University of Canterbury Students Association Presidential and Executive Elections 2015 Blog # 18

University of Canterbury Students Association Presidential and Executive 2015 Elections
A Money. B Drug and Alcohol testing. C “Kenneth” of the Constabulary Tasering, et al.
There are a number of candidates whom are claiming to be fit and proper persons to be elected. Congratulations on putting yourself forward
A Money
Some candidates are claiming to have “Finance” aspirations on the U C S A Executive. With the intended completion of the replacement Foundry being some four years away and using an estimated cost value of twelve and an half million dollars ($12,500,000) as an example only it is important for the UCSA finances to be carefully monitored and managed.
The UCSA money for the Foundry insurance entitlement was a part of the $550 million University of Canterbury insurance settlement with IAG. How much of this $550 million was for the UCSA Foundry entitlement as the Association owns 62% of the building and where is the money? Is it in the UCSA bank account getting interest to help with the cost of the demolition, which should have been completed by now, although I note with dismay this building, apparently beyond repair is in partial use, or is it in the Universities bank account and the UCSA has to go cap in hand and ask for its own money??
All candidates’ comments welcome with those with “Finance” aspirations especially expected.
Please remember if you have no voice or opinion before the election what you are going to be like after the elections if successful? There is an immense amount of money involved here.
B Alcohol and Drug testing & “Metal Detectors”
Many of the candidates are claiming “Representation”, “Dedication” and “Communication” and let’s see their response to this.
A member of the Student Association (could be any of the 12,000 members) asks for a matter to be addressed by their elected representative/s of the UCSA. A full executive of the UCSA vote upon and pass a motion resulting in a resolution in their meeting which should be recorded in the minutes for all 12,000 UCSA members to see. Using an example only of “All University of Canterbury staff and University Council members should be subject to random alcohol and drug tests”, just like the rest of N Z has accepted as “de rigueur”.
Off goes our newly elected “Dedicated” “Committed” UCSA President, resolution in hand, copies for all council members to the next Council meeting to represent the membership. Us. WRONG. When he or she raises the issue, any one of the balance of approximately 16 members can move a motion to go into “Committee”, a seconder found, then a motion must be put and if passed the discussion on what the UCSA passed resolution states takes place with the “Public Excluded”, a standard “Agenda” item, which includes us students and our class representatives, likely the Teachers &/or Union representatives (their viewpoint welcomed/encouraged/expected) and the public at large. Excluded, forced to leave, told to go, etc. The President CANNOT report back to the UCSA Executive or us the members what discussion took place on the very resolution of the UCSA Executive of which he is a member. So the President could vote yes at the UCSA Executive meeting in favour of the resolution and no in the Council forum and the UCSA members would never know. Of course the public, class reps and students alike have to wait around for an unknown period till the matter is resolved (resolved is a word of importance) Then normally when this item, now on the floor of the Council meeting and agenda is discussed, a resolution of the council is moved and seconded and passed.
In normal circumstances that is. This is not the situation recently The was an item tabled as “Inward Correspondence” and all that happened was that it was “note”d. The miniscule staff report was both false and misleading. No proper resolution was passed or as in normal circumstances there would have been a mover and a seconder. This mover and seconder would have to have names and we could see this information. This would normally be recorded in the minutes but was not. More breach of normally expected accepted for decades, N Z wide procedure. So we don’t really know if the resolution was passed or not! Many bodies keep digital recordings of meetings to enable minutes to be confirmed with accuracy at the next meeting. Our Council does not do this?? Stops people from taking the opportunity of saying one thing one day and another the next. Perhaps UCSA meetings should be recorded also?
Another example of “Dedicated” “Representation” needed and urgently. This is the refusal of both the operators/managers of the Ilam Halls of Residence, being Campus Living Villages (N Z) Ltd to answer correspondence and the ongoing and unaddressed failure to provide the previously considered necessary and available Health & Safety Policy. Two of the three Directors of Campus Living Villages (N Z ) Ltd live here in Christchurch, R D 6, Yaldhurst and Wittys Road in Avonhead. Secondly the University of Canterbury has been formally asked for a copy of or to view their Health and Safety policy too but they are well versed in abusing the Official Information Act which has as its core principle that unless there are good reasons for withholding information then the information should be made available. These to date invisible documents, if in fact they exist, would be utilised to reduce the risk of fire in particular, but not excluded to, (remember those 4 words) the continued smoking in the Ilam Halls buildings and surrounds.
Another issue needing representation, relating to the recent theft of chemicals, is the decision by the University of Canterbury not to quickly notify/inform the Constabulary in the normal manner. U C should have informed and be able to be seen to be “cooperating” with the N Z Police immediately. And told the UCSA so the member could have been informed. The theft of chemicals capable of being used for “Heroin and Speed” manufacture was withheld from the police for up to four days after the theft was discovered. Yet again UCSA could raise the issue, which to my knowledge they haven’t but the Council of the University could go again into Committee and when our President comes back to the Executive meeting has to advise that he or she cannot advise what was discussed due to being in “Committee”. With Public, media, class representatives, staff union representatives and students all being excluded. From this can be concluded the President cannot claim to represent the members of the Association. Either the University of Canterbury supposedly led by the University Council are telling the truth about when the theft discovery was told to the Constabulary or Detective Sergeant Richard Quested is being publically economical with the truth.
It will be interesting to see what the Minister of Tertiary Education says in response to the Official Information Act upon his desk. Dated “29/7/2015”
Another example of “Representation’’ needed is I still don’t have my complete timetable on “Learn” and have to keep in touch with the Law Faculty for changes of venues and tutorials (I acknowledge now there are no tutorials for the missing subject) We all know when the term started!!!
Otago University has a radio station which helps with these issues Why don’t we have one too?
Otago University has a Rugby League team too and are happy to come up and beat us up. But can’t get help from UCSA for replacement uniforms. Male members from the Tongan community know where many of the existing shirts, shorts and don’t forget the socks, are! Please spread the word and please drop them back off at the UCSA in the Undercroft or the Foundry. Please. The existing U C S A rule about no/delayed provision of funding for new sports teams is antiquated and needs changing. Now this can happen but if not enough of you apathetic, uncaring, me me me, insular, I want it and I want it now, UCSA members are willing to turn up to the UCSA meetings, like last week, despite the offer of a free lunch, then this makes it virtually impossible. There are enough “Leagies” hiding out in U C “Onion” jerseys to accept the challenge, defend the name and the tryline of “U C”. The University of Otago team can continually claim to have the best University Rugby League team in the South Island. Add to this the province of Otago has the undisputed best current exciting champion Super 15 rugby team in the whole wide world.

C “University of Canterbury and Riccarton Community Constable” “Kenneth” and Tasering
Currently there is a lengthy matter being discussed between the “Independent Police Complaints Authority” last correspondence from “Judge Sir David Carruthers”, “12 June 2015”, and “The Commissioner of Police Michael Bush” and the Police have been asked to assign this officer to duties off campus whilst this matter is resolved. Seems a reasonable/simple enough request. Please bear in mind you can be Tasered on campus from now on. Law students, including final year, are referred to Section 18 of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Act 1988. Police Officer “Kenneth’s” understanding of the word honesty does not compare favourably with the definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
Next. Senior staff persons Roderick Carr (apologies for calling you “Rodney” Vice Chancellor Carr) and Jeffery Field are trying to hide behind staff down the pecking order instead of taking the responsibility themselves. This staff person told, now undenied “porkies” and now must be reading an employment contract as Mediation looms in a nearby Employment Court. The alternative is to adopt the insurance industry stance of the 3 D’s “Deny, (too late now for that) Delay and Defend” However one would hope the image of the University internationally would mean sooner is better than later. My view is prevention is better than cure”??? The Ombudsman informs me that an Official Information Act request has been referred to the Privacy Commissioner whom advises that it takes at least 8 weeks for an officer to be appointed and an unknown period for the investigation of the University of Canterbury’s records to be carried out. The University of Canterbury Council should instruct the staff to make the information available Particularly as the Constabulary are all most likely to be all over these documents.
The UCSA should be acting with impetus here but as has become the norm they are conspicuous by their absence. Even if the UCSA President did raise an issue at the University Council meeting the President can’t talk to the UCSA Executive and members about what was discussed, who said what and why etc. The Presidential candidates must have a view on this appalling and untenable situation. This has the potential of putting Council members in the public seats of the Christchurch Courthouses awaiting to be called to give evidence. This may mean a District Court Judge and prominent Christchurch lawyers could be sitting amongst Mongrel Mob and Black Power members. Now that would look good on Facebook. My law lecturers invited to comment of course.
“Canta” being withdrawn from circulation at the whim of an unknown unidentified minority.
Candidates are asked to express an opinion so firstly as voters we can see if you have one at all and should you be elected then we can monitor your performance afterwards.
As to the adult like apathetic voters. This is your chance and this is your “Degree” so get out and vote. There are people here at U C whom have never had a vote in their lives let alone get one in the foreseeable future. Whereas the modern student at U C is unable or unwilling to make an online informed decision. Extract the digit or risk being seen as an ongoing embarrassment by future generations of New Zealand citizens.
The Returning officer is asked to advise how many people voted last time so we can see if apathy is a demonstrable achievement or otherwise by my fellow UCSA members.
“No Nukes” UC Student Association Member and undecided Voter
U C Student Number 86829284 Blog #18 of 3/8/2015

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *