page 2

Editorial

Come and find out where your $37 went, read the billboards. Those people who turned up to last Thursday's AGM of the association will be a little disappointed if they expected an answer. The accounts were there for all to see, if you could find your way through the accountant's jargon. But AGMs do not examine the spending of the association, they merely note that money has been spent, allow time for one or two superficial points of clarification, and pass on.

So when do we get to find out what's happening and ask why? Probably we Could do this at the AGM, If the reports were circulated prior to the event, and If the meeting started on time and lasted for long enough. These two things didn't happen. Obviously, we need some method of ensuring they do in future. Maybe, just maybe, this year's exec will learn from last Thursday's fiasco.

What else is an AGM for? Well, it could be a chance to examine the direction in which the association is heading financially, politically and in the services it offers. Apparently not. Treasurer Steve Underwood gave what appeared to be the best report (not that any of the others took much beating) with his tried and true im-personations of a man making accounting easy.

The unfortunate result was that while he talked very well and made the sort of hard hitting comments which make people feel they are in good hands, he never really revealed anything. The budget for this year wasn't presented, and that made things even more difficult.

The lack of prior access to reports also meant that we didn't get a chance to make informed criticism of exec members' performances. When we finally did get to see the reports the content didn't help matters. Most were too brief, too superficial, and explained very little of what our representatives have been up to. Probably it's not meant to be a cover up, but with this lip service to the principle of accountability it very well could be. But maybe we shouldn't expect everyone's record to be laid on the line?

Exec personnel are continually called to account at SRCs, and we cannot expect outgoing incumbents to care much about their performances. In this case shouldn't the annual reports be an occasion to review the jobs themselves? Nothing even approaching this happened on Wednesday.

Man Vice President Neil Gray gave no report at all, but treated the masses to an outburst of verbal flagellation, which was greeted with applause. Later speakers who criticised his tactics were rewarded in the same way. Gray may have got one or two people thinking about what a dreadful thing apathy is, but we know that anyway. He merely disguised the fact that he had few real suggestions to offer.

The only contentious issue to actually reach the stage of debate came near the end of the meeting, and almost by accident at that. We had heard that the Catering services made a profit of $18,000, which is nearly a $60,000 turnaround or last years' loss. We also heard that the Book Centre has made a small profit. Yet neither of these services gives cheaper prices to students.

Surely one of the major reasons for the association to get involved in commercial ventures is to ensure that students can make a saving on their own money. Yet catering will probably never do as well again and that didn't mean cheaper food; the Book Centre has its hands tied and will never be able to offer cheaper books. So why do we run the risk of losses, tie up people in administering these things when they could be doing other work and not even have any improvement in the quality of service? Lastly there are the elections. No mention was made at all of what is happening. Lindy Cassidy did not inform students that nominations have been reopened. Nothing was done to clarify the constitutional position regarding the legality of this. The election committee informed the exec last year that there was a loophole in the constitution on this matter. But what has been done? We can only presume nothing. What is going to be done about it? Same answer again. And the whole thing could very well blow up again later this year.

As many people commented at the ACM 1978 is going to be a bad year for the association. The level of interest which rises above cynicism is dangerously low. Students still seem to be interested in a large number of issues, but far too few people are prepared to take on any sort of organisational role. The performance of the outgoing exec, in glossing over the vitally important matter of just how our association is being run, was not an inspiring counterpoint to this.

Simon Wilson