[unclear: Leaflets]

[unclear: The] whole furore blew up over what I be-[unclear: to] be quite an important issue which [unclear: erned] the leaflets that were distributed [unclear: re] the SGM in May. Without wishing to [unclear: pletely] repeat all the discussion that [unclear: e] place there, the leaflets alleged that, [unclear: ngst] other things, there was a group [unclear: in] the Executive that was obstructing [unclear: Tees] in his Presidential capacity. It [unclear: further] implied that the reasons for [unclear: obstruction] were basically political [unclear: hich] was taken by most to mean that the political opinions of the President differed markedly from those of the rest of the Executive. It was also alleged that Salient had conducted a smear campaign against Mr Tees, similarly from political motives.

The Executive were understandably distressed about these allegations. Not only did they damage the reputations of a number of executive members, who by no stretch of the immagination could be accurately accused of having "left-wing" leanings (Peter Edwards - former Treasurer of VUWSA and Phil Sowman - Sports Officer - in particular), but the allegations reflected very poorly on the Association on the whole. By distributing the leaflets to all the media, and also through Michael Carr-Gregg speaking on Radio Windy espousing similar sentiments, some members of the Executive felt that the leaflets had brought the Association in to public disrepute.

In an attempt to undo some of the damage that the leaflets might have done to VUWSA's public image, particularly with those bodies that we regularly make representations to, such as the University and various educational groups, the Executive proposed making a press statement denying many of the claims that had been made.

In the discussion that ensued, Mr Tees several times expressed his view that certain aspects of the leaflets had elements of truth in them. Much discussion followed over whether the leaflets were in fact true, either in substance or in fact. A question which was inevitably, left unresolved, as it depends primarily on individual personal opinions.

Other Executive members however took the view that the mandate they had required them to represent the Association as effectively as possible, and that the allegations prevented, or restricted, them in performing this function. As the Association had not adopted any policy or expressed any views that were consistent with those of the individuals who had created the leaflets, their responsibility towards the Association required them to endevour to rebuff the claims. By the same token, if the Association had resolved that Salient, for example, had conducted a smear campaign against the President, they would likewise be required to publically support that view.

By distributing the leaflets far wider, than around the campus, the Executive felt they were placed in a different position from the one they would be in had it been a purely internal matter. This did not of course alter the rights of those who distributed the leaflets to act in that manner, if they believed the claims to be true, but many on the Executive felt that the wide distribution put them in a difficult position.

After much discussion, much of it in closed committee, the motion calling for the press statement denying the allegations in the leaflets to be published was finally put and carrsed without a dissenting voice. The statement was drafted, similarly given a seal of approval from the Executive, and duly printed in Salient. At that stage, it seemed the whole matter had been sorted out and would end then and there. In view of all the rumours that were circulating at the time about votes of no confidence in other members of the Executive as a result of the SGM, this may have seemed to be an optimistic hope. As it happened, the issue did resurface, but not for the reasons that most expected.