been fought out in plain battle, honestly and openly. "If no solution is forthcoming, then there is little hope that this situation will improve; and if this executive cannot find a solution then the inevitable result will be the forced resignation of Mr Hercus." He added that he thought the constitution, not sentiment, should rule the executive and that it should be the final arbitor.

Miss Frost pointed out that a full meeting of executive would be required to decide this question, rather than one side winning because some members of the other side couldn't attend.

Miss Reidy asserted that it would be much more courteous to ask him straight out to resign.

On the Knife's Edge

Mr Mitchell commented that he was sitting on the knife's edge, having to use his casting vote every time, and he didn't like it. He qualified his comments on "backstabbing" by explaining that he was worried that an objective view of the minutes by anyone a few years from now would make it seem that Mr Hercus had been pushed out. This was unfair, because it depended solely on who attended the next meeting whether he is kicked out or not.

He then recommended that further discussion should be left till Mr Hercus could be consulted at Dunedin, when he might begin to understand the "atmosphere."

Mr O'Regan agreed with this course, but added grimly that if Mr Hercus didn't resign he would he pushed out!

Mr Mitchell agreed that this could be done if Mr Hercus knew (of the "atmosphere").

Mr Watts: "I find it difficult to believe that Mr Hercus doesn't know of the atmosphere here."

The discussion closed here with only a murmur (from Mr O'Brien) that this intransigent outlook was perhaps bad in principle.

Salient is sure that this is bad in principle, but that firm and decisive action must be taken one way or the other to close this breach in Executive. It must be hoped that some decision can be reached with Mr Hercus at Easter Tournament. The issue seems to resolve itself into letting Mr Hercus resign gracefully or throwing him out. Salient hopes that Mr Hercus will take the right action (belated though it be) so that Executive can elect a new "spokesman," and close ranks behind him. There is no alternative to this which would not end in further bitterness and a more serious division within Executive.