Why Two Months?

The question that must be asked is why this whole business took up considerable portions of the Executive's time for a full two months. There can be no definitive answer of course, but in part, I think, some of the blame must lie at Andrew Tees' feet. Throughout the whole debate he seemed reluctant to commit himself to one view or or the other. During the debates, he spent much of his time doodling or reading the newspaper, giving no indication of any interest in the proceedings.

In the last two months, many of Mr Tees' attitudes to the Presidency have gradually become clear. However at no stage has he ever said: "'I believe the President's responsibilities to be................" When asked straight questions, he refused to answer, when asked to comment he often refused to Comment, Had he stated clearly at the beginning what his attitude was, it would not have lessened the magnitude of this dispute, however it would have got the whole matter over and done with, rather than dragging on for two full months. He gave the impression of being either a man who had not made up his mind, or who was not prepared to state clearly what his opinions were.

But the really vital question that has not yet been resolved, and the one that may very well pop up again in the remainder of the year, is the one I raised at the beginning of the article. How should the disagreement within the Executive have been resolved? Right throughout this debate a minority of one (sometimes two) refused to take cognisance of the decision of a majority Until Executive members resolve what they are going to do when they are asked to act against their personal beliefs, the VUWSA Executive is going to continue to stumble along, interspersed with tortuous arguments, that hinder them in their task of administering the Association.

Peter Beach.