Constitution of College Council

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27961, 7 May 1956, Page 12

Constitution of College Council

The Canterbury University College Council as a whole has cause for satisfaction that substantial agreement has at last been reached on changes in its constitution. For many years most of its members have felt the need for representa-' tion on the council of some groups with, a direct interest in the university. At the same time there has been a natural reluctance to deprive any present nominating organisation of its long-standing privilege, particularly as some such members have, from time to time, given valuable service to the council. But the background against which Canterbury University College functions has changed considerably since its present act was established and the new responsibilities of the university and its forthcoming transfer to a new site demand that representation should be adjusted accordingly. The proposals adopted by the council eliminate the three members appointed by school committees, which, of all the bodies represented on the council, have the least direct interest in the college. The creation of a new seat for a nominee of the Canterbury Education Board should ensure that the views of primary schools are heard and, perhaps, presented more authoritatively. Memory does not recall an instance in the last 20 years when an issue directly affecting primary schools has come before the council or when the school committees as a body have asked the council to consider any question. It is true that these representatives have sometimes come nearest to expressing the views of the man in the street; but they are not there for this purpose. The inclusion of a representative of the increasing number of postprimary school teachers, as distinct from the teaching profession generally, is the greatest single

improvement in the suggested changes. Post-primary schools, which prepare candidates for the university, are more concerned with the business; of the college than anyone apart from those in the university itself; and it is right that they should be represented. With primary teachers, post-primary teachers, and the Education Board each represented by one member, the interests of education at the pre-university level are adequately safeguarded, although a representative of the Education Department, perhaps a senior inspector, could usefully advise the council on departmental policy and perhaps save much time in correspondence.

The council, reduced from 24 to 19 members, will be a more compact and, it may be hoped, a more efficient body. It could be further improved by eliminating some or all of the three members appointed by the Governor-General. Government interests can be watched adequately by the two (instead of the present three) members elected by members of Parliament. Appointments by the Governor-General may, but do not always, bring men of special ability to the service of the college. The ex officio seating of the Mayor of Christchurch satisfies the oftenexpressed desire for a representative of the community on the council. (Some years ago the council made provision for such a member to be co-opted but has never exercised the right.) As university planning closely impinges on civic development, this arrangement should be helpful to both the city and college councils. College staff representation has not been disturbed; and this is well justified by experience. Clearly it is desirable that the professorial and lecturing staff, who run the college, should have members on the council. The same may be said for the five representatives of graduates (instead of six), although the very small polls by which they are elected raise doubts whether graduates as a body deserve such consideration. However, the willingness of those available to stand for election does show their concern for the university, and they have taken a leading part in the council’s deliberations. These arguments also support the council’s decision to reinstate the students’ representative, eliminated in the proposals of the special committee. The present representative rightly said that Canterbury College was the last to provide such a seat and would be the first to remove it, that the students are the most affected by the decisions of the council, and that since they have had a member there has been a noticeably more responsible presentation of the students’ views.