University of Canterbury NZ Council Election for Student Representative By Candidate – Blog 31

Blog # 31 Dear Fellow six candidates and student voters for the University of Canterbury Council Student Representative
Tomorrow and Friday you get to vote for one of the 7 candidates and please get out and vote.
As candidates we attended a briefing meeting at 1600 hours on Monday afternoon and were verbally briefed by the U C Registrar doubly acting as the Returning Officer of the election and minutes were taken by a lady Joanne X in a little yellow booklet about A5 size.
These minutes formed the most revealing part of the rules such as they are. Immediately after the meeting a request for the copy of these minutes was made under the Official Information Act and was refused. This was witnessed. Yesterday a formal hand delivered request for a copy of the election briefing minutes was delivered to the sixth floor reception of the Matariki Building. Stapled to this one page request was a stamped addressed envelope. At time of writing the minutes are not with me. There is no good reason for this information to be withheld. I call it Institutionalised Discrimination
Therefore in their appalling absence I advise from the minutes I took a number of points stand out.
1 The position for the successful candidate on Council will be controlled by an employment contract with the University. One candidate will already have an employment contract with the University Of Canterbury Students Association The candidate is named James Addington whom you just, in error, voted in. He already receives a sum of money from his current position on the current U C S A Executive. The additional salary on Council will be at least $20,000. (what the Returning Officer Field stated is contrary to all the documents previously produced to all of the students including those who have “opted out” of belonging to U C S A which is around 1800.) To this must be added the $48,000 candidate Addington will receive from the UCSA. Plus it was announced that the current President “Two pay packets” Sarah Platt will be retained for an uncertain period of time. This will mean another vehicle needing to be purchased by the UCSA for candidate Addington. This shows that when and if in the unlikely event successful, candidate Addington when going to each and every meeting of the council will have to announce he has a “conflict of interest” at the outset. This is an existing practice of the Council. Then when he speaks he will have to tell in advance from which of his two employers is he representing at the time he speaks. Will he be speaking for the over 10,000 student or for the greatly reduced University Council of 12 persons? If you vote for someone who has to declare a “conflict of interest” every time he speaks you have failed to understand how appalling this really is. Try “Uncle Google” for “conflict of interest” (Lawsoc are challenged to express their viewpoint on the term “conflict of interest”). Even the same will apply when he speaks to any student on campus. Example student approaches the candidate Addington with an issue he or she wishes considered and then when a reply comes out of the mouth of candidate Addington the student will have to seek clarification as to which of his two employment contracts he is speaking from. It is farcical. However our current UCSA President Ms Sarah Platt receives two pay packets as does our Chancellor Woods whom sits on another local University board as well. Lincoln. More examples of conflicts of interest. Chancellor Woods has been in receipt of this expression of concern about his conflict of interest but is to elitist even to deny it. When no denial of this situation is received the real danger is that it may have an untoward effect on the reputation on both of the Universities both here and abroad. The University of Lincoln is well known for political bias which in real terms is political discrimination. I can confirm that in the run up to the last General Election they held a public meeting and invited Nationals candidate Amy Adams and now your current Minister of Justice and M P for Selwyn but not the known and registered candidates for the N Z Labour Party (yours truly) nor the Green Party nor the N Z First Party. That says it all.
2 The Returning Officer Jeffery Field announced at the briefing meeting in front of all seven candidates that a complaint (he omitted to say a formal one) had be received about one of the candidates and advised he had a small look at social media and would do nothing about it. Neither Mr Field nor Joanne actually got off their chairs and went and had a look on campus. More importantly Mr Field failed to actually ask the subject of the complaint candidate Addington to explain himself. Candidate Addington sat about 900 millimetres away. Bone lazy public servant. I have seen a copy of this complaint and it did concern the current UCSA member and candidate Addington whom was already advertising for votes well in advance of nominations even closing. By allowing this to become acceptable and continuing to be acceptable for one candidate and not all of the candidates the Returning Officer Field has shown bias and giving this is a political election has shown himself to be guilty of political discrimination and has by his own actions endorsed candidate Addington. This is appalling behaviour by a public servant with an employment contract which is already under scrutiny. Our current President Sarah “two pay packets” Platt was present when this investigation into the employment matter involving the Registrar and as well the Returning Officer was discussed at full Council level but refuses to tell the 10,000 students about this and therefore is withholding vital information as to the suitability of otherwise for the Registrar to also attempt to act in a fit and proper manner as the Returning Officer. We don’t even know if an accurate roll of eligible voters exists. In the normal course of events any student could write to the Council on such serious matters but no not at U C. This has been formally confirmed to me by Vice Chancellor Roderick Carr
3 There is considerable correspondence between a student and a candidate with the Minister of Tertiary Education Hon Stephen Joyce but due to a convention I cannot discuss much of it as although I have asked formally for this convention to be waived he has failed to do so. He has replied but failed to address my request to be allowed to debate the contents with the voters. How undemocratic is that? All it would have taken is an “ok by me “and we would be right amongst the debate. “What I can say”, to use the oft opening words of the Prime Minister John Key is that this correspondence goes to the very heart of the reason you are here at U C, the degree and how it will be viewed in the future by employers. In my view bribery is involved.
4 Looking at the timing of this election Nominations closed Monday night, “the Cheetah” like candidate is already advertising and therefore votes ahead at nomination closing time. We have two days to campaign, The minutes of the rules meeting are withheld, then voting is over by Friday night Trust UCSA are putting on another piss up like last time All welcome and the last one was great and was in the Undercroft room where you get the “two pinga” rice. Back to the haste of this 4 day election and I refer to a document prised from the hand of the Chancellor John “Two pay packets” Woods “CNZM,QSO,BA,MA Hons,(Cant),BA(Oxf), LittD (2018)”under the terms of the Official Information Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (yes this University does not even now which Acts of Parliament it is bound by but Minister Joyce has been asked formally to amend the legislation on this foolish situation) Note this letter is dated “24 June 2015” and it is addressed to ‘’The President University of Canterbury Students Association” “Dear Sarah” Therefore the University knew they needed to hold this election from the date the Amendment was Gazetted which was “11 June 2015” There was never any need to abuse the democratic process like this. Chancellor Woods goes further and states that “On behalf of Council, I would request that UCSA take all steps necessary to ensure that the election of a student representative for Council can be managed in conjunction with the UCSA elections. Again further evidence displaying the current anti-democratic haste. Two days to campaign, make signs, put signs up, take them down, is a joke. Unless of course you are already advertising and have lots of idle signs
The Registrar and Returning Officer advised he would not be providing any forums for debate to take place The main obstacle apart from the obvious lack of good governance by the University Council and basic planning being “Security”.
5 Recently I asked the N Z Student Association to come to campus and allow them to approach the 10,000 students to offer them the option of joining the nationwide body and was advised that UCSA don’t respond to attempts to meet with them. It came as no surprise that in the room next door to our briefing room a meeting took place between the very same parties at the very same time.
6 Thanks to the gent who asked about how student opinions would be represented. Simplest way is to meet fortnightly with students, I enjoy talkback radio (which our on campus radio station has declined us candidates air time for this election formally), record their concerns formally have them included as items on the agenda of Council for the meeting, have staff prepare papers on the item, encourage you to attend, invite you to address council should you wish, record which councillors voted which way to enable you to lobby them for change and report back to all students promptly. I have chaired the inaugural Bay of Plenty Conservation Board and it works fine and the delicate matter of the Treaty of Waitangi was involved too.
7 ICE’s Travis is in my ear about U C S A President two pay packets Ms Sarah Platt endorsing “the Cheetah” like Candidate Addington whom I note with dismay is failing to enter the debate proffered to him on my blog. How is that different from political cowardice I ask you? Peas of a pod. Like minds think alike. It is something when the Minister Joyce finally replies to my letter we will all know more about. But Steven can take up to five months to reply. Personally I would not have done what she has. Poor form. I also see she misrepresents the extent of the correspondence that exist regarding her sanctioning by Returning Officer R Divett and suggest she asks him to open his “IN BOX” again. Her actions are all on CCTV also. Our President has also utilised the full data list of student names for this act of endorsement. Given what is written above all candidates should have access to reply to all UCSA voters as well. It’s called the “right of reply” Don’t exist here.

8 The Returning Officer is not returning candidates calls
If you want open and honest representation then the above should show you to vote for me please.
If you want to look at your degree with certainty then Vote Gordon Dickson
Gordon J Dickson Candidate 30/9/2015 E. & O. E.

University of Canterbury Council Anti-democratic Election for Student Representative 2016 Blog 30

Blog #30 .          29/9/2015 Copy of letter sent to the Full Council of the University of Canterbury sent to Council members Jo Appleyard and Roderick Carr
“Messrs Jo Appleyard c/o Chapman Tripp, Catherine Drayton, Bruce Gemmell, Sue McCormack, Anthony Hall, Professor Roger Stokes, Malcolm Peterson-Scott, Ms Sarah Platt, Peter Ballantyne, John Wood, Warren Poh, Sascha McMeeking c/o Ngai Tahu, Roderick Carr et al
Being the full Council of the University of Canterbury 1845 p m 25/9/2015
90 Ilam Road

University of Canterbury Council Elections for Student Representative 2016


Re Candidate Mr J Addington

Dear Jo, Catherine, Bruce, Susan, Anthony, Roger, Malcolm, Sarah, Peter, John, Warren, Sacha, Roderick et al,
It has been brought to my attention that the above described fellow candidate had already started his election advertising to help his election chances earlier today.
This is an appalling anti-democratic behaviour designed to get votes as nominations only closed today at 1700 hours.
Please instruct candidate Addington to take down his advertising immediately
What sanctions exist to penalise this abuse of the democratic process please?
What Act of Parliament are these elections conducted under please?
Clearly candidate Addington has no respect for the reasonable expectation as to fairness requirements of an election of this serious nature and will surely want to withdraw his nomination. Please afford him this opportunity.
Could the University of Canterbury please obtain a legal opinion to ensure they are aware of their legal obligations now rather than later?
I await your email of acknowledgement and subsequent full explanation as to what you have actually done about the anti-democratic behaviour of candidate Addington
What proposals does Council now have to ensure a free and fair election?
Do you agree for a fair election to be held that all candidates must abide by the same rules?
Will you please hold another election and announce you are doing so immediately after your full council meeting?
Candidate Gordon J Dickson AAMINZ
2 Homestead Lane,
Christchurch Email”

University of Canterbury Council Election 2015 Blog 29

University of Canterbury Council Election 2015 Candidate Gordon Dickson Introduction Blog # 29
“Hello/Kia ora Voters,
I am an adult Kiwi law student from Ohope Beach and a self-employed Quantity Surveyor/Tour Guide. Father of 4 and enjoy fishing, hunting, four wheel driving, skiing, refereeing football and maintaining my own home and my Toyota Hilux Surf 4wd.

I offer to take minutes of the University Council meetings and report any student related issues promptly.
I would like to see if my fellow 14,000 students understand what the democratic process is about, are committed to it, what the word vote really means and to try and plead with them to get out and vote. Responsible adults vote. Please show me the student voters at U C are responsible
I don’t believe the current council members take the Health and Safety of the students seriously This is whereby suspended loads of demolition and construction materials are constantly swung over our heads whereas in the normal turn of events gantries would be provided by “Uncle Fletch” (Fletchers) and “Uncle Arnott” (Hawkins). Fletchers and Hawkins make the money condoned by the current council and you are exposed to unnecessary risk. In effect you are a consumable. I contacted “Uncle Fletch” by email and if you cup your hands you are looking at the reply.
Is the University any better prepared than when the earthquakes struck? If elected I would propose a full scale University evacuation. I was here for the February 2011 earthquake and the evacuation was a fiasco. Many of the building we sit in for our lectures have been badly damaged and do you trust insurance companies to have paid for a fit and proper repair?
The recent ” LOCK DOWN” of C Block that was designed to protect us and the students at other universities was a failure. The Armed Offenders squad brought a sieve to a cordon.
The race based policies promoted by the current university council must be shown for what they are. Blatant exposed racism which is just another form of apartheid really. All students should be treated the same no matter where you come from or what your race is.
The marking system is improvable and if you want to look with doubt at your degree as will employers vote for someone else. Degrees are being given away/handed out etc. Call it what you like
I have been extolled to provide my view on the following. When lectures are cancelled without explanation I believe a refund should be provided to your bank account within 24 hours.
The recent discovery that the U C Students Associations $6.2 million was not in their own bank account is appalling. Just another form of theft/white collar crime really by the current University Council.
The current council applauds false allegations against students from “firearm” issues to “surveillance” of students for a start.
Conflicts of interest abound here at U C including within the University Council itself e g Chancellor “Two pay packets” John Wood.
We need to debate the recent correspondence between myself and the Minister of Tertiary Education, Hon Stephen Joyce who is your responsible Minister, and the Minister of Justice Hon. Amy Adams
More as time permits
Gordon Dickson a k a “No Nukes”
Candidate for the University of Canterbury Council. 25/9/2015

University of Canterbury Student Assoc Executive Election #2 President Candidate Voter Plea 9/7/15 Blog # 28

University of Canterbury Students Associations Elections #2 Update Blog 28
# 1 Scandal and unchallenged assertions. On the “UCSA Elections Exposed” Facebook pages there are assertions that the other two Presidential candidates Messrs Whitehead and Addington have some questions to answer to. Post “Aug 3”
“not mny peple are awear that Presidint candidites Stew Witthed and Jemmy Eddington have bof ben caught stelling monies previously The UCSA wan 2 cover dis up bt we all kno da truf!!”
Fellow Presidential candidates please come out formally and either deny the allegations or acknowledge them. The current balance of the UCSA executive should either support you or will by their silence be seen not to be denying the assertions. Come on Luke, Sarah, Cam, Daniel, Michael, Henry, Liv, Finlay, Emily, and Samantha time to front up and tell all 34 of the candidates and the voters the truth. Quite simply are the assertions true or false? Voters and candidates have a right to know. Were the police involved? Should they be? Or in all reality is this a student just making mischief? If the asserter of the above assertions has information about this possible “stelling” then he or she should go to the constabulary. Take for an example only a local M P, Wigram for example, if he had information to help the N Z Police with their enquiries I am confident that he would walk straight into the nearest police station and say I want to inform the N Z Police as it is my duty as a New Zealand citizen to do so. The “Facebook” asserter is encouraged to do so and urgently as we need to clear this controversy up before voting commences. We don’t want to have UCSA election number 3 do we?

#2 Censorship
“Blog for students, by students” on your “Current Students” page
This blog in reality has a ten day censorship period as I discovered so current issues are withheld from discussion unless you have a cooking recipe.

#3 Tutor/ Lecturers office visits
“The tutor is working at home today” and therefore can’t see you. How do we know this? Could be at Mt Hutt skiing. Tutors and Lecturers should have core hours on U C Campus and we the paying students should know them. My policy if elected.

#4 Employment Matters involving three senior University of Canterbury staff are ongoing at this time. Your current “President two pay packets” is withholding this information from you. Reprehensible behaviour of elected representatives.

# 5 Political Science students apathy. They should be out there doing live polling and getting back to the students saying who is leading the race and who is improving in the polling that they are conducting. But they aren’t, lazy tykes.
Come on Bronwyn help the second election. PLEASE

# 6 Conflicts of Interest by several That has been canvasses in my previous blogs. It is appalling and its extent at U C needs to be discovered.
If elected I will not accept two pay packets and the above mentioned highly questioned controversial candidates are press ganged into comment otherwise you will also be seen to be able to hold the title of “President two pay packets” just like UC Council member “Two pay packets” John Woods QSM etc etc

# 7 Dishonest candidates The existing/incumbent, already on the UCSA Executive Presidential candidates whom are putting themselves forward are Messrs Addington and Whitehead. These names keep popping up and are surrounded in controversy yet again. It is known that the current UCSA executive claim to have in its possession a legal opinion substantiating its decision to abandoned the first election. It is known that the current UCSA executive are withholding this opinion despite repeated formal and in person requests, from the voters, UCSA members and the second lot of candidates. The only people who can really tell us if this supposed/possible/alleged/ purported document exists are the executive members themselves of which my fellow Presidential competitors are two. Now comes the honesty test of my fellow candidates [(cant even bring myself to mention their names particularly as I want you to vote for me (GORDON) and want to distance myself from such ongoing, continuing and unaddressed multiple controversies].
Candidates James and Stewart. Have you seen this supposed/purported/possible legal opinion? If so what date is it? What does it say? How many pages are there? Which law firm provided it? What was the name of the solicitor whom signed it? Was it by Duncan Webb or any other staff person’s members of Lane Neave? Was it by Jo Appleyard or any other of the staff persons of Chapman Trip? Was it by UC staff? If you claim not to have seen it then why not, as this was a supposed executive decision to abandon the previous election? Do you support my policy that the current UCSA executive should not be withholding documents from the membership?
My view is the decision to abandon the previous election was a preventable and flawed one. (Totally unnecessary in my view given the information that existed within the incumbent UCSA executive the entire time but gesticulated at)

# 8 The deafening silence of Lawsoc about their recent elections is deplorable and anti-democratic. Remember this is where the entirety (dozens) of these Lawsoc members and law student candidates refused to take questions from the floor from the voters at the Lawsoc elections. The incoming executive will always have a shadow of doubt of their election success. In one case it was not an election it was a selection due to this extremely exceptionally fortunate candidate who should know better (the name to be revealed unless he comes out of the world of silence and defends his selection) having information in addition/ over and above/ instead of etc, etc, to the mass membership and other candidates. It became as selection instead of an election. A clear breach of the constitution and as the “Loresoc” membership are all law students I implore them to hit the Incorporated Societies Act and compare that to their very own constitution. Particularly the voiceless/muzzled/I won’t take questions from the voter types, but highly successful (yeah right) candidates. The incoming and outgoing executives are herein accused of unbelievably bad practices and in a few months you will want to be seen as able to pass the Bar exam. This will show how low the bar really is. It is currently resting on the ground. As a voter and Lawsoc financial member I could not even find out if the numerous candidates were members of and contributors to the Klu Klux Klan??????? The outgoing President Mr Thomas Scott and Incoming President Mr, I want to get elected, but am not taking questions from the voters, X, are pleaded with to come out into the political arena and comment quickly as UCSA voters are poised to vote for a second time. Please don’t impede the second election UCSA election process. PLEASE As for the akin to Lawsoc representative on the UCSA executive Mr Michael McRae he often has plenty to say Please continue Michael. PLEASE.

# 9 Unsubstantiated rumours must be dispelled. Rather than listen to the unsubstantiated rumours that abound on campus that one of the female students has bonked a tutor. We need to dispel these sorts of rumours unless they are true? If this should be true and I trust and hope it is not it begs the question what was offered in return. An A+ for an end of year exam pass. Does a blow job get you a B+ at U C?
If elected I would resolve to expel the, should there be one in existence, exposed UCSA member from the Association.

#10 The tower cranes swings Their concrete counterweights and rubbish skips above us should have warning lights fixed to the fences at either end of their swings to warn us students when above our unprotected heads. The normal alternative would be a gantry or some open ended 40 foot containers. Someone is being paid for Health and Safety (for the purposes of this election let’s call them “Uncle Fletch” and “Uncle Arnott”) and you my fellow students are being exposed to unnecessary risk. Only takes a small portion of debris from a skip or a concrete counter weight to fall and injury and death could result. I have written to “Uncle Fletch” but no reply forthcoming. My policy. If you like it vote for me please

#11 U C S A Money For candidates to comment on UCSA funds the current financial officer on the executive Cameron Bignell is asked to tell us how much the student association received from the $550 million from the IAG/UC global settlement and is it in our bank account or is it in a U C bank account getting interest for them instead of the Association. Remember voters we own 62% of the old Foundry and the current executive want to water this down when there are alumni out there prepared to give debentures and donations to help the situation. I donated a sum at the beginning of the year for a fundraising account and it took 5 months to get a receipt! It does not take 8 years to knock down a two storeyed building and build a smaller one.

Candidate Gordon J Dickson Normally of OHOPE BEACH, BAY OF PLENTY
E. & O. E.
Personal blog
GET OUT AND VOTE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Adults vote are you an adult?