The Cadre, Mar. 18, 1975, page 12

Untangling The We

Just a couple of tho— ughts on the tangled web which was woven by two 5 successive Senate meetings of contraversy over the seating of Doug Smith. I admit this will be a hodge— podge without any particu— lar connection but I hope that the following collage will provide some sort of an insight into the work- ings of power structures around UPEI.

Between these two mee etings one prof spent, ac— cording to him, about sev— enty—two hours attempting

\

to work out a comprimise between Presidents Baker and Campbell.As finally drafted, it consisted of the placing of Doug Smith on Senate with the proviso that Marilyn MacPherson resign first. As we all know Doug was seated with— out this proviso.

Without dealing dir— ectly with the merits or demerit- of this comprim- ise, I would like to ques- tion the'conduct of Baker and Campbell. I would thi— nk that Gordon Campbell has no moral right to back

h l? Lillie Senate \Conlrnver‘s‘y .5 e

out on an agreement he has entered into, wheter ver— bally or not, whether good or bad. Either he should have never entered into it in the first place or he should have stuck to it. -As to Baker, he appears to be in at least as bad a light. Does he have the right to threaten to walk out on Senate on an issue which amounts to little more than petty politics, thus holding up the pro— cedings of that body for possibly the rest of the

7 term? And if it is more

” THEBIGONE

Big taste, big satisfaction

Canada’s most popular Cigarette.

Warning: The Department of National Health and Welfare advises that danger to health increases with amount smoked.

a... n‘v-iremm

than politics why did he back down on his original threat? Maybe he's just a‘ paper tiger. Ibelievethis, to be truth but 11 it is not then I invite either Baker or Campbell to dis- pute the facts as I have presented them.

Why did Gordon Camp- bell's challenge to the chair not come up for dis— cussion at the second mee— ting? If a motion as ser- ious as this one is'made ‘ then it should either be

voted upon or withdrawn. At present Senate is in

the interestingcpdsition of having the authority of

its chairmanchallenged for what appaers to be an in- determinate length of timed Will we vote on this mot— ion three years from now when the facts of the case are forgottenror will the question hang oVer Senate permanently. Another mot— ion, proposed by Wade Mc- Laughlan, was also made at that meeting. It too has been forgotten. The best solution to this whole mess would be for Senate to vote that any motions moved or passed at\that abortive meeting be con- sidered null and void.

If we do not settle this once and for all then we are in effect allowing the rules of Senate to consid— er its rules of order lit— tle more than conveniences. A dangerous precedent, to say the least.

Just a couple more points.’More than a dozen people have told me that President Baker normally acts arbitrarily, intimid- atingly, and interferingly with Senate. However he did not at the second of these two meetings.Is it a coincedence that seventy ‘ students and a healthy majoroty of Senators were breathing down his neck at the time?

I Another point. Why . was Doug not introduced to

‘Senate by Chairman Baker in

the normal manner even though a suggestion to that effect was made at\ the time? I And finally, why does Baker” as Chairman have ' the right to vote either

‘with the rest of Senators

or as tie—breaker? As far as I know this is the only place where this practice is carried on. Further, according to one source of mine this right was intro-, duced at the Feb. 19 meet- ing ofi.Senate without any diseussiOn of this change in Senate procedure. And

I think you can gueSs who intruduced this practice.

, .. ‘ . wu‘p‘rj «rev. "'53" NW"