STRONG CRITICISM

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 255, 24 July 1936, Page 6

STRONG CRITICISM

Court of Convocation Under Fire

COUNCIL ELECTIONS Change in Ballot Papers Rejected Some outspoken criticism of the Court of Convocation was made by members of the council of Victoria University College, Wellington, last night, when the council had before it a letter from the convocation urging a change in the ballot papers for council elections. The question, it was stated, had been considered by the council before and a decision given. Convocation forwarded the following resolution: “That this meeting of the Court of Convocation expresses its desire that the ballot papers for the election of the college council should contain only the full names of the candidates and should have no reference to their occupation or academic standing.” Supporting the request at length, convocation stated, inter alia: “The practice of placing degrees and callings on voting papers is quite contrary to British constitutional practice and general usage in the conduct of elections. Candidates or their supporters have other means of placing their arguments or qualifications before the electors.” When the question came up for consideration, the chairman (Mr. P. Levi) moved that it be taken in committee.

“Beating a Dead Dog.” “I think the Court of Convocation is rather straining its right to courteous treatment,” said Mr. H. A. Parkinson, seconding the motion. This matter has been up three or four times and the council has replied. They send along another long letter no different from the others so far as I understand it which I think is a sort of a way of beating a dead dog. I think they betray a lack of appreciation of the mentality of the council —I will put it that way —in pursuing the matter in the same terms continually. The letter they send is capable of fairly severe castigation so far as the matter in it is concerned. In committee we can just say what we think about the matter without causing any unpleasantness or disturbance.” Mr. F. L. Combs said he was not going to agree or disagree with the proposition that the Court of Convocation was straining courtesy. I have had the previous copy of the letter, ne continued, “and I can see nothing in it that is not the basis of open argument. I have not come briefed by convocation, and in another matter I am definitely opposed to them. lam definitely opposed to matters of this description being taken in committee.” Mr. T. Forsyth: I think the matter is so trivial that we can take it any way we like. . The motion to take consideration of the question w committee was lost. Mr. Parkinson then moved f h at » reply be sent that the council had already -iven full consideration to the .matter and saw no reason to alter its decision. Mr. Forsvth seconded the motion. The matter is all very trivial. I think about one-third of the members on the roll vote. I don’t think we should take these requests from a body so apathetic to it rights too seriously.” T> nhi ™ The registrar, Mr. G. G. S. Ko bison, sajd about 50 per cent, voted. Worse Tlmn the Ratepayers.

Mr. Forsyth: That’s worse than the ratepayers of Wellington. _ , Mr. Combs said he would be the fiist to admit that this was a small matter. Nevertheless he was in agreement witn the letter and the arguments ot convocation, although convocation was not a robust constituency. It was iair to argue that this was a public body and in contact with the public in many ways. . Professor T. A. Hunter said one point was whether degrees should be.placed on the ballot paper. He thought electors were entitled to know whether a candidatp had a degree. n _ Mr. Levi said the Court of Convocation was a very large body, numbering about 1600, scattered all over the place. The only object of giving degrees was to give some indication as to who the men were. The difficulty was for the electors to get such information as would indicate who the people they were voting for were. Apparently the object of convocation was to conceal.any additional information of that kind. Mr. Robison said the information usually given was just the occupation of the candidate. ... Professor Hunter, objecting to one section in the letter, said it was very undesirable to leave the question of putting qualifications to the candidates themselves. He felt that in a university election the degrees should be stated. The best way would be to get a statement from the candidate himself, and that could be sent out with the voting paper. It would be right then to send out the papers with the names of the candidates only on them. , , Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K. 0., supported Mr. Parkinson’s motion. “What I resent about this letter is that it implies that on the previous occasions when the question was before us, w 0 did not fully discuss it, Mr. O’Leary said. “We did. When we have decided a thing we have decided it, and it should be allowed to rest there. The motion was carried, Mr. Combs alone dissenting.