Chairman Something of the Past

Chairpeople were back in the news again with an Aagaard motion to change any reference of chairman in the constitution to chairperson. This motion also went through with hardly a whimper.

Next was a fairly long discussion on what was going to happen about the cafe losses. Steve Underwood moved a motion that the fees be increased by two dollars, which would be used to pay off the accumulated deficit of $47,000 over a four year period.

After some questioning which established what alternatives were available (i.e. the milking off of money from the 2nd Building fund which was to have been used to pay for a lift), Neil Gray stood up and made yet another speech (I don't think I've yet seen a motion go through after discussion if Neil Gray hasn't been involved).

He didn't think that future students should be made to pay for past students debt, which was a bit of a red herring, because they would have to whether they liked it or not.

This impassioned plea was followed by questioning over the value of having a lift, and safeguards against future losses?

Steve Underwood said that one positive step would be the proposal to employ an accountantant next year. He was then questioned about the dubious nature of accountants and replied that it wasn't "to fiddle the books", although he did notice some dissent from the audience.

Kevin Swann was opposed to milking off of other funds which had been set aside for specific purposes to finance cafe losses. Peter Aagaard thought that Studass fees were high enough already.

Lloyd Jobson then took the stand to a rousing cheer from the masses, and said that he had one "very simple point" (nobody believed him of course), "and that was if Fritz (1972 Catering Manager) could make a profit why couldn't anyone else?

Gyles Beckford was opposed to the principle of subsidising the cafe, as this hadn't been done in the past, although he didn't think that taking money from the second building fund was subsidising the cafe.

Steve Underwood then took up his right of reply, saying that there was a need for flexibility with the second building fund, and that it shouldn't be disturbed.

The motion was then put and lost, with a for-shadowed motion to take the money from the Building fund passed - the proverbial robbing of Peter to pay Paul.