page 10

No, Mr Brooker!

At the last A.G.M. the motion was put by Mr Brooker and seconded by Mr Mitchell that the Sports Officer on Exec, be elected by the Council of Sports Clubs. It was rejected.

The reasons behind the motion were that specialised knowledge would lead to greater administrative efficiency, and secondly as those more particularly interested in the portfolio would elect the person who could look after their interests. Could there be a greater condemnation of fellow Exec, members than this?

We have just moved into the portfolio field of government. This motion condemns it without trial.

Theoretically work is to be delegated. The appropriate portfolio handles the business through committee and reports the result back to Exec. Collectively Exec, decides the execution of policy. The experts should operate in committee and Exec, will dispose of their decisions.

Every year thousands of pounds pass through Exec's hands. So powerful is this body, so busy, so ubiquitous, that "Salient" has often levelled at it and gloomy prophecies made about the Association's decline. I suggest that the proposed motion far from being more democratic, would be much more open to abuse. Admittedly only 32.4 per cent, of students vote but under Mr Brooker's proposal the day would come when half-a-dozen on Sports Council elect the Exec, member for 3000 others.

Reasons the motion was so heavily defeated were: lack of discussion among the sports clubs and the feeling that there was more than a little self interest Involved. Mr Brooker's benevolent despotism has run the sports clubs well, but It is because of the power he wields that we must be cautious. A less scrupulous person could take advantage of his position. The very organisation means that decisions are made at the top of the clubs and Sports Council.

—E.D.