To all UCSA “Candidates” in the election for President & Executive officers. 1/8/2015
Congratulations on putting yourself forward.
Can you please advise me of your position on the following so all members can decide whether to vote for you or not
Q 1 Do you support Huntsoc’s view that by a member contacting the other members of this UCSA Society by email is a “Breach of the Privacy” of the member? This is the current position advised to me by Huntsoc as being the advice given to them by the current UCSA Executive.
Q 2 Do you consider Huntsoc’s Constitution should be changed to ensure 25% or 50% or 75% of their meetings become drug free?
The current U C S A President receives two paypackets. One in the form of a salary of almost $50,000 from the Students Association and the other of an unknown amount in a form of a “Stipend” for time in the other of this dual role, sitting on “Council”. That means your President has two masters and has been asked repeatedly and formally to deny and address this situation. Given it has been months now since our President was formally asked to address this situation, it is no longer tenable that our President can deny that this “conflict of interest” exists. In correspondence forwarded to the UCSA by email and by hand to the recent poorly attended Executive called “Half AGM” at the Foundry (not enough of the members turned up to amend the constitution) I took the precaution of hand delivering copies, of the previous unacknowledged and unanswered correspondence to UCSA, to this meeting. Copies were also delivered clearly marked for the attention of the President, Vice President, the Financial officer and the Secretary. I watched this document placed it the right hand of our President whilst at and had the use of the lectern. It was marked clearly marked “Inward Correspondence”. This twice delivered to the Executive of the UCSA “Inward Correspondence” was withheld from the assembled members and all other members as in normal circumstances this would have been recorded in the Minutes by the Secretary. This is unprincipled behaviour is all made possible by the recognised undeniable apathy and additionally exposed tardiness /laziness of you my fellow members. Vigilance is the price of freedom.
Q 3 So to the current Presidential candidates do you have any objection to being called “President two pay-packets” or “President Conflict” after the election?
It should be noted that when the current “President Two pay packets’” of UCSA attends “Council” of the University of Canterbury much of it is held with the “Public Excluded” so you never really know how our President conducts him or herself. The University of Canterbury’s Councils online presence was devoid of the agendas and minutes of last week’s meeting, the staff reports are false and misleading and the location advised for the meetings are false and therefore misleading too. At first glance this is a breach of an Act of Parliament. Lawsoc invited to comment please!!!!
Q 4 To the Executive candidates do you support the position of the current President and if not what would you do about it if elected?
Q 5 Do you support the installation of metal detectors at all the entry points to the University of Canterbury campus?
It is written that the Vice Chancellor Rodney Carr was in Wellington very very recently
Q6 What I would like you candidates to find out about was did he take the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Tertiary Education and if so was the University of Canterbury discussed?
“No Nukes” Student #86829284 E & O E
P s 1 Why don’t you Political Science students and academia grab this opportunity to do some polling after the recent U K debacle by your likes?
P s 2 The Law School Academia in particular are again encouraged to “wade into the fray” in regard to the access to fit and proper information from “Council”. Please do so as “law is all about the argument” N’cest pas? Perhaps your views on the subject of “Conflict of interest” to help the 12,000 students vote wisely?