Yes folks, last Wednesday saw the unprecedented event of an SRC, which spoke almost entirely for itself. Why, then, you may ask, did it take every bit of two hours to do so? (The first time is always the hardest -Sub-ed.) Well gird your loins, polish your glasses and read on: the answer lies within.

Beginning as usual with reports, President Lindy Cassidy announced the unanimous election of Grant Liddell to the post of Education and Welfare Vice-President of NZUSA. She also announced that Canterbury students had voted in a referendum (by about 700 to 400) in favour of withdrawing from NZUSA (See later story p.9.)

After brief reports from two SRC Officers - Welfare and International and another from one of the Science Faculty Reps, SRC Prof. Board rep Simon Wilson reported at some length on progress with Victoria's Quinquennial Submissions to the University Grant Committee (UGC). These submissions are the five-yearly applications for the funds to run the university.

He described the university's approach as "trying to impress with sincerity" and outlined three areas of direct concern to students. In the faculties of Law, Commerce and Architecture student/staff ratios have become so critical that something must be done. The university is not making a case for improving the situation in the light of existing and potential enrolments, but advocating cuts, in the number of enrolments.

Those parts of the submission dealing with the Union and Welfare are ambiguously worded so that although it appears the university is expressing its support for these areas they could also be seen as having a low priority. Attempts to change this failed at the Prof. Board (and have subsequently also failed in the Standing Committee of Council -Ed.).

Next up were elections, a generally quick affair except for the one contested position of Pubs Board Rep. The three hopefuls were Steve Watson, Andrew Tees, and Peter Beach. Steve Watson wanted to answer the call of the surrounding masses for him to get involved in student politics. Andrew Tees made the pertinent comment "perhaps if I got involved I'd know what was going on".

Peter Beach mumbled something about Salient, revealing a wealth of experience, qualifications, youthful enthusiasm tempered with maturity, a sense of justice, equality, objectivity and literary knowledge...... all the things which come automatically to members of the Salient staff. Reaffirming its confidence in the paper, SRC elected Beach to the position by a four vote margin.

Other election results were: Arts Faculty, Michael Carr-Gregg and Jim "Albatross" Brown; Library Usage Committee, Margaret McDonald; University Extension Committee, Paul Noramn.

Elections over, it was time to consider the first of a list of ten motions on the agenda. An attempt to bring the Zaire issue (listed as No. 10) forward to No. 1 was defeated, so first up was a proposal, moved by Hebenton/Carr-Greg calling for the extension of the library hours, particularly around exam time and on Friday nights. It was passed unanimously.

The second motion, moved Heymann/Hebenton, called on the University to replace the break-down plagued lifts in the library. La Heymann informed the meeting that they were originally installed as the cheapest type available, and against the architect's advice. Parts are no longer available and this exacberates the problem of getting repairs done quickly and properly. Another unanimous motion.

About now confusion began to reign supreme as Andrew Tees tried to withdraw, re-put, withdraw etc etc a motion regarding the sale of beer at SRCs. In the end it remained on the agenda, having been seconded by a gentleman on the balcony. Lindy Cassidy spoke strongly against the motion pointing out that such blatant sale of liquor on campus could endanger the survival of SASRAC.

Those present gave this aspect of the motion careful consideration and then passed the motion overwhelmingly. This debacle is a classic example of what happens when people insist on moving irresponsible motions and the consequences of an issue are considered less important than seemingly frivolous spirit.

But Tees had sighted up the lie of the land and there was no stopping him. Five times in a row he jumped up to claim "the motion speaks for itself and five times in a row he explained it. What should have been simple, quick and straightforward matters thus became long and drawn out.

Two motions concerned the need for increased parking facilities for the University, and urged some action in this area. Another motion urged the University to include a Student Representative on the Timetable Committee of the Professorial Board, and was dealt with in like fashion. (The university agreed -Ed.)

Luckily (for some eyes were beginning to droop) we were moving onto more important matters at last. There were two motions authorising the transfer of money from the Welfare Officer's fund to the Poverty fund and the July 14 Mobilisation fund Both were passed and we moved onto fresh ground.