The Procedural Wrangle Supreme

Jim McMillan, WCC rep on Council and a Friends of Hunter ally, then moved a long motion dealing with the method Council should adopt to consider what to do with the proposal. Student rep Peter Winter seconded, announcing that as a law student he missed the old library. Nightingale had his own motion, put as an ammendment.

It seems the purpose of McMillan's motion was to minimise the control the Joint Site/Accommodation Committee would have over subsequent action. Many members of that committee had made it quite plain during the meeting that they were opposed in one way or another to the scheme, and it appeared McMillan's fear was that the whole thing would just get shelved. He thus outlined eight terms in which it should be evaluated, and specified four bodies from which the Council should seek advice. "Appropriate sub-committees" were to report accordingly.

Nightingale had made some clever adjustments. First, he proposed that the Joint Committee undertake direct responsibility, arguing that this was the proper and most efficient way for the thing to be handled. He was correct in this, and McMillans assertion that his own was the quicker method fell on deaf ears.

Nightingale changed only one of the terms of evaluation, thus adding to the amendment's semblance of streamlining. Even this change was interesting. McMillan's wording: "general impact on the total University campus" was altered to read' "general impact on the total University campus planning". The reason? Nightingale did not want 7,000 students (sic) all clamouring their opinion at meetings.

More serious changes followed. Instead of seeking and receiving advice and opinions, the Committee was to be "if necessary ... authorised to seek ..." As Nightingale put it, if the Committee decided to approve the scheme it would be silly to require them to get further advice. There is fat chance of that happening so easily; more likely would be the Committee's rejection of the proposal without extra advice. After a bit of wrangling it was agreed to delete the words "if necessary", which didn't change anything: the Committee would still only "be authorised" and not required to seek advice.

Two of the advisory bodies were also changed. Nightingale threw out the Institutes of Architects and Engineers and replaced them with the University's planning consultants and the Friends' consultants His additions are sensible, and it is surprising that McMillan did not see fit to include them. However, his rationale for excluding the two institutes is suspect. The Engineers have just set up a committee to advise on earthquake risk buildings, as was pointed out, and both bodies offer professional advice. Yet Nightingale claimed they did not do so!

Nightingale won the day, but Professor Don McKenzie leapt in with a further amendment, specifying that the Council itself should receive another range of opinion relating to aesthetic and historical matters from staff and students. McKenzie based his proposal on the need to hear the views of historians and others whose contribution was as valuable as the engineers'. This amendment was passed overwhelmingly in the face of opposition from the Chancellor, and whatever way you look at it, students now have a direct line of communication on the issue. And that was about it. If McMillan had realised earlier that the Site Committee headed by Nightingale was bound to get in at the top, if he had made the pragmatic inclusion of the University and Friends' consultants, and most important of all, if he had mobilised support before the meeting things might have gone differently. As it was, almost no-one spoke for the proposal or tried to head off the often bitter reaction to it.

VUWSA has one rep on the Joint Committee, two reps on Council and access to Council through McKenzie's amendment. The whole matter will come up at the SRC in the last week of term, on the 9th August. It is important that we have a full discussion among students and get our opinions heard. It doesn't matter so much what we decide, but it is imperative that the proposal is not allowed to become buried up in a cul-de-sac in the University structure.

In the meantime, Nightingale has agreed to go public on his 12 points of non-compliance with the brief. He has not done so as yet.

Simon Wilson