Council: Dirty Work Afoot?

Last Monday the University Council engaged in one of its most disappointing displays ever, when it failed to support a motion put forward by student reps Peter Thrush and Peter Winter asking for support for James Movick, the International Vice President of NZUSA. Movick is facing a Government threat of deportation if he fails to leave the country before March 9 (see last week's issue for a fuller account of the matter).

The student motion had welcomed the greater participation by overseas students in student affairs, noted with concern the Government interference in this field, and asked for Council support for Movick in his bid to stay in the country.

There was substantial discussion on the matter, with many Council members showing their obvious confusion by asking some rather silly questions.

The main opposition to the motion centred around two points. Firstly, that overseas students should not get involved in student affairs but should confine themselves to their studies and passing exams. Secondly, that this case would set a precedent and would open the floodgates to hoardes of overseas students seeking to take a year off their studies to take student positions.

While these objections were answered an interesting piece of information was given to the Council by the Chancellor, Mr. K.G. O'Brien. O'Brien stated that he had it on good authority that James Movick's case had come up before the Education Advisory Committee (the EAC is the body which decides on appeals from overseas students against decisions to send them back home). Whether there was any inference drawn by Council members that this meant the EAC had ruled on the matter is unclear.

We have been told by reliable sources that O'Brien later revealed his informant was in fact one Mrs. Hunter, a Governor General's appointee on Council. It happens by co-incidence that Mrs. Hunter's husband is the Chairman of the Educational Advisory Committee.

We have since discovered that the EAC had not discussed or ruled on Movick's case at the time of the Council meeting. It has been suggested that they may have discussed his suitibility to sit on the EAC (NZUSA has a place on the committee, usually taken by the IVP). But it appears they have not discussed this aspect either.

There are some questions to be answered.

1.	What did the EAC talk about?
2.	What did Mrs. Hunter tell O'Brien, and was this information confidential?
3.	What were her motives for releasing information to O'Brien?
4.	Why did she not declare her interest in the affair, and abstain (as is usual meeting procedure)?

When the time came to vote there was further confusion with O'Brien declaring the motion carried on a voice vote but the student reps thinking it had been declared lost. This mistake was undoubtedly an honest one, but it is decidedly unfortunate that Thrush and Winter were not listening more carefully. They then asked for a count which seemed to result in 10 voting for the motion and 9 or 10 against. O'Brien O'Brien decided to recount the 'no-votes'. A call for a recount of the 'yes-votes' was declined on dubious grounds that this should have been done immediately after that part of the vote had been taken. The noes were found to be 10 and when O'Brien put his casting vote the motion was defeated.

However, although the main student motion was defeated, two further motions questioning the propriety of the Immigration Department's release of Movick's academic record and its subsequent publication were passed. It is this aspect of the case, rather than the fate of James himself or the irrelevance of academic records which seems to concern Council most.

A further question arises: Where did. O'Brien, who is normally an expert at meeting procedure, get the notion that the proper time for a recount of ayes is right after they are taken, rather than after the whole vote has been done?

There are probably appropriate answers to all these questions that will remove any doubt about the behaviour of Council members. It may be that such answers will will be forthcoming in the special Council meeting called for Wednesday to rediscuss the issue.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the matter is that with a concentration on EAC information, attention has been taken away from the pressing issues. Chancellor O'Brien, himself an ex-President of both VUWSA and NZUSA, could have been expected to recognize the importance of the association's independence from government interference.

In fact the whole Council, which has a record of standing up for academic independence within the university, has to date adopted a particularly unsavoury approach to the whole affair. We can only hope the special meeting on Wednesday will rectify this.

If you are interested in seeing what happens come along to the Council Room on the top floor of Easter field at 5 pm. on Wednesday. The meeting will be open and we need a good student attendance.