Life, love and politics through the eyes of an Aucklander in Wellington.
Jeremy is there a way to roll Cordelia from Council?
To the best of my knowledge, the only way she can be removed is by resolution of council. the VUWSA exec could possibly ask Council for her to be removed following a motion of no confidence passed by a General Meeting, but Council could quite plausably say no.
Why are you glad I wasn't re-elected?
Chris - yes there is.
Section 171(2)(e) of the Education Act 1989 sets the mechanism by which student representatives at VUW become members of the Council:
"(2) ... the Council of an institution shall include—
...
(e) at least 1, but not more than 3, persons who must be appointed,—
(i) in the case of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory, in accordance with the constitution or rules of the association..."
The VUWSA Constitution provides that one of the Student Representatives shall be the president, and that any additional (at present there are two) "student [representative] on council shall be elected by a ballot open to all student members of the Association. Such a ballot shall be conducted in conjuction with the annual executive elections." (Sch 6 s 1.1).
It also provides "all student delegates shall resign on a vote of no confidence by two thirds of the majority of those student members present and voting at a Special General Meeting duly called for that purpose." (Sch 6 s 1.6)
Part 4 s 4(2) further provides "All Association delegates ... shall resign when called upon to do by a two third majority of those members present and voting at a Special Meeting of [an SRC] called for that purpose."
And Part 4 s 4(3) provides:
"If any association delegate ... is absent from three (3) consecutive [SRC] meetings without providing an apology, he/she shall be deemed to have resigned from the positions(s) to which they were elected."
From this, we can see that there are two mechanisms by which Cordelia could be rolled, and the University Council has no say in the matter at all.
It is possible to call either:
1) An SGM; or
2) An SRC
following a petition, signed by 10 members of the association, calling for such to be held to debate a motion of no confidence.
An SRC would require a quorum of 50, an SGM a quorum of 100.
An SRC motion would require a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, and an SGM would require "two thirds of the majority" whatever that means (I assume two-thirds, but a literal interpretation suggests it would mean one-third).
Life members couldn't vote on such a motion presented to an SGM, but could at an SRC. It's all rather stupid really. 10 signatures will get you either an SRC or an SGM (whichever you want) where such a binding motion would be put.
Why are you glad I wasn't re-elected?
Have a guess.
Graeme - how well do you know the Education Act 1989? I mean, do you sleep with it under your pillow or something?
O'Kane - there are very good reasons. Like your desire to burn all gays/socialists/liberals/Iraqis/non Christians/fluffy bunny rabbits/bigamists/Alcoholics/you get the point.
And a congratulations to Geoff (although I have done so in person). And I feel for Nick, he has put his heart and soul in VUWSA - and the buck of his exec's shit stopped with him. Joel and Heleyni shouldn't have got in either, but that's how people voted.
And has anyone seen the cover of the Graduate Study Guide? Yours truly features on it. muahahahahahahha.
Greg - do you have any evidence to back up those claims about Nick? That's pretty harsh mate.
And nice self promotion. All due respect and all that, why'd they pick you?
Also even if true those are not good reasons why Nick shouldn't be on the publications committee.
"Graeme - how well do you know the Education Act 1989? I mean, do you sleep with it under your pillow or something?"
Would you believe I studied at law school for five years to learn how to research the answer to questions these things in a couple of minutes?
And Chris - if true, those would be excellent reasons for someone opposed to those desires to vote against someone.
I don't think that's correct. Nick's political beliefs regarding aforementioned groups have very little to do with how he carries out his reponsibilities on the esteemed and prestigious publications committee.
I don't want to burn anyone from the groups mentioned above. I also have no recollection of making any statement on "fluffy bunny rabbits". You seem to think I'm so extreme right wing I can't get any more right wing.
O'Kane - have you heard of wit, and sarcasm?
And Caroline is gone - YAY
Jeremy - one thing I want to know - which exec holds the biggest group of muppets - '06 or '07? With people like Renwick on gen exec...
Chris - I've worked casually for Student Recruitment for a number of years. They need people to be on the cover. And all I got was a $20 book voucher (Hunter S. Thompson - Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 but haven't read it yet).
Chris + Nick - yes I was being sarcastic, but I do believe Mr. O'Kane is rather conservative and illiberal in his view point. And, even though publications committee isn't political, I still wouldn't vote for him on it for a multitude of other reasons (I voted for Bish and Packard as I believe they are both highly able people who won't fuck up).
Interesting. $20 seems a bit cheap though!
Yeah I voted for Bish and Packard as well.
Wouldn't the publications committee potentially deal with complaints about the content of the publications? Don't know the VUWSA set-up, but if it did then the political views of those on it could be v important indeed.
Span, you've hit the nail on the head. From what I've heard, O'Kane has a problem with Salient promoting safe sex (amoung other things). These views are not in line with mine, so I have a democratic right not to vote for him.
Does the Publications Committee really deal with complaints about publications? So when the Top 5/Chinese imbroglio occurred, did the Pubs Committee meet and do anything? Can they do anything?
As far as I know O'Kane has no role in influencing what is in Salient and what isn't (and that's the way it should be).
To put a few facts into this debate the publications committee never considered any complaint about the content of Salient or the one in the top 5 about Chinese. As for the issue about Salient and "safe sex", the issue was about wether or not VUWSA should produce a sex mag, not about wether or not Salient should promote "safe sex". I did vote against the establishment of the sex mag but voted for payment for extra hours being worked to produce the magazine. IWhile the content of the magazine is not yet decided, it was clear that there was a very high chance the sex mag would represent the views of some students but not others.
Nick - the editors rely on volunteer contributors. You could have written a "pre-martial sex is bad" column and given it to James for that issue. But did you?
Greg - perhaps you could read what Nicholas said.
The Publications Committee bears responsibility for more than just Salient, but other VUWSA publications as well (wall planner, diary, international students' guide, alternative calendar etc.)
Nicholas opposed VUWSA spending money on a separate publication that would be a (I presume one-off) magazine providing information about sex. Having lost that argument, he agreed that someone should be paid to produce it.
Commenting by HaloScan
