Teeth And Talons

Bared At Suva 'Y’

From ROBERT KEITH-REID in Suva.

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” Shakespeare wrote, possibly as he nursed scars that were his personal experience of Ann’s fury.

Through May, June and early July the full fury of womanly passions raged in that hotbed of organised Fiji female indignation, the Young Women’s Christian Association headquarters in Suva.

Teeth and ta ons were bared hissed accusalions of Judas were heard, and schemes were hatched and scotched in every corner of the six-floor building as a bitter power struggle rocked it on its, fortunately well-embedded, concrete found- 3 i. nS ' ii . i , . , , It was all-out war between what might be termed the YWCA establishment, a board of some 17 members, and more , ’ raoicai elements The drama featured a strike, defections skulduggery, intrigue, charges and counter-charges and culminated m a court appearance by one of the key figures none other than Amelia Rokotuivuna, the vxjip., ’ s irec or.

It was entertaining to outsiders, but it also signified a very sad state of affairs within what is generally considered as one of the most dynamic and worthwhile institutions to be found in Fiji The ructions began ,n May with a sudden strike by 45 paid YWCA staff in protest against what was described as the governing board s attitude , This turned out to be a decision to steer the Y out of deep money troubles by firing four top executives Miss Rokotuivuna, r 7 her assistant, Sin Joan Yee, the informal education instructor, Bridget Sanson, and manager of the craft sales shop, Coleen Katonivualiku.

It emerged that the Y's $193,000 budget for this year was running deep into the red and that a long list of economies, including the sackings, were needed if a course back into the black was to be steered.

The strike flabbergasted the board because, said its chairman. Dr Vilimaina Tuivaga, while it was apparently meant as a protest against the proposed redundancies none other than two of those to go, Miss Rokotuivuna and Miss Yee, had recommended them.

The idea was that Miss Rokotuivuna should be transferred from the Suva YWCA to the staff and payroll of the national Fiji YWCA while Miss Yee had assured the board that she would have no trouble getting another job.

The strike closed the YWCA kindergarten, a cafeteria and brought numerous classes and other activities run by it to a halt.

Asked by local reporters why they were on strike, the strikers became irate.

They weren’t on strike, they said, it was a “slopwork”.

Pressed for a definition of the difference between a strike and a slopwork they replied, with a kind of feminine logic, that a slopwork was something that wasn’t a strike.

Miss Yee explained that the reason for it was because of the “attitude of the board” which sle said she could not possibly

publicly discuss.

But what had once been a happy relationship betw ;en volunteer workers and the board of directors had become what she described as a “management employment attitude”. As the row developed, conducted mainly as sniping at tacks in the form of statements and counter-statements issued for publication in the press, the reasons for all the furore became increasingly incomprehensible for outsiders to follow.

It seemed, however, that having suggested economies, including their own departure, to a sub-committee the board had appointed to recommend economies, the executives felt that subsequently they had not been fully consulted.

They became miffed, sniffed their com plaints to their followers, and demanded a meeting with the full board at three hours notice.

Dr Tuivaga replied that the 17 directors could not be summoned together in such a time; the response was an immediate walkout.

Four days later the strikers went back to work and at the same time announced that they were calling a special general meeting of the Suva branch with the idea of getting the directors thrown out of office and

replaced by others more sympathetic to

them.

From that point, the YWCA began to seethe with intrigue as some directors with secret sympathy for the militants began, apparently, to make overtures to them.

“We have a Judas in our midst” snapped one indignant director when she realised that the board’s own strategies were being conveyed to the militants within an hour or so of their conception.

Four weeks after the strike the four ex

ecutives recommended for redundancy got curt notices of dismissal.

Their aggrieved followers immediately went to the local newspapers with an “open letter” to the board in which they accused it of victimisation. The four had been sacked because of the part they had played in the slopwork protest, the letter complained, and accused the board of us ing “divisive tactics to intimidate and create distrust.”

“Not so” retorted the directors in a counter press statement and added that most of those who had gone on strike had been “persuaded” to do so by people who had not given them the full facts.

Putting a bit of boot-work in, the direc tors went on to say that YWCA organisa tion had become “top heavy” and inter posed by too many executives.

And, they added, no doubt recalling some of the forceful statements some ex staffers had made on such topics as abor tion, nuclear tests and the Miss versus Ms controversy, the YWCA had lost a lot of support due to “rudeness” and “excessive ly forceful views” wrongly represented as the organisation’s general opinion.

Further reaction to the sackings came in the form of resignations by some of the YWCA’s volunteer staff who lamented that they could not continue to work in such an atmosphere for which they felt the directors were mainly to blame.

The work of the Y managed to stagger on through May and June, if curtailed somewhat in certain quarters.

The special general meeting called by staff did not take place there seemed to be some sort of agreement that it should be deferred by mutual consent to July.

Then the board announced that it had “expelled” two of its members one of whom announced that she had resigned anyway as she did not think it had power to expel.

The long-awaited special general

meeting described in the the press as a “marathon” came in the second week of

July.

It signalled a defeat for the directors. A vote of no confidence in them was passed, a new board elected, and it was agreed that the YWCA constitution should be redrafted with the aim of ironing out deficiencies which had contributed to the creation of the whole unpleasant situation.

Speakers complained that board meetings had been “manipulated” and that :ertain people had “ganged up to get their Dwn desires fulfilled.”

Such remarks seemed to be a typical reflection of a somewhat bitchy affair. But it least the speakers also agreed that it was ;ime for the bitchiness to stop.

As the Fiji Times remarked in an ;ditorial afterwards: “Conflict and mimosity at the Suva YWCA have lopefully come to an end.”