Balliol JCR Minutes: 2010
Committee Lunches
Committee Lunch - 2009-12-02
Apologies: Not sure
AT: Good to see the entire group here - not just a list of names. Not got a huge agenda; just a welcome and introduction. We need to discuss, though, the time of this meeting. 1pm doesn't work for at least Greig. What would people prefer?
// 1:15. //
AT: Okay, we've moved it to 1:15.
AT: This pack here is a summary of all the meetings we've had all the new officers. We've printed off just three to avoid angering E&E. Have a little flick through your section, and feed back, and it'll be corrected if there are any inaccuracies. Give a good read over the holidays.
SPW: Can we have this, then?
SS: I'll e-mail round before the end of term to be read over Christmas.
---
AT: Do we have anything to do before the end of term?
SS: We're to clean up after the bop on Thursday. Everyone will be there, so **everyone needs to clean up**. If we don't, everyone gets miserable, which is fractious and bad.
AT: Iain let is slip but we're going to get it right from the beginning.
SS: It's not too difficult so can be done even when very drunk.
AT: It's obviously not compulsory if you're not going to the bop, but [otherwise] for this first bop everyone should attend.
---
// A show of hands established that very few people received hand-over packs from the outgoing officers. //
AT: Foodies will not get one. Last year's admissions didn't get them at all. We'll send e-mails to organise other missing packs.
AT: This year we want to review slightly the structure of committee. The complicated system of subcommittees needs refreshing. To this end, the Finance Exec Comm will meet; e-mails will be sent to those who need to attend. Also the Welfare Committee will meet since we're mandated to review all welfare stuff because of Max Deacon['s GM motion].
RGJ: Actually, it was Polly [Ashmore].
SS: People are saying that our welfare is poor, but it isn't, so we need to kick off about it. So, everyone should sort out the display boards in the JCR in order to make people aware that there are names to contact.
AT: For example, the Dr Who board outlines procedures - it makes sense to have noticeboards, so we should get them sorted early on.
So let's have **everyone back by Tuesday of 0th week**, and we'll do a lunch to organise board making and do it after said lunch.
SS: Note that it's Welfare week in 5th week of Hilary, organised by the VP.
AT: The next committee is the bar committee. The outgoing Duckworth and Lindsay don't see eye to eye and don't talk to the bar social secretaries. So we'll have formal bar committee meetings twice a term and these will report back to the main committee to assist Nick. So we have the standard committee and three subcommittees.
---
AT: A big thing next term is the website - it's a great year to do it. The current programming language is... Sean?
SPW: ASP.
AT: ASP is obsolete, so it's labour intensive to fix it, so we'll redo it from scratch. So we'll do the site map and content over Hilary and then over the easter vac it can be written.
SS: So everyone think about their JCR board and website section over the Christmas vac. Everything will look fresh and amazing next term without actually doing very much.
GL: Who has a board?
AT: Welfare, admissions, etc.
MP: We also have a JdeB box for gossip as we don't know anything and that's not going to change.
---
AT: These committee meetings are useful for bringing up things - they're good arena for decision making and discussions. They're useful and fun. I'll open up floor now; I have little more to say.
CG: When does the mailing list get handed over?
AT: End of the week.
SS: Can you get it off Skelly?
BS: Yes, will do it very quickly.
Someone: How do we send to the mailing list?
AT: Currently it goes through me to be approved. Iain had a lot of fun editing e-mails last year. It was funny when he sent things out and Doug flipped out even after it'd been vetted. Note that we can't make eating disorder jokes in e-mails. So it will get forwarded automatically [to me] and moderated. Send to [email protected].
SS: There is also a committee mailing list which we'll send out. Anything fun committee-related happening over Christmas?
---
CG: The trip to Amsterdam set up - end of 8th week next term, we've sent e-mails out to 4 entz/charity officers at other colleges. As soon as we get back we'll publicise and start selling tickets. There's a meeting with Doug to ensure we can do it since students'll be missing Friday of 8th - but it's just like Varsity so it should be fine.
AT: How much does it cost?
CG: £115.
MP: Is this organised centrally through rag?
CG: No, as then we have less control over where the money goes. If other college officers help with admin then they get a split of the charity money depending on how many people went from that college.
RMC: We sent out to just two or three colleges rather than all of them as this is simpler.
---
DA: We'd like some momey to buy a set of weighing scales. We need to check weight of baggage.
MD: It's around 20kg; they've got really restrictive these days.
CM: Aren't there scales in staircase 14?
IT: Yes. One can weigh oneself and then get on with the bag.
SS: How much money?
AT: Can you present us with a figure?
Someone: Can't you get one specifically for scales?
DA: It'll be less than £20.
AT: Bring a specific figure to these lunches and we'll do it. Is it something you need over the next week?
DA: It is needed over the next couple of days.
AT: If there are no objections to £30 then Denise can sort it out for you.
// No objections were raised. //
MD: How are we going to stop people from stealing it; where'll we keep it?
DA: We could keep it in the pantry and require bod card deposit.
MD: Is there space in there for that?
RGJ: We could just use the Porter's Lodge.
GL: That makes more sense.
AT: Okay then, there are no objections, the money is passed.
AT: Is there any other business?
// No. //
Committee Lunch - 2010-01-13
Apologies: Marine Debray, Paul Gerstmayr, Ash Thomas
AT: We may as well get started; we're only missing Rhiannon and Isabel. The first thing I want to bring up is website as mentioned last term. I talked to Sean and Ben last night. The best thing to do is to create some sort of working group - a smaller group of people who meet in a formal capacity and brainstorm and collect information for the website.
For the first couple of weeks that'll be getting an idea of everything we can do with the website (e.g. pay battels online, something almost every college can do). They'd make a flowchart and a site plan and then gather all content from officers. So far we have Ali, Simon, Sean, Ben, possibly. Ian - anyone else?
// AC and SMW raise their hands. //
AT: Admissions is particularly bad on the current website so Simon is a good choice. With regard to the design, we could pretty much steal the main Balliol website design because it's really nice. We can talk about that later.
---
AT: Nick the Junior Dean is coming along at some point today.
// Nick walks in.. //
ITEM:[Nick:] I'm Nick the Junior Dean, just wanted to pop down and interrupt horribly the beginning of the first committee meeting to say hello, so you know my face. I am in room 3.9. You can reach me on [email protected]. By and large my role is 1) one of people to talk to to help solve personal problems 2) I can help support welfare efforts by you, and things to do with college generally, if you need money or help. Who are the Drs Who?
// RGJ and IT raise their hands. //
ITEM:[Nick:] Did you get my e-mail?
RGJ: Yes.
ITEM:[Nick:] We'll catch up at some point, now you know my face. Who are the entz officers?
// JK and JC raise their hands. //
ITEM:[Nick:] **You should e-mail Doug and try to meet up before Saturday.**
JK: Yes.
ITEM:[Nick:] We'll sort that out and get together. Any burning questions? Didn't think so. I'll get out of your hair.
---
AT: The idea was to meet the Dean today along with the Domestic Bursar and the Catering Manager about the bar license. We were told that they'd been a tip off to the police that means we need to make sure our license is in order - it's a good idea anyway. Everything is in fact fine and we're pretty free to move money around and it's surprisingly simple. The only slight grey area is people from other colleges - the sign-in book is never used and is full of rude names written in by me. They could pick us up on that. So I'm proposing to bring a motion to the next GM to allow associate members into out private members club and define all other Oxford college members as associate members. This would mean they can use the bar and pantry if they're from Pembroke, say. I'll get the correct legal definition of associate member to avoid giving them the power to vote in GMs but it will solve the problem.
GS: Won't they still need to sign in?
AT: The idea of associate membership is that they don't have to.
SS: We only need to sign in non-Oxford people.
MP: Wasn't it passed at a GM that we would get an electronic scanner for entry to the bar?
NS: It was passed but the price tripled overnight - a sale expired just as it was about to be purchased so it didn't happen.
AT: The other options we have are all pretty cumbersome - for example getting a committee member to sign people in on busy evenings etc. - and the lodge don't want to do anything, since it's hardly within their job description. If college agrees, something which I hope to find out today, I'll put it through to the GM.
CG: So we'll still have to sign in non-Oxford people?
GL: Yes, at a location to be decided.
SS: Having an empty book of non-Oxford members because we don't bother signing them in is not a big deal, but having an empty book of people from other colleges obviously is.
DH: So every Oxford student will be an associate member of the bar.
JC: What happens to people we have round to stay?
AT: The idea is that the people working behind the bar recognise people and check where appropriate.
EC: So they have to recognise every Oxford student.
AT: Yeah, the bar staff recognise and require signing in where needed.
RGJ: Really, you have responsibility for any friends visiting you and should sort it out.
AT: Actually every person from other colleges should be a guest of a Balliol member, but obviously this won't happen in practice. I'll find out more about it and hopefully they'll be time to put it through the next GM.
---
AT: We have to hold co-options next week for unfilled committee and non-committee posts. There are quite a few including Students with Disabilities Officer. They're basically a mini hustings in the Committee Lunch, and it's quite funny. We at least need to get someone to do the bikes because it's boring and I don't want to have to do it. That's all from me.
SS: I have a couple of things. Firstly, the bop cleanup. I said it was really easy to do even if very drunk - this is not so.
// The shambles that was the first bop cleanup at the end of last term causes some laughter. //
SS: The Gardens Committee whinged at me that the outside of the JCR is never clean [after a bop].
SPW: You mean outside the JCR?
SS: Yeah. Instead of having the drunk committee cleaning up in the dark, we could instead clean the inside at night then the outside in the morning with a different group of people. What do you think about doing it in two halves?
AT: What's the optimum number of people for the inside, and for the outside?
SS: Not too many. Maybe eight who are not completely annihilated for the inside.
IT: About ten inside, five out.
AT: It's easy to end up with overkill.
SS: But it's dark and cold outside, so we leave that horrible mess and the hungover can do it in the morning.
RGJ: But those who are too pissed to do it the previous night will be in bed in the morning.
SS: What do people think?
RGJ: We could designate the most sober people.
%dawn: still not practice % not sure how this fits in
IT: We could just clean up a bit outside [on the night].
GL: This is not practical as everyone is still outside after the bop so you'd be picking up as they dropped. Only alternative is a cleanup team in the morning.
RGJ: Then those committee members living in college would end up taking the brunt of that work.
SMW: Couldn't it happen in the afternoon instead of the morning?
GL: Yes - there are no staff in college on Sunday so the gardeners never come in and complain directly. [In this case], `morning' = when people get up.
EC: Perhaps it is tourist hours that makes them worried.
GL: The college has somewhat unspecified opening hours.
AT: So ten people in total: three outside in the morning and seven inside at night.
IT: Still though not all people show up, so we should just split the committee in half.
RGJ: Someone drunk can still go and sleep on a sofa in the JCR.
SS: So we do half and half - who's up for doing it in the morning rather than at night?
// No-one made any indication of being up for this. //
SS: We'll just tell the Gardens Committee, then, that we're going to clean up the outside at night.
AT: Garden Committee moaning is a long term thing so we don't actually have to do anything.
JK: So would people be immune from cleanup in the following bop if they get up in the morning for one?
SS: Yes, that makes it fair.
CG: Some sort of supervisor is needed.
SS: Anyone want to try it in the morning then?
// **HO, DH, AB, GL and SS volunteer for Sunday morning.** //
SS: **Then, everyone else [who is going to the bop] should cleanup on Sunday night.**
AT: There were too many last time - we need a crack squad
SS: I can tell people to go if unneeded.
IT: We need a sober co-ordinator.
SS: Everyone else do Saturday night and if there are too many people wandering around we can send them away.
// TP, SPW and IJ are not going to the bop. //
---
SS: The OUSU welfare woman is willing to put on a free mini peer support training session for everyone in welfare roles, including the entz officers, since they tend to have drunk bop people crying at them.
AT: That reminds me - we want to send Lindsay and Duckworth on an alcohol awareness course, and the college is willing to pay for that - we'd like to send Entz too since they are most likely to see people who are horribly drunk.
NS: I'm willing to do it to shut [college] up.
AT: Just being sent on one such thing is quite good actually.
SS: Does everyone have their timetables yet?
// A resounding `no' is heard. //
SS: Nevermind. I'll send out a list of times that she can do to Rhiannon and Isabel and they can produce an Internet form to indicate availability. Then we can say ``we know how to talk to people''.
IT: More people with this kind of training is better. How about the whole committee?
SS: Only a certain number of people can be in any one session, but she can do other sessions. Part of this is just to show if the new OUSU lot are any good after we threatened to disaffiliate.
IT: She's really good.
---
JK: Do you want the dates of the bops [this term]? I e-mailed the Dean the other day. Saturday of 4th week is the Valentine's bop, we have one this week, and an LGBT one.
LMJ: One thing with the LGBT bop is Chris and his Amsterdam thing - the LGBT bop is just a day before that. Just like with Varsity, they'll be no-one there otherwise.
IT: How about Thursday then? There may be problems with people having exams.
CG: We go on Thursday night.
JK: It's a long way off; we can sort it out in the next couple of weeks.
---
AT: One thing I forgot is the JCR boards. Sean and I did some cleaning out this morning, and there are some materials in the JCR office, or you can pass money for wrapping paper. Do JdeB want a board?
MP: We don't want people to put stuff up, we'd become pointless.
SS: It'd more be for funny photos, old JdeB editions, hilarious photos.
AT: You have one assigned, it's just a little one.
DH: How big are our boards?
SPW: It's based on the importance of your position.
SS: You've got quite a big one but we're thinking of swapping since OUSU stuff can go onto lots of other boards.
AT: We left LGBT because it's so good - it's a model of what they should look like.
SPW: Everyone has rubbish labels, but LGBT have a rainbow.
SMW: Are we not allowed a board?
AT: You can have one then.
SS: The freshers' board?
---
CG: [We need to discuss] rent[, right?]
AT: There is a meeting with the Domestic Bursar on Thursday or Friday of 2nd week about college room rents. It's quite an important event. Back in 2006 rent increased 37\% in one year. What with kitchen amenities and the like, rent can change quite chaotically.
In a measure to stabilise things - which is as important as keeping rent cheap - a JCR President signed up to the Van Noorden Index. It was logical to limit room rent increases. Unfortunately there is only one GM before these meetings. I need to be mandated in this, but this'll before I've done enough research. I want to go to OUSU and compare our situation to those at other colleges etcetera.
Do people know what the Van Noorden index is?
// Several people indicate that they do. //
AT: I think it's 4.7\% at the moment.
CG: 4.7? That's ridiculous.
MP: Then there's inflation on top of that.
AT: The idea is to measure increasing cost of living in Oxford - looking at how much housing rent goes up and getting a measure of the Oxford inflation rate. This doesn't make much sense for us since our student loans go up less. Already, the loan is less than what I pay for rent - and so it's a growing problem. I'm not sure what we should subscribe to. One thing to say - we're in the top 3rd of expensive colleges, and that's ignoring our kitchen amenities charge, so it's bad.
IT: Doesn't the Domestic Bursar want to lower rates?
AT: I had quite a surprising meeting: yes, she agrees that it'd be nice a bit lower. She intends to go to the meeting with the intention of subscribing to the Index for at least a year, though. The Finance Bursar has got less interest in seeing Balliol get cheaper. Another thing I'd like to see is what everyone who is at that meeting is thinking. What's everyone's opinion on the index? How could we conduct an argument?
CG: Rents were very low for a very long time but then they jumped, and then they added the Index. The stabilisation argument doesn't work - a friend of mine who used to go to Balliol called my rent ridiculous - so the Index isn't bringing stability.
IT: There was no account of inflation before, and so they needed to put it in, so there was a sudden rise. It's good to have some sort of inflation measure relative to Oxford as opposed to somewhere else but on the other hand they can't charge more when our income isn't going up.
AT: An alternative is to increase grants.
IT: People in the middle are ldots
RGJ: ldots totally screwed.
IT: The maintenance loan is not enough to cover rent, nevermind food.
AT: Having to apply to hardship wouldn't work.
DH: At the moment balliol is quite good for middle people with the access bursary.
IT: It's still not enough. People living out pay rent of around £4500, and the bursary normally gives £1000, it's a joke.
DH: An argument against the Index is the claim made that ``studying in oxford no more expensive than anywhere else''.
SS: Hardship grants to people living out are irrelevant - so set that aside and think about college's rooms. If you go to London you get a lot more money, since the government recognises that this is more expensive, but they don't do that for Oxford
IT: We're the 5th most expensive university to study at in the country, and the top four most expensive are in London and we're above other London ones so it's not just not right.
SS: Whatever motions we pass we need to note this. College can get money from squeezing students or alumni. Alumni don't give money to Balliol, they just give to bursary funds, so college could charge high rents and then give us lots of money.
JC: It's quite difficult to get a guarantee.
SS: Some people might not want to claim the hardship bursary.
JC: You can't guarantee you'll get a bursary until you've picked your room, so one is potentially screwed.
IT: The standard rooms are £1085.
JC: You have to pick your room with no idea of what money you'll have.
CG: The Living Wage Campaign spoke to the new Van Noorden guy and challenged him on the Index, essentially he said that ``we just kind of made it up''. If we could try and shove in Living Wage stuff into this campaign this would be good.
MP: Didn't Ali say it was the JCR's decision to go onto the Index?
AT: Yes.
IT: What happens if we're not on the Index? Can rents be arbitrary?
ALI: However high [the Index] might be it's not arbitrary, which is why we went on it in the first place.
IT: Who decides inflation? College?
AT: The meeting is a negotiation.
GL: Is the index the only other alternative?
CG: College are using a market rate but they're the only sellers and we are only buyers! So you should push as hard as you can.
RMC: Rents going up as other college costs go up would make more sense.
AT: Agreed. They lose money for every student, and gain for conferences. There is no point discussing rent increases until we've got a good picture of colleges ins and outs.
SS: I can think of four different ways of doing this. Inflation, Van Noorden or college presents us with a report of costs. Or we look at what we think is a reasonable percentage.
GL: How does the student loan change?
SS: It goes up with inflation.
CG: It goes up based on the RPI in March.
IT: Interesting, since they set the interest of our loans in September. The whole thing is a joke.
DH: The other trivial charges - why do they put these on?
AT: The reason is that they want to make the rents look cheaper. I'm not sure how they've got away with it. Other colleges do it too. Hertford has a `college charge' instead which is simpler. There's no transparency to stick on phone bill charge etc.
IT: It should either be included in rent, or optional.
AT: The Bursar prefers the Hertford system.
SMW: I don't agree with pushing as hard as we can. On paper we're in the top five most expensive universities, but actually we're not, because we can go to Doug over and again to get more and more money.
IT: Some people refuse to do this.
SMW: Then that's their problem. It works out cheaper overall - it's money, not a loan.
AT: Something more systematic would be good.
SMW: It could be better organised.
IT: A friend of mine at Durham pays less rent and gets the same hardship.
AT: We have huge hardship funds. There's enough for half of the people living out to each receive £1000.
MP: We should compare ourselves to other colleges not other universities.
AT: So, a motion.
SPW: We can delay gm so long as we have four this term.
CG: We can split negotiations between meetings. Have a GM, get given all this information, and then come back with another motion.
MP: Can't you get advice and training from OUSU?
AT: Yes, I will e-mail them and get some help.
---
AT: We have five minutes, just a few things - E&E - the porters say that // the cardboard needs to be emptied every single day //. This is the ugly part of E&E. You should talk to the porters.
JK: We'll send out an e-mail about setting this up.
AT: Yeah, that's up to you.
---
CG: Everyone should sign up for the musical we're putting on - the Wizard of Oz - I spoke to Leila last week (charities officer last year who has also directed it for the last two years) - and she says she has a wicked team going, with co-director Ant. I spoke to him and he has no idea what I was talking about. I'll send lots of e-mails today. Simon [Wood] and Matt [Parsfield] will help me to write it. We'll make it into a funny, happy story. It will be in 6th week.
RMC: Do we have any way to make Doug pay attention to us?
AT: I'll try.
RGJ: E-mail Glynis and she'll get him to get his act together.
// Isabel leaves to see her tutor. //
---
BS: Can I have money please for the recurring website hosting - for one year it's £26.
SPW: Can you look into getting it for six months since we're planning to change host?
BS: I'll look into it - I'll check. Can wait until next week.
GL: Just pass the money and spend half of it if necessary.
// There are no objections and the money passes. //
---
JK: How does the budget work for the bop this Saturday?
GL: That's a good question.
JK: Secondly we need an entz committee.
AT: We will co-opt it. Up to Joanne and James to organise it. It's needed for this weekend.
JK: Can we just find people?
AT: Yes, for next committee lunch.
---
SMW: There's a target school event in the Massey Room, three 'til five, on Saturday - I'll send an e- mail. Come for info and free doughnuts.
---
AT: Please do submit officers' reports for the GM.
SPW: ``Nothing to report'' is better than no report.
---
EC: I want to run something in here in 3rd week. We want pizzas and wine, but we're not allowed food and drinks in here. But right now we have food and drink in here.
AT: Talk to Howard to sort it out - food is allowed in the Massey Room, and there's a list of Dean's rules.
HO: I believe it's allowed in here as long as it is college-provided, not outside-provided.
// The meeting closed for snowy committee photographs and Norway Room board preparation. //
Committee Lunch - 2010-01-20
*** The Jowett situation ***
- RGJ explained that the housing ballot is almost done, and
missing replies and those who come from abroad are currently
being chased up. The ballot will occur tomorrow so long as
college authorities are okay with it. At this stage, every
first year except two house groups have asked for Jowett.
There have been 130 applications for Jowett from undergraduates,
ninety of which are first years, and there are 103 rooms. The fact
that Jowett has become a preference for rising second years makes
all this into a problem.
- AT told that Committee that the issue of how many rooms the JCR
and MCR are guaranteed in Jowett would be brought to Executive
Committee as something concrete is needed. He noted that the
direction of the fellowship was to continue the roughly equal
proportions of graduates and undergraduates for the next ten years,
which puts housing under strain. The expectation for
undergraduates is that if they want to live in four years they can,
but that they are only guaranteed one, and graduates can expect two
years but are guaranteed one.
Since a gain for the JCR is a loss for the MCR, AT argued that a
stubborn gridlock must be avoided, and that he aims to push for a
fifty/fifty split if possible to remove turbulence from the planning of the Drs WHO. Whatever the case, though, any decision
the Executive Committee take will not really affect this year.
- IT said that if this were to happen again, the ballot would have
to be done in Michaelmas.
- In order to deal with the large numbers of first years who can't
get into Jowett, RGJ explained that she intended to match up flat
groups with appropriate houses to make the whole process as easy as
possible.
- JlK thought that it would be good if living out became the done
thing for second years again. Jowett is then a place for those who
haven't found a group of people to live with. TP confirmed that
this was how it used to be. The Oxford college system then shines
as something there for people who really need the accommodation.
- IT said that the website said that most people were able to live
in all three years for reassurance to encourage people to apply,
and again that this has been a disastrous year.
- It was pointed out by TP and RGJ that Max and Kirsty [former Drs
WHO] were told by college to push Jowett onto rising second years
as then Jowett was seem as `the lame option', though this is no
longer the case. Such things go in trends.
- HO asked why there was any issue with grads since, in living in Jowett, she doesn't see very many around. At replied that they
want things to be clearer so that their ballot is more useful to
them.
- DA asked if there could be any preference for the longer Jowett
contracts for international students. AT said that the JCR needs
to decide this.
- DA also noted that we should factor in the fact that graduates
have a fewer rules on how far away from college they are allowed to
say. In any case, as SMW pointed out, their needs are less than
ours. MD, as an international student, explained how her house in
Cowley was the best thing that ever happened to her because it gave
her lots of vac res which is vital for those who cannot stay
elsewhere in the UK. Storage and flight flexibility were also
mentioned.
- IT asked if we should give people without a group to live with
preference in the Jowett ballot. While flats who lose out are
still grouped, these people aren't. SS suggested this be GMed, and
Doug should be spoken to since he has the final say over
welfare-related housing.
- DH asked how the problem of there not being many houses for
groups of seven or eight people would be solved, and IT said that
they could be split, in Jowett or Cowley.
*** Damage to college property after bops ***
- It has become a very significant issue recently that college
property is being damaged after bops. AT said that really, the
college have the right to impose a charge on the JCR for this since
it is generally after a JCR event.
- A new compulsory levy of around a few pounds per term was
proposed but some thought that this would be unfair and
ineffective; AT noted that it'd only be used when guilt cannot be
determined. Taking money from the JCR main account would
destabilise welfare provision. Taking money from the Entz account
would put the damage as a bop expense, but this would mean that the
perpetrators may not even be paying it as this is an optional levy.
- The idea of threatening a staircase with all paying for damage
has been seen to work in getting culprits to come forward, but CG
said that this was institutionalised unfairness which should not be
supported, and DH recalled that this didn't work for the bop that
got cancelled last term.
- CG and RGJ thought that enforcing collective responsibility upon
the JCR is a good thing to make people aware of their
responsibilities and in any case, people can opt out from the JCR.
- DA said that the negative externality of bops is caused by
alcohol and perhaps people who go to bops should pay, or the price of alcohol should be increased. AT said that the Dean had made a
similar identification.
- AT wanted these charges to be kept separate from normal student
damage charges. SS and SPW proposed that someone should bring a GM
motion about this. AT said he'd talk to Doug and then discuss this
again next week.
*** Rent negotiations ***
- AT reported that IT and Iain Large [ex-President] put forward a
motion to use the Van Noorden index last year, and the college
committee agreed to sign up for it until the end of 2011. The
Student Loan has actually decreased due to the recession and yet
the Van Noorden index has risen considerably.
AT reported that college are unlikely to budge on this since the
Master, Domestic Bursar and Finance Bursar all wish to subsidise
education over accommodation due to the college being, in their
eyes, tremendously poor. They want to renew fellowships rather
than give rent decreases.
- CG and AT moved for a clearer idea of how the Van Noorden index
is compiled. It was noted also that money can't be got from alumni
to reduce rents as they give to hardship funds, so after some
discussion, a complete review of hardship with a more systematic
and wide-reaching remit was recommended.
- SS wanted to ask college for some idea of what they are doing to
reduce costs.
- EC asked if it might be possible to extend the additional money
given to London students to those in Oxford by contacting the
Student Loan Company. AT deferred that to OUSU and reminded the
meeting that college aren't necessarily the bad guys here, since
funding for universities is a nationwide issue. IT suggested
bringing a motion to OUSU Council.
- SMW suggested that we suggest to college the system that Magdalen
uses: everyone who arrives is income-assessed immediately for a
grant. Doug's system is less transparent. DH noted that the
college hardship funds take into account student income, not
parental income, which is good.
- JlK asked if we are able to move hardship money into rent
reduction. SS and GL confirmed that we can't, as alumni don't want
this.
*** Other business ***
- AT thanked MD and SMW for a good job with the admissions
candidates this year, on behalf of the college fellowship.
- BS informed the meeting that he can't buy six months hosting for
the JCR website as far as he can tell. AT asked him to talk to Denise since we only have five days to renew it.
- AT asked TN and FF to liaise with Denise about the Committee
portraits in the office which need more space.
- £7 was passed at the request of GL for the JCR
cleaner's birthday. There were no objections.
- CM asked for money for a recycling bin for the JCR office, and
said he would investigate a price, and also investigate a
disappeared recycling bin in Jowett.
- HO asked if we might turn the JCR into a creche for the `thirty
years of women at Balliol' lunch later in the term. AT reminded
the meeting that we are not allowed to close the JCR except for the
Ball. The discussion of an alternative place for such a creche was
tabled.
- £20 was passed at the request of TN for a new TV
remote and something to hang it up with for the TV room. There
were no objections.
- £40 was passed at the request of LMJ for pre-dinner
drinks for the LGBT dinner. There were no objections. The MCR has
also passed some money for this.
Committee Lunch - 2010-01-27
Apologies: Eleanor, Conor
The lunch began with co-options for unfilled committee and non-committee positions.
1. Housing ballot; Jowett situation
• IT expressed the resentment being shown towards the Dr WHOs. RGJ said that they planned to talk to Doug in the next two hours and after that, everything would be under control. This would give a little more time for third years forced into Jowett to pick flat groups. The ballot is then due at 12 on Thursday, and people will know by 5pm.
• CG asked who is being spoken to do figure out why there aren’t enough rooms in college for the third years. IT said that this doesn’t usually happen and only ninety-two signed up. RGJ noted that they’d never been a case where both sets of accommodation were oversubscribed at once. It was confirmed that nothing was known of this happening by anyone until the first e-mail from the Dr WHOs about a week ago.
• DH asked if the university housing officer was to be informed as another place for freshers to go, to take some burden off the Dr WHOs. RGJ said that information could be given out but that the service was poor and not really worth considering.
• GL said that at the meeting with the accommodation manager, a separate issue was brought up that is a large problem this year: there are five rusticated rising third years and two people
1 on a year abroad who need rooms. However, only one room is actually missing. GL felt that the panic that has been created has meant that people are grabbing what they can rather than arranging Jowett flat groups &c. He explained that there is always a shortage of a few rooms on the college site but there isn’t this panic and furore.
• RM asked when they’d be an e-mail detailing every room in college for the purposes of choosing a room. RGJ confirmed that this would happen but that it was definitely not an urgent priority. DH noted that such information is online. • DA asked if college would consider subletting St. John’s spare rooms for people unable to find a house. AT said that the contingency plan was currently unclear, and that he’d raise it at the College Exec meeting later in the afternoon.
• The Dr WHOs apologise for causing panic and said that they had always tried to give out all information as soon as they were aware of it. IT said that a new plan was needed, something in Michaelmas, to give freshers more time to find a house in the future.
• SS noted that all the panic is caused by college assuming people will drop out. He asked that the concern be raised with them that their rooms are always oversubscribed on the main college site. IT said that it needed to be got clearly at Exec what the two year guarantee really means.
• CG asked if there might be a case for choosing the Dr WHO officers a term early. SS noted that he was planning to bring a motion to the next GM to split the administrative part of housing off to the VP, noting that it is difficult to beg for responses to e-mails and be nice in a welfare role. CG noted that there may be a case for doing the college ballot in Michaelmas, too.
2. Bop security
• After talking to the minder of the JCR President of Queen’s, whom is a teddy bear, AT reported that he had figured out that those spreading butter around college and smashing doors in a systematic fashion have hit Queen’s too, suggesting that this is a security issue rather than anything else, and meaning that we need to consider our bop security.
• AT suggested some guy be hired for around £25 per bop to stop people from other colleges getting in. JC noted that other colleges do this, and TP said that Balliol used to do this at some time in the past. RGJ noted that the people we had doing this before were generally ineffective at checking if people were from Balliol, however.
• JC asked how strict we need to be about allowing Balliol people to have guests.
• CG suggested such a guard be posted in the lodge rather than the library passage, as then porters are able to act as backup. DA said that Vincent the porter was okay with this, but GL said that the Head Porter Ian didn’t want to do this as then people going to the OCR for talks might get blocked.
• DA noted that other colleges such as Merton (where, CG noted, “fun goes to die”) require a guest list in advance.
• AT suggested a trial name log of guests, not requiring prior permission to attend, to allow easy tracing of offenders. AT asked JC to sort this out and take £25 for it. He said that the
Dean liked the idea of getting someone big to do it. JC suggested getting the Entz Committee members Seb Fassam and Will Fleet to do it.
• SMW suggested that they should be paid the same wage as people working in the bar during bops get.
3. Other business
• JK asked for £5 for a timer switch for the fridge in the bar to turn it off for about fourteen hours a day to reduce energy usage. It was confirmed that since money for recycling bins has been passed before, the E&E officers can just go ahead and buy them. The money was passed with no objections.
2
• RM asked for £20 for printing advertising material for the Amsterdam trip. It was passed with no objections.
• SD asked for £50 for a new fryer in pantry for things that would otherwise clog up the main fryer; it would be kept in the cupboard and just brought out in the evenings. SD noted that
Linda and Denise have approved the idea and Maureen would be asked tomorrow. The money passed with no objections.
• AT spoke of the JCR membership in the MCR, which gives them full privileges for historical reasons when the MCR was much smaller. He said he’d talk to the MCR President about modernising things. GL noted that the 10% of the MCR grant from college that goes to the
JCR was £849.65 this term.
Committee Lunch - 2010-02-03
Apologies: Marine, Paul, Matt, Georgina
1. The student press
• AT and SS asked the committee to be careful when talking to the student press about JCR matters, and asked all to run things by them first if possible due to the importance of uniting before going to the press, given their unreliability. They stressed that this was not an attempt at censorship.
2. College policy changes & committees
• AT reported that College Buildings Committee will allow a Sky satellite dish if placed carefully on the inside of the quad.
• AT informed the meeting about an alternative Czech TV service for sports, which he thought was legal, but with Czech commentary.
• AT reported that College are currently rewriting many sections of their handbook. Disci- plinary procedures are being moved around for the purposes of clarification due to several ambiguous cases last year.
• Some discussion was had over the attempts at enforcing collection rules this term, and AT noted that College intend to bring in much tougher ones next year. He said that the only significant one was a new rule against leaving in the first and last fifteen minute periods. It was widely recognised that many, many people cheat in collections.
• RGJ noted that the collections she had sat in the Exam Schools were totally different but that Balliol doesn’t have the facilities to be so strict.
• It was suggested by IT that this might be to do with Balliol sinking in the Norrington Table.
AT said that College had assured him it was a long term thing. DH thought it might be to prepare first years better for real exams in the form of prelims. MH said that in his experience, collections are largely irrelevent.
• AT reported discussion of how Balliol is one of the few colleges that doesn’t allow student representation to tutorial board. SS objected because he thought friends might be put in awkward positions when asked to defend someone who had done something seriously wrong, and then be responsible, in a sense, for them being sent down. He suggested Academic Affairs or the President, who have had advocacy training; EC confirmed that it is usually Academic
Affairs at other colleges.
• It was suggested that this group be broadened to ensure that an advocate was less likely to be someone known personally to the accused.
3. Other JCR meetings
• SS cancelled the planned website working group meeting this afternoon but asked for content from everybody on Committee before the site was put together, except perhaps from JdeB.
• CG said that, after seeing the draft site map in the office, refused to have charities under the democracy section of the site. SPW promised to explain the reasoning to him. CG said he wouldn’t listen.
• BS asked that those with sections on the old website can get them updated now by sending him stuff to add.
• SS said he would e-mail around to arrange another meeting of the Welfare Subcommittee.
4. Money passed, bops & miscellany
• It was confirmed that the £500 welfare budget could be topped up after it was spent from for welfare week. EC floated the idea of purchasing a hammock from it for £45, which met with some approval. EC suggested buying a bubble machine, but SS thought this should be purchased from the Entz account.
• JC asked for an additional mop for cleaning after bops. GL asked for the purchase of two mops. JC said she would buy these out of the Entz budget.
• JC reported that at the last bop, only four people signed in at the lodge from other colleges under the new scheme of having a sign-in book. GL believed the porters are aggrieved over how things had gone, and reported that it had been completely ineffective. AT said he’d talk to the junior dean about it on Friday. • CG asked that the remaining contents of the Entz account be blown at the end of term.
AT suggested it be put into making the June Jamboree really fantastic. GL said he was looking into it, in addition to plans to move profits from the Bar and Entz into some sort of refurbishment fund for the JCR, in addition to possibly increasing welfare budgets.
• DA asked for an auction to clear out the stuff in the vac storage rooms that has been there for up to five years. CG and GL suggested the auction be held in aid of the charities budget, considering how low that fund is at present. Some discussion was had as to the problem of accidentally selling stuff while the owners are still around. RM noted that simply leaving this stuff in the JCR office when he cleaned the rooms out before had worked and it had gradually disappeared over time.
Committee Lunch - 2010-02-10
Apologies: Alex, Paul, Juliette, Ash
1. Opt-in College levy
• AT introduced the Master’s plans for a new opt-in levy to help college that one would commit to for when one leaves. He noted that this was mainly outside the JCR’s domain, but said that he intended to bring a GM motion to the effect that the aim would be for more expensive food and less charges, by making them optional where possible.
• After CG asked about the kitchen amenities charge, it was confirmed that it would stay and continue to apply to those living out.
• Some discussion was had of the telephone charge. GL pointed out that it is a university- wide charge, and we all pay it because there are no rooms without landlines. HO remarked that it was quite useful, but CG wanted “us non-popular people” to be able to get phones disconnected.
• EC explained that it was important to make the point that this opt-in charge is not about money, but the pressing case it will make to old members to persuade them to donate more.
• AT informed the meeting that College are planning a big event at the beginning of Trinity for old members to help make the case for College’s urgent financial situation.
• SS said that we should hear what the Master has to say when he speaks at the beginning of the
GM on Sunday, but not be afraid to grill him, and he suggested that we put undergraduate work up on display for the old members. HO suggested pushing the living wage calculations that students spend a great deal of time on. EC said that ideas like HO’s should be referred to her for her meeting in the near future with the Publications Officer and the Senior Tutor.
• AT noted that nothing has been agreed upon or signed with regard to the new levy. He said that we want an idea of where precisely the money will go.
2. Smoking in the foyer
• AT reported that the Domestic Bursar is keen to start fining people that do it, and that she wants to charge JCR funds around £10 when it occurs.
• GL said that Jo also agreed to get the porters to enforce things.
• Some discussion was had of the possibility of replacing the smoke alarm. DH protested that this would mean the residents of staircase 15 would be kicked out of their rooms twice a day.
TN and FF said they would look into getting a small battery-powered one.
• Several people disagreed over whether the Committee is a governing body responsible for ensuring legal obligations, such as not smoking inside, are fulfilled. GL thought that this was the case, and cited how college were hesitant to get the porters involved as they didn’t want to trample on Committee’s toes. RGJ and RM said that we are not a governing body; the
JCR [through GMs] is.
3. Damage to college property after bops
• AT summed up the Domestic Bursar’s plan (see attached). AT thought that the plan was quite fair so long as College foot the bill when something is clearly not to do with the JCR.
• It was clarified that this applied to people being sick when ill too, since it’s not a punishment but merely an incurred cost.
• Some discussion was had over the necessity of holding a board at the beginning of every term to attribute damages. AT said that most cases would be automatic, and Doug would be involved in finding out who was responsible before 0th week, since he is good at that.
DH asked if the JCR could actually afford the number of people who are sick in the bath in staircase 15.
• SS said that the plan needed to be GMed as EC questioned whether the JCR has the authority to force an individual to pay a fine if it is clear s/he is responsible.
• CG said that a one strike rule could be used so that people can learn their limits without being punished after bops. AT said that the vast majority of people in the JCR would disagree with subsidising vomit. RGJ suggested writing off freshers’ week.
• MH expressed concern for ill people stuck in their rooms, being forced a week behind on work and then having a fine slapped on them for vomit. DA said that one can get a bucket. • GL performed some simple calculations and figured out that unattributed vomit would essen- tially wipe out the JCR’s profits every term.
• SD expressed concern that a one strike rule would mean that on the last bop of term people would use up their one free vomit, making it the worst bop cleanup ever.
• EC suggested making unclear cases up to the discretion of the JCR as a whole, and AT said we’d need a VGM to get through it all.
• AT said he would table a detailed motion to the GM so that a through discussion could be had.
4. Bop security
• AT reiterated how bop security had gone badly last time. He explained that security would be required from eight until eleven, at which point the gate is locked. The idea is to have two people on duty at all times, with four people in total working over the evening, for £10/90m.
• JK noted that several people had arrived while he was setting up for the bop, but AT said that this was the porters’ responsibility.
• CG noted the issue of people “blustering through” without being signed in or checked. AT replied that the JCR Deans, Max and Abu, were due to take over - it wouldn’t take their entire bop away.
• JK reminded the meeting that people from outside coming in is a good thing as they tend to spend more money than Balliol students. AT said that all that was needed was name and college. JK reported that people from other colleges were being charged £2 to enter.
• DA said that an alternative solution was a barcode scanner attached to a laptop, as the Union uses, which is much more efficient. SS noted though that someone in a bop costume is unlikely to have space for their bod card.
• JK said that someone was needed for security inside the bop. Seb was head of security last time and spent the bop wandering around with not much to do, but he did remain vigilant.
• DH asked if those working on the gate have to be big people. It was confirmed that with Max,
Abu and Vince around it wasn’t too much of an issue. • SJ said that she still didn’t have a key for the front door of college. RM reported that the porters won’t copy any more since they keep dissapearing. IT said that we can make copies of these keys ourselves since they are not security keys as room keys are.
• AT reported that from at least Hilary 2011, though possibly Trinity 2010 (and not Michael- mas), we will be able to move in to college rooms from Sunday of 0th week.
5. Welfare week
• IT and SS introduced welfare week. SS asked for information about what all WSC members are doing so that a timetable can be e-mailed out, along with posters in “one blast.”
• £60 was passed at the request of HO, with no objections, for fairy cake ingredients, Swedish music, smoothies and drink testing kits.
• £95 was passed at the request of EC for the new JCR hammock, with no objections. RM asked if this might come from the joint refurbishment fund held with college, but GL said it couldn’t.
• £5 was passed with no objections at the request of CM since the money passed at the last two lunches was insufficient as Argos upped their prices in the interim.
• SJ presented the two options for a masseuse: one charging £100 for four hours, or another chargin £5 per ten minute session. It was noted that while this was a good rate, it was still a lot of money to be had from the welfare budget.
• LMH and JKi both wanted money for food but weren’t sure of the amount they wanted to pass, but since it was under £50, they were referred to the welfare budget. SS suggested that
JKi hijacked the photocopiers in the social sciences library to produce posters for free.
Committee Lunch - 2010-02-17
Apologies: Joanne, Eleanor, Marine, Ronan
1. New JCR website
• AT said that the website team want to get all content ready by the beginning of 7th week.
AT said that he SS and AT would see every personally and would be in touch.
2. Welfare week
• SS reported that welfare week is “going alright.” He thanked people running things and asked all Committee members to keep going to events.
• AC said that not that many people attended the LGBT cocktails.
• SS was under the impression that levels of participation were building up over the week.
3. Master’s pre-GM speech & students donating to college
• AT explained how he had suggested three ways of going into his speech to the Master, and that the Master had picked the option of laying things out but not giving any concrete suggestions, requests or demands, which AT disagreed with.
• IT thought that the levy should be opt-in in order to better persuade old members to do- nate, but recognised the problems with this approach due to general lazyness. DA suggested donating at the Pantry till, but GL said this would create an accounting nightmare.
• JlK suggested using an online system involving simply replying to an e-mail to opt-in. This was met with general approval.
• GL wanted to put the charge onto the usual JCR optional levies form, noting that this money goes through College anyway. SPW said that this was bad as this was a College issue, and that it would be bad to have the Committee informally commit itself to helping promote the charge by putting it on the same form. MP said it should be a letter from the master that is as separate as possible from the JCR. It was agreed that the Committee doesn’t want this anywhere near optional levies.
• AT said that the JCR’s role was to aim for the softest charge for students, and represent them in the matter, but that this was definitely a college thing.
• CG opened a discussion of suggesting to people that they earmark the money they donate for specific projects. AT said that the Master would be opposed to that idea as he wants unrestricted spending.
• NS thought that we would lose money by putting it on optional levies are more people would cross things off in general.
• SPW suggested voting through certain categories of spending at a GM for people to give to, to avoid everyone giving small amounts of money to wildly varying causes, but CG thought that this would make the process too JCR-focussed, when instead everyone should be treated as ordinary donors to the college who can decide where their money goes. DH thought that choose categories is not an example of taking responsibility as it is still very much the choice of individual students where their money goes.
• CG thought that it shouldn’t be Committee’s concern to suggest how to make donating easier, as this is about good will. He said that it should not be down to the thirty people who have quorum at a GM to dictate that choices people can make about earmarking their donations.
• AT said that it would be more effective to pass something at a GM to say that we want a
Living Wage exhibit at the fundraising event at the beginning of Trinity rather than trying to impose categories.
• SS said that it could be done negatively: motions such as “we oppose the Graham-Travis fund being spent on this or that”. He also noted that since this plan is for the JCR and the MCR, categories are a likely way of things going. But he argued that the Master wants a specific
Graham-Travis fund of unrestricted money
• SPW said that we lose the idea of using this as a bargaining chip with the plan from SS.
• HO and IT suggested categories, or refusals to support certain categories, could all be estab- lished in a reply to an e-mail from the Master.
• IT said that giving to a general fund would encourage alumni to do the same.
• MH said that if people aren’t happy with what college will spend the money on, they simply won’t pay.
4. Maureen’s birthday
• AT noted that the JCR Steward Maureen’s fiftieth birthday is coming up, and that she has worked for the JCR for twenty-seven years, having been a scout before that.
• NS reported that, at Denise’s recommendation, he had a bottle of vodka for Maureen ready.
• GL noted that the Pantry staff planned to contribute £15. IT wanted to spend £5 on some- thing nice she could keep, but GL said she would probably prefer two hundred cigarettes.
• At the suggestion of SD, £150 was passed (with no objections) for the purchase of a big bunch of flowers and a digital radio, though the intention was not to spend this full figure. TP said that a decent DAB radio would be around £90.
• IT wanted it to be made clear to Maureen that it was SD who requested the money be passed so that he doesn’t get shouted at anymore.
• GL asked that everyone visit his pidge and sign the card for Maureen he would leave there.
• MP suggested that currently living past JCR Presidents could be contacted and could pass on messages via e-mail to be collated and given to Maureen. AT said that Denise would have their contact details.
5. Reach Oxford
• DA described the Reach Oxford scheme for students from very poor countries that are other- wise unable to attend university due to political issues in their home countries. He explained how the university waives 60% of tuition fees, the college waives the college fee, and at least
50% of a £9200 per year maintenance grant is paid by a common room.
• DA said that this was around £7.60 per person per term for the next six years. OUSU are proposing this as an optional levy for Balliol JCR members.
• AT clarified that we’d never know who the students we are supporting would be.
• DA said that it is two colleges per year that support two students over a six year deal.
• CG thought that optional levies wouldn’t work as, if people stopped giving them, one of these students could suddenly find themselves unfinanced. He also thought that this was about changing someone’s life so value judgements should be avoided.
• There was some discussion of the way in which the Record Bursary can require that students work in the non-profit sector, and that this was, in DA’s words, a “moral understanding” rather than an obligation. RGJ was sceptical this would be successful, and CG said that RM felt that someone would lie in order to be lifted out of poverty in this way. RM thought it was too much money to ask of people.
• AT said that the issue should be put to a GM with DA’s condition as an amendment. CG thought that DA should just bring the motion he wanted and it could be amended. MH said that people in the GM would agree that it didn’t really make sense due to so many people not paying the optional levy.
• GL was concerned that with compulsory levies rising anyway, this would mean people paying
£60/70 per year.
• Some discussion was had over alternative ways of raising the money. But CG noted that we had been invited to this scheme and it was unlikely they would be willing to change their longterm practices for us.
• RGJ suggested seeing if the MCR would be interested in being involved.
• AT said that there was clearly lots of research to be done but that the meeting was out of time.
Committee Lunch - 2010-02-24
Apologies: James, Matt, Tom
1. Miscellaneous
• AT reported that Maureen says that the laundry room is horrible and needs clearing up. AT said that there would be a (free) jumble sale after an e-mail warning.
• GL asked if D&M would fix the table in the laundry room. TN answered in the affirmative, noting that “I have a drill.”
• AT said that there was a good response to Maureen’s birthday from former JCR presidents.
GL complained about HO writing in red in the card when everybody else used black.
• GL spoke of the Charities GM and encouraged people to bring sensible donations, and asked them to try to stop others from feeling intimidated by the “horrible Treasurer striking them down.”
• SPW said that he would randomise charities within the SO-set categories to avoid secretarial bias.
• AT said that SPW will organise a meeting of the website working group soon. He said that
AC has a really good design, and SS and AT have been working on the site map.
• AT said that most officers could just e-mail content, and those that actually needed to be met individually would be.
• SS asked for section headers by Tuesday, but AT asked for content by Sunday of 7th.
2. Graham-Travis Fund
• EC explained an idea for a motion she had regarding the talk the Master gave before the last GM. She noted that the idea of a donation from junior members was only to encourage significant giving from older members, so she suggested we bring in a small contribution per year as an optional levy. EC said that we should pass a motion saying that we pledge to look into some sort of regular donation, allowing us to talk about it at the upcoming fundraising event. We would then be able to donate to specific funds — e.g. scout wages — and then we have demonstrated our commitment while the Master is able to make his point to the old members, without mentioning where it is going.
• CG said that the Living Wage Campaign (hereafter LWC) has got to be about increasing scout wages, not just spending money on it. He suggested requiring college to raise the wages of all non-academic staff before they can use the money we give. He said that this went against the whole point of the LWC, since our money is a token gesture anyway.
• SS noted that the Master wanted totally unrestricted money, so wouldn’t be happy with this.
SS also pointed out that old members could then donate to this same restricted fund. CG supported the idea of a fund with usage restricted in this way.
• DH said that it would be good to get this through a GM to talk to old members about at the beginning of Trinity, and EC said that she was thinking of something vague; just enough that it can be so talked about.
• MH asked if there had been any feedback from college regarding the idea of adding conditions to our donation that was discussed last week. AT said that the Master accepted quite a lot of the suggestions such as the idea of e-mailing out choices and of keeping things separate to the actual JCR.
• SS agreed with CG that the idea of donating money to pay a living wage was not longterm and was thus rather impractical. He added that the idea of a restricted account would establish a precedent for future generations of JCR members that would pay into the same account.
This would force College to prioritise paying a living wage.
• DH said that the LWC can’t be College’s only priority, as it becomes pointless if it bankrupts
College. She said that we should help College get their finances back in order, so that they can then pay it. But SS replied by saying that it would still act as a token gesture now, which is what the Master wants, and then it will become actual money to College later (when they meet the conditions).
• CG said that it is a myth that paying a living wage would bankrupt college. He said that
College will never have any other priorities other than paying fellows until we have Harvard’s endowment and the best academics in the world. Given that this won’t happen, we can’t trust College to make LWC a priority later.
• SMW pointed out that the JCR has priorities other than LWC. SS thought that this was a perfect opportunity, our one chance, to do this for LWC.
• SMW thought that we could end up setting up similar restricted accounts in five years time when we have different priorities. IT and SS thought this was okay: they’d still be plenty locked away to force College to pay a living wage.
• GL wanted to be hesitant about assuming that LWC is the JCR’s priority, but CG noted that it had been put in standing policy many times. GL replied that there are a lot of things in standing policy. He said that the people who have quorum at GMs shouldn’t decide on something like this that could really annoy College. GL said that College wouldn’t be happy with us writing to old members to get them to donate to our restricted fund.
• EC said that this was why the motion should not have such a contentious stipulation — we’re no longer donating, but locking money away in a trust. Given that College has a wage freeze for everyone at the moment, we wouldn’t really be helping LWC or College or anyone at all.
• CG said that we should not be afraid of offending College. SS pointed out that the Domestic
Bursar wants to pay a living wage.
• CG recalled earlier discussions concerning this being an individual choice. He said that this would just be the JCR having a viewpoint, not applying undue pressure.
• GS suggested a referendum on setting up such a fund. MH noted that we could have both funds.
• IT noted that an ethical fund such as this would encourage long-term giving back to one’s university.
Committee Lunch - 2010-03-03
Apologies: Marine, Paul, James, Ronan, Conor, Tom, Simon W
1. Charities GM
• AT noted the very long Charities GM where much more consideration than normal was given to which charities were to be given to, with many side-debates. He suggested that a budget be passed in the GM before the next Charities GM. SPW claimed that this was actually his idea.
• Prompted by the suggestion of AT, much discussion was had over the idea of submitting charities to the Charities Officers for consideration. CG disagreed on principle, noting also that he was not the best placed to do it.
• AT suggested that his budget could assign an equal proportion of the money to every charity brought, and then these amounts could be amended around at the subsequent Charities GM.
CG agreed and said that people should push for as much as they can for their charity.
• AT noted that there were no issues with losing quorum due to having other motions at the beginning of the meeting.
• Several people expressed their content with what happened on Sunday; there was, in GL’s words, “extreme consideration.”
• SS suggested forming one super-motion of all the charities and discussing it as one, like he felt we did on Sunday. Then there is no danger of passing too much or too little.
• MP noted that the GM was only as hard as it was due to Jim’s motion. He said that we shouldn’t worry so much, noting that a normal Charities GM would not be so bad.
• HO noted that SS’s idea of a super-motion would make it hard for those pushing for donations to their charity to disseminate information, as a motion allows this.
• EC suggested that the monotonous process of GL amending down motions could be replaced by proposals and suggested amounts discussed in advance.
• SS suggested friendly amendments for this purpose. SPW pointed out that this was not only against the letter of the constitution, but also its spirit.
• IT wanted to change the constitution to allow one to amend one’s own motion in general.
• IJ suggested considering each charity as its own motion and then having a final motion to set amounts; this would avoid the problem of not knowing how much to give due to upcoming motions.
• FF was concerned about it being unconstitutional for a GM to bind successive GMs by passing a budget. It could only be proposed.
• MP thought that passing a budget would mean that every charity would almost certainly end up with an equal share of it.
• SS thought that a budget would have the disadvantage of making it hard to react to emer- gencies. CG said this could be remedied by a charities box on the bar.
2. MCR/JCR financial relations
• AT introduced the issue of the way in which the MCR pays 10% of its grant from college straight to the JCR, which now seems outdated since the MCR have their own pool table. He said that GL would say that the £2.5k was a considerable amount of money. GL concurred.
• AT said that it was unlikely the JCR would be able to defend the status quo. He said that the transactional element could be removed by arguing to College that the JCR needs more money per head. Otherwise, compulsory levies would have to rise rather than the JCR finances taking so much of a hit.
• CG called out AT’s use of the word ‘battle,’ arguing that it was a good thing that MCR members can propose motions at our GMs as our partner union. He suggested more formalised meetings and the creation of a new Republic of Balliol between the two organisations. AT agreed and said he just wanted a clearer situation.
• FF and HO wanted to know if the MCR would back us for an uneven split in discussions with College. SS said that Andrew would find it difficult to justify to his members that they should take a pay cut. He also pointed out that the battle may be with College, who don’t want to appear a college favouring either the grad or undergrad population. • JKi pointed out that in MT10 he will be an MCR member; if membership for the MCR in the JCR was removed, he might have to leave Committee. Despite the fact that we no longer put a ballot box in Holywell Manor, JKi noted that grads still came to vote last time.
• AT suggested a transition period where the MCR wouldn’t pay but would still be members as they are now.
• SS pointed out a paradox if the MCR stop paying compulsory levies but are still voting members, since junior members who opt-out would then be in the same position as them without the ability to vote. He noted further that the MCR has already voted on remaining members of the JCR.
• AsT asked if Andrew was happy for the amounts to be wound down; AT confirmed it wouldn’t suddenly be “three thousand [fewer] pounds.”
• DH said that the symbolic affiliation shouldn’t be lost. She felt that it was sad that the
Master’s assurance that we’d get to know all the grads was not fulfilled.
• GL discussed the other things the MCR take advantage of at present, condoms and other welfare provisions among them. He suggested that either the MCR would lose some services or still pay something for these.
• CG said that he wasn’t joking about a federal system. He suggested making all JCR members associate members of the MCR, as already exists the other way round for the bar. He said that a good relationship was important, since the MCR Presidents tend be sane and have a powerful influence on College.
• SS pointed out the issue that at meetings with College, AT is representing the JCR and MCR and Andrew just the MCR, which is a weird imbalance. AT said that this was Andrew’s motivation for bringing this up in the first place.
• HO said that AT should ensure that the MCR President was on the JCR’s side before opening negotiations with College. She said that it sounded like AT doesn’t completely know where
Andrew’s loyalties lie.
3. Miscellaneous • CG said that the agenda for Committee Lunches should be sent round the whole JCR to im- prove participation. He also said that “any other business” should be moved to the beginning of the GM agenda.
Committee Lunch - 2010-03-10
Apologies: Daniel, Eleanor, Paul, Mike, Juliette, James, Shivani, Conor, Matt, Tom
1. Miscellaneous
• SD said that Maureen has asked everyone to clear their boards in the JCR of stuff they want to keep, and anything left will be destroyed. She has said that the JCR needs to made to look like the Randolph for a conference over the vac. There was much disapproval. AT said he would talk to Maureen about it.
• SunS made several legal requests regarding the ball to NS, summarised as follows: The Presi- dent of the Ball Committee has requested from the Lord Lindsay that he and his Bar Committee should have control on the night of the Ball (8th May 2010) of the provision of alcohol; the
Lord Lindsay accepted that request; the members of the college and their guests who attend the
Ball shall receive free alcohol at that Ball; this control of provision of alcohol is not for the profit/gain of the Bar committee.
• AT said that College planned to install CCTV in the gym to ensure two people were there at all times; College will be paying for it. He noted that the MCR are very very unhappy about the new assessment and are looking into alternative sources of health and safety advice.
• CG asked for £150 from the drama account for the Charity Musical. It was passed with no objections.
• HO asked for £50 for the womens’ dinner, joint with the MCR and SCR next term, for chocolate and port; she noted that the other common rooms were footing most of the bill. It was passed with no objections.
• TN asked if Messrs D&M could replace the ironing boards according to their mandate and if they needed permission from College. GL pointed out that it is our room and we can go ahead.
• FF asked for £50 for the first wave of fixing up the front of Pantry at the beginning of the vac; there would be a board for tab records complete with plaques. GL asked if there was anything in the Pantry refurbishment budget. SS said that we should pass the money and close the “Ali and Simon bullshit account.” The money was passed with no objections.
• CG asked what the money was spent on. SS and AT said that they wasted it, buying the till and then six sets of speakers, all of which were lost. No grand refurbishment ever happened.
2. MCR/JCR relations
• AT introduced the proposed motion he sent round and apologised for doing so so late.
• JKi asked if he would now not be a JCR member next year. AT said that the motion did not yet decide anything. JKi said that Michaelmas was the most important time for SWD and that he didn’t want to leave MH in the lurch. He noted that really, he’d still be a JCR member in the way he spent his time around college. AT said that returners like JKi and
Teddy would need a platform to speak and vote at GMs.
• IT suggested an opt-in system. CG said that this would be fine; if one wants to be a member of the JCR, one pays the levies, and there you go. GL was concerned that people would come and run for a position without being part of the community. Discussion of this point was had, regarding separating returners and nominal MCR members like medics.
• SS pointed out that someone unknown would not win an election. IT asked if we really wanted such a fundamental split, and asked if this was about fees or rights.
• AT noted in response that this was less about the money and more about clarity over repre- sentation, coming from the MCR. No-one is chucking anyone out of the bar, he said.
• AT argued that we have a defunct system that needs clarification. IT thought these moves acted against integration. The idea of an opt-in was pushed for by SS and CG.
• AT said that the amount of £2800 is very hard to defend but relied upon by the JCR. The total amount from College to both common rooms is set in stone. But Shamus thinks that there should be differing amounts given to reflect the differing activities. The MCR oppose this.
• The alternative is an extra charge of £3 on compulsory levies; we cannot defend the transac- tion. AT also noted that the MCR presently have a bit of a surplus. • SS pointed out that replacing the transaction with differing amounts from College was more secure for the JCR in the long term. GL thought that this was the only way the MCR members would accept it.
• GS thought that it would create a bad feeling if we went to College. AT said that Andrew didn’t think that would be too much of a problem. GS thought that it sounded like Andrew was mostly on our side.
• HO pointed out that Andrew has said he would defend a college decision to his members, but not a JCR one. She suggested a split or £2k moved from the MCR to the JCR budget, and
£1k to be added to compulsory levies so we would suffer less and the MCR would have more money.
• GL spoke of the Common Room Subscription Fee paid by the JCR on behalf of the MCR and the administration done by Denise, making it a loss of more like £2k.
• GL expressed his concern over losing the money as the JCR regularly makes a loss in terms and if this rose by £2k it would be a significant blow.
• IT expressed confusion at Andrew’s point of view since MCR members are not paying money for nothing since they can use the bar and Pantry. She thought that the plan to go to College would mean the MCR get less money for nothing in exchange. AT said that their motion suggested they don’t think that.
• IT said that we should not budge on losing the £3k since we provide more for our members, spend more on them and don’t want to lose the culture and unified body that the MCR don’t have. She pressed that we if College won’t give us the money, we should just tell them that they can’t withdraw it.
• RGJ wondered if we could make efficiency savings anywhere. But CG thought that we should provide less services or increase compulsory levies if we cannot afford what we want to do.
• AsT asked if the gradual reduction of the £3k from Andrew would affect negotiations with
College. AT confirmed it would not.
• GS said that she agreed with CG and noted that if we were in the MCR’s position we would oppose on principle giving so much to the JCR.
• SS wished to remind the meeting that the MCR are going to stop giving us the money and we can’t force them to carry on paying. We can only ask College to pay us more, and the
MCR budget is the only place to get it from. He thought that arguing that we have used the money for ages and the MCR have a surplus would work.
• DH noted that the MCR have said they want to provide more services with the money.
• IT said that grads do not have a home in their MCR in the same way that we do. She said that as MCR President she wouldn’t ask for the extra money; grads don’t particularly want more services.
• At the urging of CG, AT confirmed that this would definitely be brought to a GM.
3. Colour printing in the office
• SPW said that he was concerned about wasteful colour printing in the office, because he thought that officers aren’t aware of just how uneconomical colour inkjets are, especially when the resulting copies end up on the floor of the bar within hours.
• CG suggested a piece of paper to record printing in the same way that photocopying is recorded at present. MD suggested a limit of printing per officer that could be overridden by
Committee.
• FF suggested that printing could be done more cheaply at commercial providers and them reimbursed at Committee Lunch.
• RGJ said that this was the very reason JdeB is printed in black and white.
• CG was concerned that printing requests would always be accepted and thus it would be worthless. He suggested declaring John de Bulletin as black and white instead.
Committee Lunch - 2010-04-21
Apologies: Alex, Marine, Felix, Paul, Ronan, Conor
1. Ball cancellation
• AT expressed his appreciation of the Ball Committee President Dougie’s efforts to provide detailed information despite the hard time he’s been given regarding the ball cancellation. He explained that in the worst case scenario the JCR will lose £6k, and in the best case it would be £3300.
• AT went on to explain that this doesn’t take into account the £5k loan from College who are likely to waive repayment and absorb the costs since they consider themselves an investor. It will be decided at Exec next week.
• AT floated the idea of a damages account to run future balls at a profit and gradually pay
College back. He said that Dougie and Sunny will bring a motion to the upcoming GM to make everything clear and note what has happened.
• Discussion was had over why the ball hadn’t been a success. Bad publicity from previous years, competing balls and a failure to start advertising soon enough were all cited as reasons.
• AT believed that the same thing would happen next year if a ball was attempted for then.
• GL confirmed that the figures given take into account the surplus of £900 in the ball account.
• JKi asked if the absorption by college of the loan would put us in a bad negotiating position.
AT said that their tone was very sympathetic.
• RGJ noted that the next ball is the 750th anniversary, so College will hire out Broad St. and we won’t have any problems with selling tickets as alumni will want to attend. GL asked if that would be a JCR thing; AT thought that it might be.
• AT suggested letting things lie to avoid College enforcing the rule that we only have a ball every three years.
• MH suggested we should do something with less money. SS said that it would be massively scaled down. DH suggested a joint ball with another ball-less college. 2. Website
• AT said that the website content in so far is looking really good.
• SPW said that if content was perfected this term then the coding to make things work can be done over the summer. He asked for a deadline to be set at some point.
3. June Jamboree
• AT said that GL is running the June Jamboree on Sunday 8th week.
• CG was assigned as announcer for the event.
4. GM attendance
• AT was concerned about GM attendance in Trinity and said that it was very important that everyone on Committee attends. He suggested a raffle where one could win a £15 bar or pantry token for everyone who signs up.
• CG, SPW and others were extremely concerned about how this could end up paying Com- mittee for their JCR duties. SPW thought that because Committee are required to be there, they would have an automatic chance of winning the raffle, and so this would be in direct violation of the constitution.
• In order to avoid a lengthy GM debate, GL proposed a vote at the meeting to decide whether or not Committee members could be involved in a payment of this nature (as opposed to just having lots of food in the JCR during the GM). The vote passed, so Committee will not be allowed to be involved in such schemes.
• AT and SPW reminded the meeting that it is within the secretarial mandate to spend £25 per GM on entertainment.
5. Miscellaneous
• SS noted that Freshers’ Week organisation needs to occur this term. He asked for amazing ideas and suggested films and pizzas in the JCR.
• SD asked for help with Formal Pantry for unspecified stuff for the “wingy people who didn’t get a ticket.”
• GL noted that he had done a better report on Pantry for last term. The meeting asked him to e-mail it round.
• CG took over responsibility for the naked calendar. He said he’d passed all this responsibility onto Polly
• BS asked for £6.50 to renew ballioljcr.org. The money was passed with no objections.
• Some plans were made to purchase ballioljcr.xxx. Parked domains pointing to adult websites were discussed.
• CG noted that there is free cola in the office that couldn’t be sold at the charities musical. It has all been paid for appropriately.
• EC asked about getting a coffee machine. SS thought it would savage Pantry, but IT suggested it could only be on during the night so that the JCR could be supporting essay crises. GL said he would ask Maureen.
• SS suggested ‘Relentless’ in the vending machines.
• GL implored D&M to hang the photos in the JCR Office. TN noted that there wasn’t enough space.
• SD had it confirmed by AT that £50 for formal pantry preparations could come from the main account without needing to be passed.
Committee Lunch - 2010-04-28
Apologies: Steve, Rhiannon, Paul, James, Lotte, Matt, Ash
1. The Ball
• AT said that the fact that the ball motion had failed at the GM was not a huge problem in terms of elections as they can still be changed. But he further reported that the production company is e-mailing the JCR asking what is going on. He said that he had asked them to wait three weeks while a new motion is brought, in simpler terms.
• AT reported that the first College damages committee had been held with a total of £297 in charges to be distributed. The policy we passed at the GM was adhered to. £120 went to
Entz, the majority of the rest went to individuals, and damage due to illness was paid for by
College.
• AT said that he asked for updates on damage investigations as they come to help identify peo- ple. The Clerk of Works will supply pictures of the damage for display, unless it is disgusting.
• GL noted that the agreed policy with the Domestic Bursar was that she would provide infor- mation but that she hadn’t been doing this.
• CG asked about the towel rail incident. AT said that it was definitely deliberate damage, but the JCR had only had to pay £7 for it.
• AT concluded by remarking that if we continue to hold our ground on what we agreed through the GM, then efforts on this issue have been successful.
2. Changes to GM procedure
• DH passed round several motions she’d come up with to update GM procedures (attached to these minutes). The first to be considered was friendly amendments. She said that they will make things easier by avoiding bureaucracy, but noted that they still offer an opportunity for opposition if there was at least one person who objected.
• It was established that while at present motions don’t need to be voted on if there is no opposition, amendments always have to have a vote. • TN suggested having textual amendments before other amendments. SPW noted that he can re-order amendments.
• FF suggested adding the possibility for anything to pass nem con, as motions currently can.
DH said that her friendly amendments also remove the requirement to have debate, which saves time.
• JKi pointed out that amendments can’t be amended. SPW suggested having friendly amend- ments purely for the purpose of changing the substantive amendment under debate. CG agreed.
• SS was sceptical about the whole idea; he was concerned about an extra layer of complexity that wouldn’t save much time. HO said that people would pick it up quite quickly and it would be worth it as more people would come to GMs.
• AT asked DH to talk the final motions through with Iain Large and Michael Slater.
• DH introduced her second motion that cleans up procedure she saw as outdated; she thought that it wouldn’t be controversial at all.
• Some discussion was had over the issue of addressing the chair. GL thought that it was a good rule that we should enforce to avoid inter-person debates at GMs.
• FF thought that these motions shouldn’t be discussed at Committee Lunch at all and that the only appropriate venue was a GM. DH replied that this was being done in the interests of efficiency.
• DH said that she didn’t want people to be forced to lose their motion if they disagree with a minor amendment.
• GL wanted to keep clause 3.5.8 to allow the GM to make the call.
• TN pointed out that one could kill a motion if one now disagrees with it after an amendment, by proposing it badly. BS asked if this was something that could ever happen. TN wanted to keep it written down to give the chair recourse.
• DH introduced her third motion; she noted that the way she wrote her Big Issue motion messed it up. • MH noted that SPW already offers help in writing motions in GM announcement e-mails, but
DH wanted to make it officially part of someone’s job. JKi thought that this should surely be the Secretary.
• CG said that people having the choice of person was good, such as him for charities. DH said her concern was Freshers.
3. Acceptance of late motions
• AT explained how with the latest GM, there were only two motions in by the deadline on
Sunday and everything else was late. He thought that he had accepted motions too late and said that he would be stricter in the future.
• SPW described how the constitution sets up a nice situation where motions are in by Thursday evening and then there is some time for review and amendments. He wanted to add a hard limit of twenty-four hours in addition to this since it isn’t working.
• MH noted that it was already supposed to be a harsh limit.
• CG objected on the grounds of emergency charity motions that can’t afford to wait two weeks.
He preferred tightening up rather than adding a hard limit. IT agreed but added that perhaps the normal deadline could be Friday evening.
• TN suggested an actual penalty of putting these motions to the end of discussion.
• NS felt that three days was a hard limit and the agenda should go out two days in advance.
He thought that too much interpretation of the constitution was going on.
• GL noted another pressure, where it is advantageous to take motions when there is a bare
GM schedule. He thought that it should be the discretion of the chair to accept rather than the discretion of the chair to reject. He added that he thought constitutional amendments should never be late, because this could prolong things significantly as the motion cannot be amended at the second reading.
• EC thought that the terminology of the emergency motion should be introduced and enforced more.
• SS didn’t see any problems with how things are. EC responded that no motions were seen until Sunday afternoon. SS said that the procedural motion used to table the two most controversial ones was an entirely acceptable way to do things. EC brought up the situation where someone might not be able to attend the next GM to propose their motion and didn’t want to rely on tabling.
• CG disagreed with GL on the issue of constitutional motions, which he said always get more scrutiny anyway. He said that they could be late to avoid a wait of six weeks before they could then be enacted.
• IT said that she agreed with GL in principle. She said that people would end up taking the
24 hour hard limit as the real deadline; she wanted to avoid having two deadlines at all.
4. Miscellaneous
• GL asked for £15 for Danny from Pantry’s birthday on Tuesday; it would be spent on a £10
Boots voucher and a card. The money passed with no objections.
• SS asked if anyone who is not constitutionally required to be on the Freshers’ Week Committee wanted to be. The Dr WHOs and the Womens’, LGBT and AcAf officers signed up.
• SS noted that GS has suggested that Freshers’ Week could be made a bit more like Welfare
Week, which he agreed with. There was general approval.
• TN wanted £52.01 for refurbishing Pantry. The money was passed with no objections (aside from CG objecting to the penny).
• CG asked about the June Jamboree. GL asked anyone interested to e-mail him. He noted that with only about half of Committee currently present he would send an e-mail round instead of discussing it.
• AT asked JlK about the progress of the blood donation van. JlK said that she needed to ring back the National Blood Service and tell them that we had permission to do it at Jowett. She said that she thought it would happen next term as there is a two year waiting list to become a site, but this may be bent.
Committee Lunch - 2010-05-05
Apologies: Ian, Joe
1. Timing of elections & next bop
• AT noted that the elections this term are required to be in 4th week according to the consti- tution, but it is also noted that the returning officer has the power to move them if it would be undesirable to hold them then. The issue is that if they were to be held in 4th week we would have to announce them before we know whether or not they will include elections for
Dr WHO.
• AT said that he would ask Doug (the RO) to move it to 6th week. So the elections would be announced on Saturday of 6th; there would also be a GM on Sunday of 7th.
• AT asked JC if there we plans for another bop. JC said that there would be one right at the end of term on Friday or Saturday of 8th week depending on exams. She hadn’t yet spoken to Doug.
• JC said that the number of people living in College who have exams on the Saturday following such a bop is extremely small, if any.
2. June Jamboree
• GL noted his meeting with Jo the Domestic Bursar and Howard Chirgwin on Friday. Jo has sent a sarcastic e-mail to GL saying that she couldn’t wait to hear all of the JCR’s plans.
• GL said that he wanted to work out what we were doing to the level of information needed by College — essentially timing, whether or not it will be ticketed, and other logistics, not whether we want a risotto or burgers. He said that it should be discussed here, as otherwise
GL decides and that would make CG very angry.
• AT said that with regard to funding, the MCR are keen to get involved and will match what we put in so long as we don’t try to spend the entire Entz account.
• MH asked if there was anything in the constitution stopping us from charging for the June
Jamboree. GL thought that there was nothing expressly against it. • SMW was concerned about something going on in Jowett due to there being many finalists around. GL said that we wouldn’t be allowed to go on late anyway due to not then having an opportunity to clean up. But he noted that it would be light until late.
• DH noted an MCR-JCR event planned for Friday of 4th week at Holywell which was already an “evening-y event.”
• MD was concerned about injuries resulting from alcohol combined with a bouncy castle.
• JC wanted a big event due to the lack of Ball. She said that if alcohol was to be involved, she could help.
• GL noted that there would be a bar there anyway. AT said that we could “secretly make it a massive piss-up.”
• GL noted that if we were to have live music — even like the guitarist off Cornmarket who came last year — we will need a license from the Council which needs applying for soon.
• SS asked the Committee to base the event on how much work we can be bothered to do, since cleaning up will have to be done by Committee. He thought it would be a lot easier logistically to just have the entz speakers playing music.
• AT said that if we want to charge for tickets, we would have to pass a GM motion. Alter- natively, we could pass money out of the Entz account which due to bop profits and levies is traditionally just a continually growing large fund we can spend. RGJ suggested a minimal price of £2 which we could do a lot with.
• MD asked if we would, in this situation, sell tickets to people from outside of College. AT and
GL confirmed that we would not do this.
• Many people want bouncy slides and bouncy water slides.
• CG suggested having an outside evening bop from 6pm onwards, suggesting fancy dress from them onwards.
3. Miscellaneous
• TN asked for £4 for the boards in Pantry and the equipment used to rehang the photos in the office. It was passed with no objections. • FF said that SD has asked him to buy a £35 imitation stone lion’s head to replace the lion in the middle of the Pantry sign. It would be screwed to the wall to avoid theft.
• AT asked if this would end up with more and more crap in SD’s room, since that was what happened to the Pantry trophy which no-one wanted. There were objections and the money was passed by majority vote.
• MH noted that Max Deacon had agreed to paying for the finalists support brunch out of the peer supporter’s budget.
• MD asked if were still doing an international world cup event, with “international shit and stuff.” AT said that the foodies can do it and make a lot of money.
• CG said that he would run a sweepstake for charity in conjunction with this.
The meeting closed with a photo for the charity naked calendar.
Committee Lunch - 2010-05-12
Apologies: Steve, Paul, Conor, Hannah, Georgina
1. JCR–MCR event
• DH introduced the JCR–MCR event which the MCR are putting up substantial funding for; she felt they were being very generous. She wanted to pass the maximum of £150 into its budget as a contribution.
• DH explained how the event was on Friday of 4th week and was open to everyone from the
MCR and JCR. There will be a karaoke roulette and free alcohol.
• CG asked DH if the MCR would be opposed to a charity auction of promises at the event, since the charities officers were planning to do one at the same time. DH foresaw no problem.
• GL, FF and others thought that this money needed to go through a GM. FF said that
Committee is buying into something on behalf of the JCR, and GL noted the June Jamboree, and how the JCR may not see the value in having both separately.
• AT noted that no publicity of this event has yet occurred.
• DH responded that the event would still be going ahead regardless, and that this is a symbolic contribution. IT asked if we could still go and get drunk for free if we don’t pay. DH said that we could. SS said that this was exactly the reason why it needed to go through a GM.
• The matter was deferred to the next GM (where it passed).
2. The Ball
• AT explained that the production company want 25% of the deposit, £2800, to be paid now, but added that they will give it us as credit for an event next year. He saw this as a fantastic result, as while it may mean we have a deficit from the Ball this year, it is a tidy solution.
• In addition to this, AT explained that the marquee company have aired the possibility of their buying of a stake in future balls; balls would run at a profit and they’d take a cut of it, but accept liability if things were to go wrong. He added that this company can also reduce food and drinks costs as they have the relevant connections. • CG was concerned that this would commit future ball committees unfairly. AT said that it would be up to them to decide each time, as this was just a suggestion at present.
3. Investment
• AT said that the JCR has around £50k that we can safely invest, that is currently earning next to no interest. He detailed two options:
– A high interest business banking account with an overdraft, so that money can be with- drawn without losing interest. This would be around 2–4% interest. He said that the extra £2k per year could allow us to triple the welfare budget.
– Alternatively we could buy exchange traded funds. AT didn’t seem to know what he was talking about, indeed, he noted that he doesn’t even have a £key on his keyboard.
• For the latter option, AT wanted to see if college’s investment managers might be able to give us some free advice. Students could choose what to invest in. CG said that we need our ethical investment officers to look into it. AT agreed.
• SMW suggested putting £30k in a really high interest account, and £20k in one with lower interest but easier access. JlK suggested we invest some of the money and just put the rest into a savings account.
• AT said that GL, himself and anyone else that wants to get involved will take a look at the options. He said that a huge amount of research needs to be done before putting this through a GM. He said that we should try and avoid too much student involvement to avoid things going horribly wrong.
4. Student fund
• AT said that the Master has drafted proposals for the student fund. Instead of the annual fund, alumni will give to JCR building repair & hardship or a separate student fund, which will go towards things decided by students.
• There will be a Committee made up of the Master, the JCR and MCR Presidents, and a fellow, to decide where the money goes. AT noted that the Master has accepted that 100% of the money could go towards paying a living wage. • There are no proposals in the paper to wean people off this fund and to move them to the annual fund. The idea would be that people would change over as the grow older.
• CG said that this would mean students paying for a living wage by the backdoor, which the campaign wants to avoid, since it wants to change College’s view of its staff. Additionally, the amount students put in is small, so there wouldn’t be much available for staff. A large fund with donations from rich alumni would have a serious impact, so the idea of weaning people off the student fund would not be good.
• AT responded by noting that the Master won’t stop alumni from giving where they like, and agreed with the concerns raised about the living wage. However, he didn’t think the Master would accept a fluctuating calculation of the living wage. The money could instead go towards, say, a crche for the scouts.
5. Miscellaneous
• JlK asked for £50 for refreshments and printing for the ethical careers event planned for
Tuesday of 4th week. She noted that the high amount was due to having to buy expensive college refreshments. She noted that the event was a Balliol JCR E&E event, but that it was open to people from other colleges.
• Some discussion was had over ways out of this pricing; EC noted that it was only alcohol that was the issue, which must come from the Buttery. The money was passed with no objections, on the condition that JlK will investigate the ways to make it cheaper that were discussed.
• BS asked for £30 to rent a tortoise costume for the tortoise fair on Sunday, since we’re not getting a tortoise any time soon. The money was passed by majority vote.
• CG asked for the race at the June Jamboree to be a tortoise race. GL agreed to do it, if somewhat heart-heartedly.
• DH asked for £20 for posters for the JCR–MCR event. She noted that they had agreed to do publicity. The money was not passed as it was decided that the office photocopier could be used instead.
• JC asked for £12 for the election night face paints. The money was passed with no objections. • AT noted a paper, started by Iain Large and Andrew Whitby, that he intends to bring to exec about the bad representation the JCR and MCR get on College committees, since College seem to redefine what we can see arbitrarily, and there are other Committees we don’t sit on that we could have a huge influence on.
• SS asked for the Dr WHOs and AcAf officers to send him drafts of the student parenting e-mails they want to send out.
• GL praised those who had said they want to help with the June Jamboree. He said there would be a meeting towards the end of the week. He reported that college have not ruled out some kind of bouncy “thing,” so long as it is supervised.
Committee Lunch - 2010-05-19
Apologies: Georgina
1. AT noted the e-mail from Doug about smoking in the foyer. It is now an issue that is the respon- sibility of College. Some concerns were raised about the dean’s threats to close the bar or bops, but AT said that there would be a warning in advance of this. He added that College are going to put up big plastic signs, add a local alarm and repair the main alarm.
2. AT explained that the health and safety insurance company have advised that we should get CCTV in the gym linked to the lodge. He said that this was a requirement for the gym to be open. DH asked if this would mean that the gym didn’t always have to be used in pairs; AT said he intended to find out.
3. AT said that Matt Parsfield’s amendment to the Reach Oxford motion, to allow departing finalists to make a voluntary donation to reduce the burden on the rest of the undergraduates, was not a problem and would be implemented.
4. CM spoke of the £50 passed last week for the E&E Careers evening. He said that Doug covered all the money aside for £7, so far less than that was spent.
5. Laundry bags
• CM and JlK spoke of their plan to buy laundry bags so that people can share laundry slots when they only have half a machine’s worth of washing.
• It was decided that doing this on paper for four weeks would not be worth it, and so the new slot booking web application will instead include the ability to mark your slot as shareable.
• GL wasn’t sure how this could work with tumble-drying. IT was concerned about the second person not turning up for a slot, making it hard to co-ordinate putting both bags in the machine and turning it on.
• £40 was passed for four industrial-strength bags, to be used as soon as the scheme can be fully implemented.
6. CG asked for £60 since the Wizard of Oz went a little over budget on costumes. Some discussion was had over which account this might come from. The money was passed with no objections from
“what account Denise will give it us from.”
7. CG asked for objections to the MCR Garden Party making use of our equipment. He said that he asked for a donation to the charities account in return, since they are offering money. AT told him to check with Entz.
8. DH asked everyone to come to the JCR–MCR event on Friday. She said that there will an adap- tation of Doug’s punch, with less alcohol. There will be a walking party leaving from the bar at
7:45 to go to Holywell Manor.
Committee Lunch - 2010-05-26
Apologies: Marine, Paul, Juliette, Joe, James, Conor, Simon S, Georgina
1. June Jamboree
• Committee will steward the event; GL explained that four people are needed for each three hour slot, and then everyone has to help clean up.
• DH and IT are first aid trained and JJ and Max will be asked. Two people are needed on call.
2. Secretarial stuff
• IT suggested a wall of shame in addition to the Teaching Excellence Awards.
• SPW reported that the elections have received no serious nominations. JdeB suggested doing more posters. SPW wanted to make sure there was a proper debate over the summer event through the Ball President election.
• AT said that it would be great if we could do a really good fancy dress JCR photo. GL suggested pushing this and ignoring the standard JCR photo. CG said he would investigate.
3. Miscellaneous
• AT informed the meeting of free Student Aid Fresher Parcels, which we can get for free for the freshers. There was agreement that they should be obtained.
• BS asked for £3 for some cables he has bought. The money was passed with no objections.
• MP informed BS and IJ and Matt Fraser is furious that the Hall menus are not online. AT explained that it was his fault as Jackie forgets to send them to him, and he forgets to send them further. AT will personally apologise to Matt Fraser.
4. Cigarettes in the gardens
• AT said that this summer has been particularly bad for mess in the quad — litter and damage to flower beds. The gardener picks up every single cigarette by hand each morning.
• AT felt that the gardeners do a lot of work and it is demoralising to have students do damage; further, it makes a mockery of Balliol’s liberal attitude towards the lawns. • AT suggested taking freshers around to see what the gardeners do to make them more re- spectful. He thought E&E could take more responsibility.
• Cigarette butts are the main problem. AT reported that College are happy to pay for some- thing to collect them. Large metallic bowls seem like a good choice.
• GL thought that Penny should be sent out to fine people, as chair of the gardens committee.
• AT hinted at the threats from College if things don’t improve — they are “pretty horrific.”
He suggested e-mailing these round to create positive social pressure.
• AT reported that the gardeners are putting on extra shifts to empty bins, partially motivated by the fox that has been spending time in the quad.
Committee Lunch - 2010-06-02
Apologies: Daniel, Alex, Steve, Nick, Simon S, Georgina
1. Elections & upcoming charities GM
• Slots for election scrutineering were filled by the Committee.
• AT reminded the Committee of the charities GM on Sunday. GL said he would get the figures ready today.
• CG noted that money will be coming in from the auction on Saturday night and the naked calendar.
• RM thought that there would be roughly £800 available, like last time. He thought that the publicity went a bit too well last time.
• AT asked for officers’ reports by 7:30 tomorrow.
2. Miscellaneous
• MD, RGJ, Jan and Oscar will help judge the Teaching Excellence Awards with the President,
Secretary and AcAf officers.
• LMJ asked for £25 for an additional punt and food for the Balliol and Worcester combined
LGBT punting event. The money was passed with no objections.
• SMW asked for last minute feedback on the alternative prospectus. GL thought the tweed reference was unfair and that the ethnic minorities photo was patronising.
• SMW said that Giovanna’s main problems were the only pictures of girls being of drunk girls.
• The prospectus will be printed next week.
3. JCR–MCR relationship
• AT summarised the proposal as removing cross-membership, but adding an opt-in within the first week of Michaelmas. The MCR have voted in favour and AT is very strongly in favour of this.
• The third part of the paper stops the MCR subsidy, which is about £3k of the MCR’s College grant which goes to the JCR. It is to be stopped because there is no logical reason for it. • AW explained that the MCR and JCR get the same amount from College — about £100 per year. The 10% transfer made sense when the MCR was small and didn’t have a bar. But now the grads don’t use JCR facilities since they have good ones of their own.
• AT explained that eliminating the bar and Pantry makes £3k look like a destabilising differ- ence. GL and Denise think the best thing to do is to increase compulsory levies by £3 per term.
• CG & DH asked why the bar’s profits weren’t being taken into account. GL explained that it is to do with the fact that the JCR always makes a loss in Trinity and bar profits in Michaelmas don’t cover this on their own. The JCR’s finances are extremely volatile and hard to predict.
• IT asked about the MCR’s finances, noting that the MCR usually has a surplus. AW explained that this was not going to be the case for much longer due to the number of grads increasing.
• IT felt that the JCR has a stronger group mentality and really needs the money it spends on things like welfare. AW thought that the JCR has grown to spend what it has, and cautioned against assuming that the JCR spends all its money well.
• RGJ felt that the extra money would allow the MCR more opportunities to make itself into a coherent group.
• GL noted that there was the idea of arguing to College that the JCR needs more money per student. AW said he was open to that discussion with College but wouldn’t support the JCR’s argument.
• SMW complained that JCR and MCR services are not completely balanced in their usage inter-common room — JCR members get charged more at the MCR bar. AW concurred and said that he seeks to eliminate such inequalities.
• DH wanted representation between the JCR and MCR to be maintained. AW agreed hewr ideai that teach chommon room would have a symbolic vote at the other’s GM, and represen- tation at committee meetings.
Committee Lunch - 2010-06-09
Apologies: Alex B, Alex C, Paul, Mike, Joe, Ben, Simon S, Georgina, Ash
1. June Jamboree
• GL was confident that the June Jamboree is coming together. He said that he would have liked more volunteers to steward. More general helpers are needed for the setup.
• SD offered his card to transfer stuff up to the June Jamboree.
2. Freshers’ Week
• HM, IJ, SPW, SMW, DA, GL, CG, TN and FF, who are not on WSC, want to help with
Freshers’ Week.
• RGJ explained that getting vac res for helpers to come early is proving difficult. She will attempt to get as many as she can from WSC and that list.
• AT asked if we would be pushing out general parents, but RGJ said that none of them are getting any rooms.
• The main change from last year is the extra money for welfare-related events. The budget has increased by £30 from last year.
• RGJ asked for ideas for Oxford Orienteering since it is complained about every year. EC asked if everyone in the room could help out with that.
• Discussion was had over contributing to get new T-shirts or finding the old ones in College. It was concluded that this will be hard and so new ones will be bought from the budget, but if cuts are needed then they will come here first. HO and RGJ felt that the budget for T-shirts was far too high.
• CM said that Balliol Bags can be given away for free or very cheaply because E&E have broken even on them.
• There is a WSC meeting on Wednesday of 8th week before College exec. Either EC or RGJ will attend exec where the budget will be approved.
3. Admissions & the alternative prospectus • SMW has contacted Giovanna and Bruce and told them that the JCR doesn’t feel it should be paying for the printing, and that the token amount is a gesture of goodwill. A budget problem is college’s problem, and outreach is always derisory.
• SMW explained that things are slow because Giovanna and Dominic are leaving their posts and Bruce is still finding his feet.
• SWM expressed his disappointment in the fact that committee members had managed to lose all the amendments from the GM, and that ultimately it was the Secretary’s fault. SPW accepted full responsibility.
• SMW felt that the JCR’s limited democracy is damaged when those in power try to approxi- mate what was said at the meeting.
4. Miscellaneous
• GL informed the meeting that the college’s Conference and Catering Manager, Howard Chirg- win, is leaving after seven years. The former domestic bursar received a tankard from the JCR when he left and so GL asked for £60 to do the same for Howard. A vote was taken and the money was passed. GL said that Howard gave a lot of time to help with the June Jamboree last year and that he is a competent catering manager.
• SJ asked for £61 for the welfare picnic. It was passed from the welfare budget.
• Some confusion was caused by where this money should come from. AT and GL said that in future this sort of money should be passed from the welfare budget at Welfare Subcommittee with the Treasurer present.
• LMJ asked for an additional £25 for the LGBT punting as the money passed the previous week was insufficient. The money was passed with no objections.
• HM asked for £8 for printing the Balliol Bulletin on Lotte’s login. The money was passed with no objections. GL said he would talk to Denise to try and get it from the bulletin budget.
Committee Lunch - 2010-06-16
Apologies: Alex C, Rhiannon, Paul, Dawn, Ian, Joe, Ronan, Conor, Tom, Simon S, Georgina, Ash
1. Miscellaneous
• AT thanked everyone who helped out with the June Jamboree, especially GL. GL said that he would send round a thank you e-mail to everyone who helped in case they felt under- appreciated.
• SPW asked for £40 for the Teaching Excellence Awards to be split between the two winners.
EC reported that the medics want to buy a pufferfish and will pay the extra. The money passed with no objections.
• SMW reported that College have accepted that they should pay for the alternative prospectus and have apologised for potentially offending the JCR. They will pay if we print every two years instead of every year. SMW felt that the matter was fully resolved in the JCR’s favour
• FF asked for up to £40 for a new Freeview remote or a new Freeview box as all the remotes have been stolen. GL suggested chaining the remote to the TV stand but FF explained that the purpose of the box was to use the big screen without a laptop. The money passed with no objections.
2. Dragon’s Den
• AT raised the idea that a couple of alumni want to give some money to college to be used to set up small businesses and fund ideas and projects. Balliol will keep 50% of the equity and decide where it goes.
• College like the idea as it is something alumni wish to give to and something that then generates funds for College.
• The idea was discussed and it was thought that the idea was not evil, so long as College’s powers over the businesses set up are very carefully stipulated and limited.
3. Freshers’ Week
• EC said that there were no changed to the Freshers’ Week timetable that were fundamentally different to previous years and that warranted discussion.
• CG asked why WSC were left to the planning of Freshers’ Week: he accepted that SS leaving created the situation but didn’t like the discussions taking place in a closed committee. SPW noted that the meetings are open to all.
• EC and IT responded by noting that Freshers’ Week is organised by the VP and a small group every year, and that SS very clearly asked for volunteers. CG & SMW complained that they had offered their services but felt out of the loop.
• GL suggested doing it at Committee Lunch, but IT noted how long the WSC meeting lasted last Saturday. AT said it could be left as a recommendation for next year.
• HO told of how she recommended that Womens’ Drinks be earlier on in Freshers’ Week, but that unfortunately due to practicalities and the way decisions were made it was not possible this year. She wished it to be noted that she wanted it to be earlier next year and expressed her dissatisfaction.
• CG expressed his frustration with how WSC had been left to organise Freshers’ Week; HO thought that WSC have enough to do already and that the organisation should go to other committee positions. IT said that things had been made extra difficult with SS leaving.
• SPW floated the idea of having a Committee Lunch focussed around preparing recommenda- tions to the next Committee.
• CG asked over the “make your own name tag” event. EC and LMJ explained that it was happening, but that it would be labels for doors rather than name tags.
Committee Lunch - 2010-10-06
Apologies: Daniel, Ian, Ronan, Conor, Isabel
1. Linda’s birthday
• AT reported that Linda is 50 tomorrow. Various present ideas were discussed.
• GL brought up the fact that Linda is going to Tenerife in September “for another booze cruise”. Her suitcase is broken. GL suggested a suitcase as this is more original than another bottle of alcohol.
• It was decided that SD would buy Maureen a suitcase and put lots of cigarettes in it.
• SD will put a card in his pidge tomorrow for Committee to sign.
• AT asked for up to £150 for the gift. The money was passed with no objections.
• GL asked for £50 for a bottle or something and a £20 Boots voucher for Ash’s birthday in
August. The money passed with no objections.
• AT will e-mail round to get JCR members to go and hug Linda.
2. Freshers’ Week
• AT asked for £140 for the pizzaz bought on Sunday, from the entz budget if there is nothing left in the freshers week budget at the end. The money passed with no objections.
• It emerged that the OUSU Freshers’ Fair tickets are for Friday and the timetable says Thurs- day, since SS didn’t inform Glynis carefully enough.
• SS didn’t want to move the Balliol Freshers Fair as arrangements have been made with all the sports captains. JlK didn’t want to move it because the National Blood Service are coming on Friday.
• It was decided that the Balliol fair will be extended to compensate for the overlap with the
OUSU one.
• AT said that the boxes of free stuff for freshers have arrived. CG asked if he could have one;
AT said that he would bring the spares next Wednesday.
• SS reported that there is a phone number that can be rung and then the JCR will receive £5 for every person who returns a chlamydia test test. RGJ will organise this. The money will be spent on chlamydia-flavoured cocktails behind the bar.
Committee Lunch - 2010-10-13
Apologies: Steve, Paul, Dawn, Ash
1. Library shelves & JCR lockers
• AT explained that the librarians are angry with people bringing tyres, food and hot drinks into the library and leaving them on the shelves by the door. They are willing to pay to replace our lockers in the TV room which are not in a fit state.
• It was generally felt that the TV room needs some serious cleaning out and rearrangement.
FF reported that D&M had tried to make some improvement recently, and planned to install the new TV up on the wall.
• Other locations for the new set of lockers were discussed but it was concluded that the TV room remains the most suitable location.
• The lockers need to be lockable. Suggestions such as bod cards, the lodge holding keys and coin-operated lockers were made to deal with the problem of abandoned, locked (and therefore unusable) lockers.
• The meeting also felt that the boxes in the library should not be removed as they are still useful.
• SJ noted that the librarians will force these lockers to be used by people so it isn’t relevant that most just go straight to the library and won’t go to the TV room.
• CG asked if the problem was with bags in the library, but SJ explained that it was shopping and sports kits that were causing the problems, brought in by second years living out in
Cowley.
• JlK noted that most people don’t realise the lockers exist because most of them are broken.
MH said that they’d be a lot more space if sports teams had other places to dump their stuff.
2. Miscellaneous
• AT reported that every three years there is a College bonfire party and the JCR is organising it. Entz and AT will go to a series of meetings. SPW will fill the likely gap of a missing Entz officer at the first meeting.
• Committee photos are still waiting in the office. Committee members who haven’t taken theirs yet who paid for one should go and get them.
• AT reported that the bike racks are in complete chaos. GS thought they were improving today. AT would like to run an auction — GS volunteered to organise this due to the lack of incumbent Comrade Bike Rep. Everyone will be made to tag their bikes; untagged bikes will be got rid of in 6th/7th week.
• AT reported that David B., the OUSU President, wants to come and speak to the JCR and let people know about it, especially freshers. He will speak at the beginning of a GM around
6th week. SS suggested getting the welfare rep over too. HO will tell him what he shouldn’t say in order to avoid switching off Balliol-types. IT wanted this to occur sooner rather than later before bad press sets in.
• HO, SPW, SS and CM will help the Dean organise matriculation photographs on Saturday morning.
• CG reported that Kirsty Duffy is setting up an alternative choir for charity. They would like some startup money, but they have a charity in mind so don’t want to borrow from the main charities account. SS suggested putting it through a GM as this will gain publicity for the choir. MH noted that the Drama Fund has funds specifically for this and GL confirmed this; the Drama Treasurer Shee Yong Teo makes decisions on where that money goes.
• IT asked about what was happening on matriculation day. SS wanted to try to ensure that there is a house party as there wasn’t one last year. The only house in Cowley with space is too far away, though. The decision was to have karaoke in the bar. CG, IT and SS wanted to
“do something hilarious.”
3. Rugby drinks last night
• HO reported that she received many complaints last night regarding rugby drinks in the bar which was thought to be worse than usual. She went and had a word with them and things improved a little. • HO quoted a specific example of abuse that was hurled and NS said that if such behaviour was seen again he would throw them out.
• SMW noted that lots of people not from Balliol came to the bar, saw rugby drinks and then just walked out. He felt that the drinks represented an embarrassment to Balliol.
• AT noted that rugby drinks has been banned before for this sort of thing. After some concerns were raised, he confirmed that this would always be done through Doug — Committee will never discipline fellow students.
• HO explained that people last night told her they would be contacting the college’s women’s officer, Lyndall Roper. She asked if she should contact Lyndall preemptively.
• SS wanted to get NS to send an e-mail to everyone saying that we would report things to
Doug if it happened again. SMW and IT were sceptical of providing a second chance, since rugby drinks has been like this for a long time, even if they are usually apologetic the next day.
• There were concerns raised about the complaint appearing to come only from women. GL thought this would be strong enough but IT thought it should be put forward as being offensive in a more general sense.
• It was suggested that HO and NS sit down with the rugby team and talk about it.
• It was concluded that AT and NS will draft an e-mail from NS to send round the whole JCR.
Outside of Committee, complaints will be made to Doug as people are very upset about this.
CG noted that such complaints have probably been made already.
Committee Lunch - 2010-10-20
Apologies: Alex C, Dawn, Joe
1. Balliol Bonfire
• AT reported that we have a license for up to 1000 people to attend the bonfire night on 6th
November on the Master’s Field.
• There will be a professional fireworks display and we will burn the boat that got Head of the
River.
• There will be a ticket price of £2, which will go to charity, to stop a tutor from taking eleven tickets for his family and then not showing up.
• HO wanted the charity to be women-related since the women got head of the river. MD preferred the idea of a fire-related charity, such as one for victims of burns. AT said he would bring it to a GM after checking with the MCR.
• IT suggested having a poll for which charity to donate to instead. AT said that he would collate five options and hold an online poll, working with CG and RM.
• Stewards are needed for the event; we will contribute the same number as the MCR. These will be AT, JC, JK, SPW, RGJ, AsT.
• AT said that we would make a Guy Fawkes in the JCR the night before.
2. New housing ballot plans
• RGJ said that the new plan is designed to keep College happy by presenting Jowett as an attractive option.
• SMW and others were concerned that the Jowett ballot was too early, and would create another panic. In opposition, RGJ noted the difficulty in finding houses when Brookes students have already had several weeks thanks to their longer terms.
• CG expressed his concern at the JCR website being so out of date with regard to rooms.
AT said that more current information had been compiled by College and was available on weblearn. • JC thought that friendship groups don’t change dramatically between the end of MT and the start of HT so there was no advantage to be had from moving things to the other side of the
Christmas vac.
• IT summarised that we can’t push houses over Jowett but need to have houses sufficiently early so they can be found; this is why Jowett has to be so early.
• There was some discussion over when e-mails should be sent out to minimise panic, and when tours of Jowett could be arranged. IT didn’t want to talk about houses too early as people start looking at each other strangely, sizing up who they are to live with. The consensus was to avoid giving out a strict timetable.
• The meeting agreed to the timetable and recommended sending out some information in third week that is as easing as possible.
• AT reported that the college Accommodation Manager has agreed to take on the admin- istration of the ballot and timetable. SPW asked about our control of rents, banding and the timetable but AT confirmed we wouldn’t lose any of this. This will also keep website information more up-to-date as at the moment people feel misled.
• The advantage of this is that Katie can send angry e-mails and the Dr WHOs can focus on welfarey ones.
3. Cuts to higher education
• AT noted that the Chancellor George Osbourne is laying out cuts to higher education at the time of this very meeting. The JCR needs to provide a platform for debate and inform people.
• AT wanted to turn the talk from David Barclay about OUSU into a talk about Higher Edu- cation changes. The Master is keen to inform people about how College will be affected.
• The Master wants to hold a College Congregation, a “GM with fellows.” We can mandate the Master to speak against the Browne Review to the Vice-Chancellor, who is currently in favour of it.
• HO has “heard on the OUSU grapevine” that they want a rep to talk about OUSU’s stance on the cuts. She wanted OUSU reps to take College’s view to our union to sync up the fight at union and College level.
• IT noted that the cuts won’t affect the personal finances of anyone already here.
• GL suggested having an open discussion a week on Sunday. AT will get outside people who are interested to come along.
4. Hall
• AT has met the Head Chef and asked the meeting for concerns to raise about Hall. He is aware of huge queueing problems.
• GL wanted to swap the coffee and salad bars.
• AT noted that the discount for buying with your bod card has been quietly eliminated. Iain
Large and Anna suggested things like this to get money from students rather than implement- ing a College Charge. AT thought this was a very good move.
• Further suggestions should be e-mailed to AT.
5. Miscellaneous
• BS noted the upcoming Student Computing Committee meeting, where the JCR and MCR put forward issues relating to university-level stuff. Last year better WiFi was asked for, and
BS will find out if anything ever happened. He asked people to get in touch with issues to raise.
• SMW noted an OUSU meeting yesterday on the A* grade. By Christmas the university has to decide whether or not A* should be part of the standard offer. SMW asked people to talk to their tutors to tell them it’s a terrible idea.
• HO asked for £20 for pregnancy tests and rape alarms. The money was passed with no objections.
• EC asked for anything to bring up at the upcoming meeting of Library Committee. AT told her to explain the motion we passed this Sunday to have new lockers where the drinks machine currently is in the TV room.
• IT reported that OUSU have a “living out person” who comes round and gives a useful talk.
AT told IT to get her to come to Balliol. • JK asked about the timing of the next bop, after Saturday 3rd, since we are entitled to four bops but often if we have four then there is a poor turn out to the third. He suggested putting the next bop Saturday 5th. CG said that more bops are better; this was the general consensus.
• MH asked for £150 to fix up some Picture Fund stock. The money was passed with no objections.
Committee Lunch - 2010-10-27
Apologies: Eleanor, Paul, Dawn, Conor, Ash
1. Elections
• AT asked people to produce posters advertising their position. SPW asked for these posters to reach him by next Committee Lunch.
• The results of the election will be announced on Saturday 6th/early morning Sunday 6th.
2. Hall
• There have been many recent problems with Hall; AT reported that it is the worst that it has been for a few years.
• The Head Chef has proposed we set up a system of mystery shopping with people from outside of college to give the Hall staff an idea of how bad things are.
• He has also suggested having a survey of JCR and MCR members. AT said that this will have a large box for individual comments.
3. Ball
• Despite the minutes of college-level meetings saying that the Domestic Bursar agreed to Col- lege swallowing the Ball loan, she is now denying that College ever had that responsibility, reported AT. GL felt that there was sufficient ambiguity in what she said to lead to the conclusion that we led ourselves to believe it would be swallowed.
• AT, GL and RGJ (as Ball Treasurer) will argue to that since College cancelled the ball, they expect a contribution of around a half of the loan. The worse case scenario is a deficit to the
Ball Committee of £2500; the other £2500 can come out of Entz.
• IT asked about how the loan was made. AT confirmed that nothing was written down; there was no clause in case the ball failed (as it did).
• AT felt that this should be kept away from the Entz account as much as possible — future
Ball Committees should be responsible for paying it by way of a structural deficit.
• Some wanted the outgoing Ball President and Ball Treasurer involved in discussions with College but GL felt this wouldn’t add much. HO wanted them involved to create a stronger negotiating position by putting College and the JCR on an equal level above the bedraggled
Ball Committee.
• TN suggested moving money from the various JCR funds that aren’t really utilised. AT responded that this money was paid in under an understanding that it would be used for those purposes and thus can’t be “yoinked.” Instead, the levies for those funds can be decreased and that for entz increased.
• JC noted that it is fine to take money from entz as long as at least £3k remains, in case something expensive breaks or we want a summer event.
• RGJ noted that this matter needs to be decided at the next meeting of exec to avoid pushing the Ball back further.
4. Budgets
• GL reported that he is reviewing the budget structure and increasing officers’ budgets. Many budgets are too large or too small and reallocation makes sense.
• GL advocated staggered budgets with differing amounts for differing positions, rather than the alternative of equal budgets, with the overall amount then much lower.
5. Government spending cuts
• CG reported that on Thursday Vince Cable is coming to exam schools. There is a protest outside starting at Cornmarket, meeting at 15:45. CG will e-mail round.
• The Browne Review advocates funding cuts to humanities subjects of 100%. CG was con- cerned about the Review leading the markitisation of degrees.
• HO noted that EMA is being cut at secondary schools as well.
• AT wanted to involve OUSU people who know what they’re talking about when we take this issue to a GM. HO will liaise with them.
6. Miscellaneous
• The JCR Committee/MCR Committee crew date is this Friday at 7pm at the Big Bang.
• SS noted the upcoming final bop cleanup and asked entz to buy mops. GL said to speak to Maureen to get “good proper mops.” SS wanted everybody at the bop to hang around to avoid the same people doing the majority of the work. GL asked that there be no party poppers.
• HMc asked for soap in the bar toilets. She said there hasn’t been any for three years. AT asked NS to talk to the JCR Scout.
• TN asked for £60 for a new controller and two new games for the PS3. SS objected on the grounds that people who want games can buy them to play. GL objected to the PS3 motion being tacitly raised to £365. The matter was deferred to a GM.
• TN asked for £35 for two years accident and/or loss insurance for the PS3, and £30 for a lockable unit to keep it in. £65 was passed out of entz with no objections. TN is working on bolting the tables together with the Clerk of Works in some clever way.
• GL told TN to show the insurance to Denise first. TN noted that we have 28 days to sign up for it.
• SJ reported that Library Committee have no idea about College paying for lockers — they can’t spend the money so a report needs to be submitted to exec.
• BS implored anyone who knows about what happened to the JCR Computer on Sunday/Monday to come to him. He won’t tell you off.
• TN asked BS to ask Ian Plummer about connecting the PS3 to the LAN.
Committee Lunch - 2010-11-03
Apologies: Marine, Paul, Hannah, Georgina, Isabel
1. Democracy
• AT asked for posters by six advertising officers’ positions. The most important thing is that they have contact details on.
• AT asked people to find people to run for their roles and take the time to talk to them.
• The AGM is going to be on Sunday 8th; AT wants to move the upcoming GM one week forward. AT will send an e-mail round to move it.
• SMW asked about posters for non-committee positions. AT said that AT and SPW will knock some up before six.
2. Bop cleanups
• GL expressed his deep disappointment at the state of the JCR after the last bop. Maureen and the scouts were disgusted at the state of the JCR — Pantry in particular needed a lot of cleaning.
• The new mops in Maureen’s office that had been bought weren’t used and the office was left in a total mess.
• In future GL would like to see everyone turn up to cleanups even if some get sent away.
• SS accepted responsibility for sending too many people away and for forgetting where the mops were kept.
• The Porters are very frustrated with things being left outside and in the bushes.
3. Miscellaneous
• LMJ and SMW will organise making a two guys for the bonfire. £20 was passed towards this with no objections. SMW will attend the next bonfire planning meeting with one of the entz officers.
• The Domestic Bursar will inform all those who are stewarding at the bonfire what they should do. • SPW asked for £25 on behalf of HO for the joint JCR–MCR women’s careers event. RGJ asked why the MCR were only contributing an equal amount when their womens’ officer has a £600/year budget. The money passed with one objection from NS.
• CG asked for clarification on the policy of JCR members bringing people from outside Balliol to bops, after some disagreements with John the Porter, who claimed it was one guest per member.
• AT said that John was wrong about this figure. JK reminded the meeting of the benefits of people coming in from outside as they spend more. Bop security tends not to work and the porters are already capable of stopping large groups from coming in.
• JC noted that a lot of other colleges pay for security at their bops and wondered why we go through these difficulties. AT will talk to Doug about it.
• EC spoke of the JCR’s link with the Rose Hill primary school. EC is the JCR’s informal rep for it; she wanted a new non-committee position. SMW will add it to the requirements of the
Admissions Officer in the Constitution as something Access-y in his upcoming motion.
Committee Lunch - 2010-11-10
Minutes by Tom Nickson rather than the Secretary.
Discussed:
Elections
OUSU Elections
Greig's budget
JCR savings investment
Present
Ian Jones
Georgina Sturge
Ali Travis (Chair)
Juliette Kelly
Isabel Thompson
Joanne Clarke
Greig Lamont
Eleanor Connolly
Simon Wood
Alex Curran
Felix Faber
Rhiannon Garth Jones
Hannah O’Rourke
Stephen Dempsey
Paul Gerstmayr
Ben Spencer
Simon Stewart
Ash Thomas Thomas Nickson (Minutes)
Ali: Let's get started.
[to loyal stand-in secretary] can I borrow this [steals loyal stand-in secretary’s copy of the budget]
There are a few of these, Greig's little paper on investments. We've not printed many, but try to read them.
Elections
Ali: First I want to talk about, the elections are coming up, nominations open, have people managed to get people interested in their position?
General Outcry: Yes!
Ali: Okay, okay, show of hands, who's not been approached?
[Several hands are raised]
Ali: Everyone with their hands up, approach people okay? If you have some freshers showing seeds of interest, get them interested in running.
Simon: Can we spam the mailist? Like, “Hey, run for this!”
Ali: Good idea, posters weren't that effective if there's not much interest we could send round a short blurb. Not too keen on separate of emails for each position, send round a group email. Not every position has to do one.
Simon: We could do a lot more, it would piss off people who aren't running but people would be more likely to reply if there was just one for each position. It would piss of people like Max Deacon who hate getting emails for some reason.
Ali: I'm not sure, 16 positions would generate lots of email
Simon Wood: After the election if there are unfilled positions anyone currently lurking can run in extended nominations. Send it then.
Ali: Anyone with open nomination after elections, write little blurb. I've already chosen returning officers, based on who’s running and who's done counting before. Hopefully it will run smoothly. OUSU elections
Ali: These are going on at same time as ours, do we want to run husts?
Simon: Yes
Ali: Also how many people do we want?
Simon Wood: can we have ACAF so I can hit [person]
Ali: Just big three, or everyone?
Ali: I suggest not Sunday, very packed Sunday agenda. Saturday night? But there's a bop...
[LAGUHTER]
Simon: Please before the bop
Simon Wood: Competitive DJ set?
Ash: Cut music, turn the lights on...
Simon: After hall but before bop?
Marine: The JCR will be a Nintendo Wonderland, I don't know if people would want to hust in there?
Ali: Maybe before the JCR husts?
Isabel: Not same day?
Ali: No, maybe Friday this week?
Isabel: Family fun day with general parents, we can't do it. People are meant to be going out.
Georgina: I didn't know about subject tea parties.
Someone: Classics had one.
Marine: Why subject tea parties now? Why not around finals?
Simon: Why not?
Ali: Let's keep talking about hustings. Tomorrow is short notice, Friday would be good if there's not much on. Wednesday and Thursday are slated to be JCR hustings. We could do Monday? Simon: Let people see hustings before they see the JCRs?
Isabel: Last time there were only 3 people at the OUSU hust.
Ali: Last year it was bleak.
Isabel: Embrarrasing
Simon Wood: But people would turn up to see people they know, Simon, and get Yuan to hust even though she's unopposed.
Simon: Yuan is probably good
Bike auction
Ali: Shall we bring a motion before 7 week? As acting bike rep...
Georgina: We need to give people notice, and get things for porters to let people tag their bikes.
Ali: Should we do it to overlap next term, so tell people now and then auction 1st or 2nd?
Georgina: Sounds good.
Ali: So people tag bikes from now, we give tags.
Simon: Is the money for charity or us?
Georgina: Charity, we're mainly doing it to clean up the bike sheds.
Ali: Does anyone have anything to pass or raise before we talk about the budget? No, good.
Budget
Greig: Hopefully everyone has a copy, I've handed out my copy with my scribbles on it...
No, no, I've got one, hopefully everyone has had a chance to have a look. The only thing that really changes from what was decided at welfare sub-committee is I have reduced
Dr Who's main budget to £1000 per term because I've added some sub-budgets.
Currently, we have 500 pounds per year between 6 position- they can spend £50 at a a time. This is not really enough, they probably spend £1000. This is codifying and clarifying the budget suite.
Core budget, these people need budgets. Talking to positions and doing some of my own thinking, some positions don't need budgets. Something that... just because... let me just say because there's no budget doesn't mean they can't spend money. If I tie up
£200 for their budget, if they spend 50 there's 150 left tied up. It's much easier when charities for example want money to bring it to committee or even pass money.
Dr. Who is the back end, and can supplement position budgets, it's not just buy condoms or sweets for freshers.
E&E doesn't have a budget. Stephen said passed for the year, 300 pounds for the year for Faitrade fortnight + Balliol unplugged. Balliol Unplugged is now funded by the SCR, so I have budget of 50 per term for bins etc. For Fairtrade Fortnight, I think we put a budget before the GM with proposals of that budget. If I said 200 ponds for welfare, or
Fairtrade that's bit arbitrary, better to work it out and pass it at a GM.
Ali: Something, someone else talked about an amount of increases, four or five hundred pounds but not much more.
Greig: I'll be putting, accept report with reservation. I did a lot of playing around with number trying to keep general limits and numbers on spending, I think the budgets I've allocated are as realistic as I can get on this structure.
Georgina: Can I ask, if when this is brought everyone makes a fuss about Affiliations not having a budget can we bring an amendment to fix that it?
Greig: I don't think that's a problem, I specified why I don't think it should have a budget- if you look at 1.6, the nature of the event that Affiliations will run are social and
I don't think ... firstly 50 quid doesn't do much towards...
Isabel: Affiliations really only go to OUSU council.
Greig: If you put the £50 towards a huge event for free Pizza, even then you'd probably want to take it to a GM and pass more money
Marine: Why doesn’t admissions have a budget?
Greig: Why would it need a budget?
Marine: We couldn't afford to give school visits lunch in hall. Simon Wood: We shouldn't pay, college should.
Greig: Well yeah. I did think for every position, what they want to do. I did what should be appropriate.
Ali: Georgina touched on something, if the JCR believe Afilliations should have a budget
Greig and I would try for the motion to be shot down before spending... I don't know...
£3000 a year, it would be better to resolve to strike the motion and mandate the
President and Treasurer to reconsider.
Greig: I aimed to keep it under £1000 a year spending, £500 a term is too much. I don't really know how this will work out, if we start losing £1300 a year then we should review it. Next year, the new committee should consider it themselves.
Simon: Do we need to bring this to a GM?
Greig and Ali, in spooky unison: Yes, it changes standing orders.
Juliette: Dr. Who is in charge of E&E roll, Dr. Who doesn't know about E&E.
Greig: Yeah, that list just tacked E&E under Dr. Who. AcAf, do you want Doctor Who in charge?
Simon: Could we not do consent as two signatories, what if our next treasure is not a useless arsehole? Should it not be consent of two signatories, that's how we normally spend money. Denise and you or president and ... not Dr Who, I can see why they should oversee welfare, but not be in control of every budget. Doing spending via signatories is good.
Greig: The system at the moment, as it's been since 1995, is that it's between Dr Who and the Treasurer. This is a good idea, because for Welfare positions it is discretionary spending- Hannah can decide she wants to put on drinks and Dr. Who agrees, or Hannah might want to spend £30 on drinks and buy miniskirts and get pissed in which case Dr.
Who says, that's not very welfare related. The Treasurer should just care about the money, keep an eye on it.
Simon: I don't see that point. People who run for Dr. Who and LGBT might swap round, Dr. Who and Treasurer might be as stupid as the rest.
Isabel: We need two signatures anyway, I think we have to hope the Treasurer is okay.
The Dr. Who is unlikely to say no to properly welfare related things.
Eleanor: I have a short point, it makes sense to talk about Dr. Who being in charge of welfare spending, but Hannah spends half of her budget on political campaigning, I spend half of mine on admissions...
Isabel: Dr. Who would probably just let it pass.
Simon: Money can only be spent with consent of two signatories, scrap consent of Dr.
Who.
Simon Wood: If Dr. Who and Treasurer were being dickheads, you could just bring it to committee lunch.
Greig: This was discussed at welfare sub-committee, the general feeling was... I can see
Eleanor's feeling that it might not be appropriate for non-welfare spending. You don't need to seek approval, it might just be very informal. More minds should reduce money spent that doesn't need to be. Once you have it at a signatory level, the money has been spent and should be reimbursed. If I was asked by Joe and Mike to buy vodka I'd say,
“Should we be buying this, will you just use it get pissed”. Once the moneys been spent
It's hard to say no, it's too late.
Simon: You told Joe to piss off. This came up at welfare sub-committee, everyone was saying why does it matter, so if no-one thinks it is a problem carry on.
Ali: I'd like to move on, Marine just quickly.
Marine: Maybe change “and” to “or”, if it's political campaigning the Treasurer’s fine, if it's for welfare ask Dr. Who.
Greig: What I'd like is general sort of, what I got at welfare sub-committee is “Yes, increase it to this level, the general structure isn't bizarre and it's not an impossible task to spend this”. I'd like committee lunch to do the same. Probably by general vote if we have a problem with the spending. Alex: Just a point, “Mandate treasurer to review in MT11”, won't that be a bit late? If we don't spend anything this year then we're marking the next budget down, see what I mean?
Greig: No.
Alex: That's people's first term, that budget would affect the next treasurer's first term.
Greig: If we do it in MT 11 we'll have 3.. no 2 terms of accounts... we want to look at it from a broader perspective. Maybe after 3 full terms?
Isabel; I just have a short factual question- Do budgets roll over?
Greig: No.
Ali: Cool, great, onto my one.
JCR savings investment
Ali: I've been working on this for quite a while, I'll give you a quick gist. Currently, we have £63k in various accounts- these do not come under any specific account just general funds. By taking out operating income of £33k, this leaves £30k which we don't touch. It is really unlikely in the most extreme tidal flow, from buying stock for pantry to tabs coming in, for that £30k to be touched. We should invest this, save it. What I've done is split into 3 bands:
Band A: Current Account. I wrote this yesterday and it wouldn't be appropriate, we'd really struggle to have multiple signatories, we would have unlimited withdrawals but only to twelve people, for sake of 2% AER on 33k its not worth it. So, I say we keep 33k in the Current Account. £8k to the bar, rest to the general JCR and Pantry. Bar has a much bigger income than Pantry but buys stock for cash and takes in cash, so it has less draw on the current account, whereas Pantry runs more and more loss until Battels come in with people's Tabs- it needs more money. So I propose that we keep Band A in a standard interest free business account.
Band B: We spend 10k and buy a 1 year rotating corporate bond. 1 year length is useful as we only commit the current committee. It's a savings account, it gets 2.5% interest now- this [his printed paper] is wrong. Then the next committee can decide whether to pop it back in or not.
If we need the money, we can take it out but we'd lose 180 days interest. Even though this is set aside it's by no means inaccessible. With a bit of forethought would be nice to set it away for a year. It shouldn't cause too much concern.
On the paper it says 3%, this is an HSBC bond only applicable for personal bonds- so either we open it in Denise's name and hope she doesn't transfer it away, or do a business bonds at 0.5% interest. Sadly best we found is 2.5% AER after tax, which is
1.8%, not too much interest but this is because the base rate set by the Bank of England is so low. Maybe in 2 or 3 years we'll see 7% AER. It's maybe not best time to invest, but it's also a bad time not to invest as interest rates are high.
Band C: This is the exciting bit, it's not savings, we invest it. This part really needs to be done sensibly.
It would be an absolute nightmare to debate in a GM- about emerging markets, shouldn't be putting money in blahblahblah, a nightmare. We don't want committees making weird decisions, don't want an investment committee making weird decisions, we're trying to keep it far away.
I propose, using exchange traded funds. Bit like buying stakes in ... not like buying shares... they're HSBC products. They look at the FTSE and move little markers. We buy
£5000 pounds of that, when that moves up, we can sell. You're not buying stakes in companies, we're buying on the value of stocks.
A good side is, the transaction costs are £13 to do all of this- it costs in total about £60.
It's very very very very broad, about as broad as it could be, we're buying shares in the
US, UK, South East Asian economies, so it's really low risk. Shooting ourselves in the foot a bit, buying such low risk, Indonesia might be better in the long term but this is flat and non-contentious. As we're buying ETFs, not shares, we can sell in a few days and get our money back- not committing or agreeing to pay huge fees. Unlike other bands though we're not guaranteed our money back
Isabel: If we sell when low do we lose money?
Ali: Yes. Band B, than £10k is money we are likely to need over a few years, Band C is money we're unlikely to spend unless something terrible happens. It's money it's useful to have if the JCR starts to makes a loss. Band B, we need access hence why it's rotating.
Band C needs to be there for a few years, since the stock market generally increases faster than accounts over that time.
I dunno if that made sense, I'm bringing to a GM and hopefully it will pass. The reason why I'm here, I'd like to hear problems people have with this before the report is finished.
Steve Dempsey: If we take money out of B, how do we top it up?
Ali: So if we...
Steve Dempsey: If we need to pay legal fees, what do we do?
Ali: We can only close B, we can't withdraw money from it. We take the Band B money into the current account, spend it, next year the Treasurer or President looks and sees if it's feasible to reopen. The £33K operating income is money we believe the JCR needs.
If Pantry and the bar makes a profit over £6k, money should go into Bands B or C.
Alex Curran: I don't know how these work, would it be worth splitting Band B into two
£5k ones. Then when we need to spend under £5k we don't loose as much interest?
Ali: So split B into 2x£5k...
Alex: Yes.
Ali: That sounds like very sensible suggestion.
Another thing I've just thought of, these are chosen because they can be used by clubs and societies, also are based in the UK so are protected by the Financial Services
Compensation Scheme, which is important, Bond B is in some small building society that in another recession... Felix Faber: Don't college already have investment mangers to deal with their millions, can't we piggyback on that?
Ali: When I was writing, I don't want to totally keep this from College, but. I didn't talk to the College Bursars, I talked to someone on Balliol investment Committee, these are mostly his recommendations. We don't want to be saying to the Bursar, “What do we do with our huge amounts of money” and also claim to be skint, we can't do both.
Isabel: Also, they did lose millions.
Greig: So did everyone.
Someone: Yeah, but they were badly hit.
Isabel: In C, could we sell any part, or doe it have to be as a lump?
Ali: Yep we can sell in parts. Any other questions? Okay, I will make the changes and bring it to the next GM.
Exeunt Omnes.
Committee Lunch - 2010-11-17
Apologies: Paul, Juliette, Hannah
1. Elections
• AT asked for scrutineers on Saturday. The schedule was mostly filled.
• AT was keen that no-one campaigns on behalf of RON. AT didn’t think that doing so was provided for in SOs.
• A primary component of entertainment on election night in the bar will be provided by the
Bar Committee who are going to launch Balliol’s summer event there, subject to a final stage of approval.
• HMc advised NS to contact Seb Fassam to find out where to rent a karaoke machine from for election night.
2. Miscellaneous
• MD asked for a proper Christmas tree in the JCR as there wasn’t one last year; LMJ reported that the Christmas tree Stephen Bush was to plant at Holywell ended up dying in their Jowett kitchen.
• MD will provide a list of Christmas tree options to 7th week Committee Lunch.
3. Domus charge
• AT reported that the MCR President and Treasurer, GL and AT met to talk about the
“most miserable and horrible document you will ever read” — Overview of Balliol’s Financial
Condition.
• Balliol is unusually poor because we have a low endowment and high costs; other colleges with low endowments have smaller fellowships.
• Annual giving plus strategic withdrawals from the endowment keep Balliol afloat. However, there are large projects that need to be done very soon to avoid even higher costs in the future:
Hall’s flooring needs replacing, Staircase 20’s electrics are unsafe and Holywell Manor’s fire alarm system doesn’t work. There is no money for these projects. • College want an annual charge on all students in the region £100–500, grads and undergrads.
In order that the next intake of freshers can be charged, this has to be concluded this term.
• College have been trying to sort this out, but most costs are fixed by contracts and employment law. They have however made savings in Hall and halved the number of librarians to two.
• One argument against this is that fees are going up/things are changing very soon and clari- fication is needed; College say this is necessary regardless.
• Another reason for implementing this now is that it is the Master’s final year and it will (a) help with fundraising (b) stop the next Master from being immediately unpopular.
• SMW said that it is wrong to hit the incoming freshers with it as they are already locked in the admissions system. They can reject coming to Oxford but they can’t reject Balliol in favour of another college that won’t charge them. AT pointed out that it is a third of the average students’ disposable income for the year.
• TN asked about the implementation of the charge. AT said that the plan is to have it even across everyone, but 25–30% will go straight back into hardship — the basic bursary will go up by £500. The MCR argue they should pay less as they are less linked to College.
• AT reported that nine other colleges have charges of this nature and amount.
• AT raised the legal argument: this charge has to be for the domestic side of things and not for the academic because that would mean we are paying more for our education than other universities, which is illegal as tuition fees are capped.
• BS suggested adding it to the College Fee that home students don’t pay at present.
• MD said that the JCR should support College finding another way because otherwise the only alternative will be for Balliol to drop certain subjects. TN concurred. AT agreed that this was more constructive and helpful.
• AT reported that the Finance Bursar says this is the last resort. They have tried cutting ex- penditure as far as possible. If the SCR vote against this, College will need huge restructuring.
AT will argue for a certain amount of restructuring as necessary.
• AT noted that there is the possibility of getting £10m from certain donors at the moment; a huge drive is going on. But this is not a stunt purely for that.
• SMW didn’t understand why Hall, with a captive audience of Balliol, continues to lose money when other Colleges have better food for less and are profit-making. AT said that Hall prices are for the food and staff costs are subsidised.
• Wednesday of 8th week this goes to exec, so it is fine for us to make our stance clear at the
AGM (Sunday 8th). The main argument is stopping it from hitting those applying this year.
• MH wanted a College Congregation as this is more serious than the Browne Review, which was going to get a Congregation. AT will speak to the Master.
• AT wanted a meeting on Monday evening, like that on rent negotiations, for people to discuss things openly.
• Working groups were established to look at the various areas to contribute to the report for exec, to report back promptly:
– Legality and Ben’s thoughts on the College Fee being raised instead: SD (lead) and others;
– Admissions: SMW (lead), AC, RGJ, SPW, MD;
– Alternatives: RGJ, GL, JK, AC, TN, HO.
Committee Lunch - 2010-11-24
Apologies: Alex B, Paul
1. Miscellaneous
• MD has investigated getting a Christmas Tree. The best she found was £50 for 6ft with £35 delivery. CG thought this too expensive.
• DH said that it would be nice to have a very tall tree but what was more important was having it nicely decorated.
• £50 was passed with no objections; MD will deal with it.
• Entz will help decorate Hall for the JCR Christmas Dinner.
• AT noted the handover Committee Lunch next week, with cake.
• AT asked for Annual Reports and Handover Packs to be completed and encouraged officers to meet with their successors before next week.
• CG has spoken to Simon Skinner about the Domus Charge. He said that the fellows are not likely to pass this in the 9th week College Meeting. RGJ noted that the fellows don’t seem to think we should pay for our education at all so maybe it’ll be fine.
• FF asked for £5 for the printing of manifestos that went on in his room. The money was passed with no objections.
• SD asked for £50 for a George Foreman grill for bacon sandwiches in Pantry, rather than breaking the panini machines. The money was passed with no objections.
• Discussion was had over staff Christmas presents. Some mistakes have been made in the past and we should show more respect. HMc’s father will do a caricature of Denise.
• SD will send an e-mail tomorrow to get people to take more care of Pantry, since it is getting bad again.
2. Ball debt
• AT reported that the Finance Bursar thinks it goes against College’s charitable objectives to give money to a student party hence there is a £5k deficit on the ball account. • AT will bring a motion to the next GM to have the Ball pay back the entz account for this over the next three years.
• GL noted that we are the same kind of charity College is and so it has to all come from entz.
AT disagreed, noting how we spend money on “trees and crap all day long.”
• IT and AT noted that the Ball Co-President Seb Fassam is very strongly against a structural deficit, since it will impose a very heavy restriction on the current ball.
• Some wanted to mobilise more of the money in the entz account, saying that damaging the ball is worse. SS noted that bops are free; JC said that lots of people will go to the ball who don’t go to bops.
• RGJ and JlK explained that they were learning a lot from other Colleges in order to run a more successful event. An example is how people are being battelled this term rather than next. AT urged caution as the some people don’t opt out but still don’t want to pay for the ticket and it isn’t really fair to make them, so the Ball Committee may get less money than expected.
• GL raised the issue of how much the Ball Committee is an extension of the JCR, which was not otherwise involved in the cancellation process, and didn’t know about the £5k loan.
• SS suggested that it was the JCR bailing out some students, the Ball Committee, who owe
College £5k. GL said that we can’t do something like that [so can’t take that sort of line.]
Committee Lunch - 2010-12-01
Apologies: Joanne
1. Handover packs
• AT asked after handover packs. Plenty of people have received them, which is good.
2. JCR refurbishment
• AT noted that two sofas have been completely destroyed and there are very few chairs, all of which are in poor condition. He suggested considering buying new ones.
• SMW noted his “mad chair buying skills.”
• AT explained the joint refurbishment fund held with College that has £17k in it. He suggested buying more sturdy chairs, perhaps made from cast iron, that are Martin Felle-proof.
• SPW objected to the chairs only lasting four years.
• AT noted that College don’t pay for the TV room but we can swap the better chairs into their before the new ones are bought.
3. Miscellaneous
• GL passed round blank Christmas cards for all the JCR staff. The current Committee will buy flowers for Mags, Ash and Linda. Denise’s present is in progress, NS will buy for Maureen.
A financial contribution would be nice.
1
• JK wanted £29 from the entz account for drinks bought at the hustings. AT thought it an unusual precedent for our now not very well-off entz account; he would have preferred it to have been passed in advance. The money failed to be passed at a vote of the old Committee.
• AT noted the two EGMs on Friday night. He asked for as many as possible to come along.
The Ball motion is particularly important.
• On Wednesday we find out the objections to the JCR’s Domus Charge report. Adrian Kelly has already cornered AT to complain of the threat of interview helpers striking. AT will send round an open letter after the meeting to send to tutors. He also suggested a silent protest, visible on the quad, during Monday’s College Meeting, along with the MCR.
AT passed the chair of the meeting to SD, and SPW passed the minuting of the meeting to DB.
General Meetings
General Meeting - 2010-01-17
AT: We have quorum so let's get started. Firstly, the minutes of the last GM - do I have permission to sign those off?
// No objections raised. //
AT: We have a good run of officers' reports but we are waiting on those for Entz and Arts Week. Rosie, would you mind doing yours?
RP: There was actually loads of money left over that people hadn't spent years before and because it was designated as Arts Week and there was nothing else to spend it on, in all we spent about £300, maybe. We decided to charge on the drinks on the last night rather than giving them away as we can't really spend college money on that. So it went pretty well in all. I actually collected a few quotes. James Kohn: The show totally blew my mind. Ant: The outfits were of the highest quality made by some top designers. Connie: disappointing. So some enjoyed it and others didn't.
AT: Joanne isn't here so we move onto motions.
// Motions (b) and (i) pass without objection or discussion. //
---
CG: Quick shout out - we've a meeting with Doug about Haiti on Monday, to talk about different things we can do as a college - grab hold of me at the end of the meeting and we'll discuss it. We've just spoken about homelessness. I want to help set up a busking thing to donate money since buskers are bad musicians and don't get money. The Folk Band at the end of last term raised £100 for a few hours of this.
Motion: Husting Standing Orders by Jack Hobbs
This JCR notes:
1) Current standing orders for husting SO5.8.1 to 5.8.6 .
2) Current standing orders do not cover the format of hustings, merely how the two nights should be arranged.
3) General Meetings have extensive standing orders covering their format.
This JCR believes:
1) Hustings are a phenomenally important part of the JCR elections.
2) Clarification and formalisation of the unwritten rules that currently govern hustings is important.
This JCR resolves:
1) To add to standing orders:
5.8.7 Each candidate may begin their hust with a speech outlining why they feel they are a suitable candidate for the role. The speech may not exceed 3 minutes.
5.8.8 After each candidate has had an opportunity to make an introductory speech, the floor will then be opened to questions.
5.8.9 Every member of the audience can ask questions, however the questions must be directed to all candidates.
5.8.10 Each candidate will be allowed more than 2 minutes to respond to a question. In the case of a pair running for a position, they will share the 2 minute total response time.
5.8.11 The chair may reduce time allocated for speeches and answers. The same limits must apply to all candidates for a position.
5.8.12 There shall be no limit on the number of questions asked per position, nor a limit on the amount of time spent husting.
5.8.13 The chair can move on to the next position if they feel that the questions have stagnated and that no progress is being made or is likely to be made.
5.8.14 Any member of the audience may object to the chair's decision to move on and may call for a show of hands to overrule the chair. A simple majority is enough to overrule the chair in this matter. 5.8.15 The chair may propose that any of SO5.8.7 to SO5.8.11 be altered, either for the length of an individual hust, or for the entire evening. If there are any objections, the chair requires a two-thirds majority to pass the alteration.
Minutes: JH: Right so basically it's all down there on the motion. Basically the motivation for writing this stuff was that after hustings just gone I went and had a look at the standing orders and it seems you can do whatever you like during hustings unless the chair tells you to shut up, which is ridiculous when hustings are one of the biggest nights of the year, certainly bigger than any GM and GMs have 30-40 volumes of dos and don't in the SOs. So we should write down some of the unwritten rules for hustings.
// AT read the amendment from MS:
- Amends Resolves 1. - 5.8.10 - No candidate will be allowed more than 2 minutes to respond to a question in the case of pairs etc.
- Inserts 5.8.11 (and renumbers accordingly): `The chair may reduce time allocated for speeches and answers. The same limits must apply to all candidates for a position.'
- 5.3.13 - inserts after 'move on' - 'or reduce time allocated'. //
MS: It applies to all positions - everyone running for the same position gets the same time. If your opposition is over-ruled, 50\% can overturn the chair's decision to shorten speech.
JH: Basically this amendment is covered by the last bit of the standing orders that I proposed - 14 - basically the chair may propose that any of the standing orders be changed for an individual hust or the entire evening, and this can be overruled by a 2/3rds majority so this amendment just changes the majority requirement.
CG: Does it replace any of them or just change one?
// It was confirmed that 5.8.14 is not removed. //
EL: Surely this shouldn't be allowed for presidential husts, as they have quite complicated answers.
MS: It shouldn't be used for more serious husts, it's mainly intended for Comrade Tortoise and the like. Three minute husts stop the hustings going on until midnight. The chair is expected to use his discretion.
AT: Is there any debate on this? No. Move to vote.
// Amendment passes. //
// AT read the amendment from EL:
- The JCR should look at implementing OUSU's recommendation's for getting more women to apply and make hustings less intimidating //
EL: OUSU put together recommendations in order to make hustings less intimidating to get women to apply for major positions, so we should look at including these recommendations in our policy. This hasn't yet happened.
AT: What would the amendment resolve?
EL: To look at it and decide what can go in.
MS: Adds JCR Resolve 2 'to research'.
SB: Who specifically does it resolve to do this?
CG: Let's have the President.
AT: So, the President is mandated to look into OUSU recommendations on hustings.
JH: While I totally understand why we should look at this that is not really what this motion is about, so if you feel strongly about it, get a proper motion.
DH: Can I just add to Jack: this is about the SOs for the actual hustings, whereas getting someone to do something is not a SO of how the husting is processed. You can't put this as an amendment to this motion - it doesn't make sense.
EL: Okay, okay.
GL: I don't think anyone should vote for this [amendment] because I don't know what the OUSU recommendations are - they could be to castrate men - so you shouldn't vote for this.
EL: No no that's alright.
AT: Move to vote?
CG: I think that Greig's point doesn't hold as it is mandating the JCR President to look at it not to straight implement it, so why not just tag [the amendment] onto the end?
MS: Don't tack it onto the end as by having a separate motion at some future GM we can properly raise awareness of the issue and bring attention to it.
SS: Don't mandate Ali to do it if it is about women, as he wouldn't have any idea about it. If anyone, it should be Women's - and not part of this motion.
SB: Greig is right, it's bad to hand out mandates to look into things. We should have a proper discussion rather than getting someone to look over it for us at some unspecified date in the future.
HO: Me and Georgina can look at this with the OUSU reps and bring a motion next week.
AT: Move to vote.
EL: As we're looking at the husting standing orders we should also look at recommendations that have been put through from OUSU that help us do our husting standing orders.
JH: This matter is important and the JCR should give it the correct amount of attention and the way to do that is to bring a standalone motion to consider it properly.
// Amendment fails. //
SS: Move to vote.
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Living Wage by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes:
1)The Oxford Living Wage campaign.
2) The long political and financial association between the Oxford Living Wage campaign and Balliol JCR.
3) Last term's Living Wage campaign tour.
4) The recaculated Living Wage of £7.01 (see insert).
5) The Campaign's plans to expand to other colleges.
This JCR believes:
1) That the Living Wage campaign's minimum income calculation is an accurate account of how much someone needs to live on in Oxford.
2) That there is both moral and economic case in favour of the Living Wage.
3) That the JCR is proud of its status as a Living Wage employer and should remain so in the future.
This JCR further believes:
1) That the JCR should be proud of the financial and logistical assistance it has provided to the Living Wage campaign.
2) That the JCR should be able to continue funding political campaigns in the future.
This JCR resolves:
1) To pass £300 from the Political Campaigning Fund for the Living Wage campaign's use.
2) To add 'This JCR Believes' and 'This JCR Further Believes' into Standing Policy.
Minutes: // Passed with no opposition or discussion. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Reach for the Sky by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes:
1)The wide variety of programs on Sky.
2) That these programs are avaliable to other JCRs but not to us.
3) That the number of sports bars in Oxford is few. 4) A 'bundle pack' would accomodate everyone for only £50.
This JCR believes:
1)That Sky TV offers something for everyone.
2) That getting Sky would improve the JCR and attract more people to the bar and pantry.
3) That the recovering of lost revenue to Eurobar would make up for the cost of Sky.
This JCR resolves:
1) To mandate D&M to find out which Sky package would best suit the JCR's needs.
2) To mandate D&M to meet with College about getting Sky.
3) To pass £50 to get Sky.
4) To make Rupert Murdoch a villain of the JCR.
AMENDMENT 1 - Stephen Bush
- Replaces 'Resolves 3' with:
Passes £60 to install sky and £50 a month to maintain sky
AMENDMENT 2 - Seb Fassam
1. Replaces notes 4 with "Sky is considerably more expensive for clubs than it is for Home users and Sky will not allow us to have a home subscription.
2. Adds notes 5 "College have previously not allowed the installation of a satellite dish."
3. Adds to resolves 2 "or Virgin cable"
3. Replaces resolves 3 with "To mandate the Treasurer to find out the monthly cost to the JCR of the various Sky packages and report back at the next GM"
Minutes: BUSH: I propose moving the Sky motion to the table.
// Passes, no opposition. //
Result: See minutes
Motion: Emergency Aid for Victims of the Haiti Earthquake by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1) The earthquake that struck Haiti on 12/1/2010 measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale
2) That the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) is an umbrella organisation that provides emergency aid in disaster sistuations.
3) On 13/1/2010 the DEC decided that the situation in Haiti meets its criteria for launching an appeal, briefly that an international appeal is necessary due the massive scale of the disaster and that its member organisations are in a position to provde a swift response.
4) The Red Cross estimates that up to three million people have been affected
5) Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas, and key govermental buildings were destroyed in the earthquake, meaning that it is unlikey to be able to provide effective assistance to its people without huge international help.
6) We have money in the charities account for precisely this type of emergency situation.
This JCR resolves:
1) To pass £400 from the charities account to donate to the DEC for their Haiti Earthquake Appeal
Minutes: // People try to leave, but are stopped. //
// Proposed by Chris Gross - Donates £400 to the Disaster Emergency Committee's Haiti Earthquake Appeal //
CG: As most people know, it's really bad - there's a copy of paper there. DEC is the umbrella organisation whose members are in a position to help tomorrow. I will go and donate it on those computers over their right now if we pass this. If anyone opposes I'll kick you in the head.
AB: Can we afford more?
CG: Yes. We have £600 left over from last term and that is for emergencies, that said, it's 1st week and other emergencies might come up. If you want to donate more, I would request that you do it as an individual which means you can Gift Aid it.
MS: No you can't, we're not taxpayers.
SPW: Michael is correct.
CG: Go home and pretend you're a tax payer and Gift Aid it. On the DEC website they have no box to indicate that you are an institution so we'd get around that anyway.
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Big Issue Weekly Purchase by Pass money to purchase twenty copies of the Big Issue each weekDawn Hollis
This JCR notes:
1) That homelessness is a big problem in Oxford.
2) That the JCR purchases reading material in the form of daily newspapers.
This JCR believes:
1) That charitable activities on the part of the JCR should involve making a difference, however small, close to home as well as in donating to large organisations.
2) That the purchasing of a number of Big Issues weekly, for putting in the
JCR, from a number of different sellers throughout town would be a potentially good thing.
3) That the Big Issue has some half-decent things to read in it and is, more importantly, a very good cause.
4) That, the above said, members of the JCR should still buy Big Issues independently.
This JCR resolves:
1) To purchase two copies of the Big Issue per week of full term.
Minutes: DH: I wanted more to open discussion on a number of issues. `[a]round 20' since it seems a bit over-ambitious to get twenty copies of the Big Issue. The sellers around town, you see them everywhere, we could donate to a shelter but they still have to pay money to get a shelter and the Big Issue is a good way of allowing them to get money without begging.
It's a good way of raising awareness in college, it has crosswords and sudoku in, so it's a good thing that we should do. Something slightly different than just passing money to charity as it actually helps individuals.
JO: How are we buying these? Someone buying one from each big issue seller?
DH: I'd like to mandate a committee member - me, in this case - to buy a set number from Big Issue sellers around town. There are at least three on Broad St. alone.
TN: Is it possible to get some kind of bunk discount?
AL: What would happen if you'd got one from a dodgy seller who just takes your money?
DH: We'd just have to see it as collateral damage I guess.
AL: There are lots of these in Oxford. It's not an issue in any other part of the country, but here you get harassed late at night by sellers who chase you down the street to get you to buy a Big Issue and then say that it's their last one and that they'll keep it.
DH: I'd do it on a Monday morning. I know lots of the sellers in town, so I know which are trustworthy and would ensure that the JCR's money is well spent.
// AT read the amendment from MS:
- Replaces Resolves 1 with 'To purchase two copies of the Big Issue per week of Full Term.
- Delete Resolves 2 and 3. //
MS: There are two arguments for buying the Big Issue - firstly that it is good reading material and that the JCR would like to read it; and secondly that it helps the homeless. If we want do the latter we have the charities levy, and we shouldn't use general levy to do this. It costs £1.50 but only get 75p goes to the homeless person and we want to get charities to have an impact locally, whereas half of money here goes to a national organisation.
Instead we should pass money to buy a small amount on the same terms that we buy two copies of the Times, 3 of the Guardian and in the end of term charities GM we should then bring a motion for charities that help to the homeless. If shelters have more money they can provide more stuff for free.
Alternatively, there is a very good charity that Stephen brought an amendment for last year that helps homeless guys, giving them skills that they can use - there is no progression from the Big Issue onto other things, it's the same guys every time. More transferable skills helps to get people off streets into normal jobs. I would bring a motion myself to the charities GM to do that if no-one else does. We should separate the two purposes here. Buy a sensible number on the same terms as any other newspaper, and if we want to help the homeless we can use a charities motions.
SS: Move to vote.
DH: There is a call for a motion in the charities GM, I'm very willing to bring it, but saying that the JCR can only buy 2 Big Issues is a bit mean. It's not a newspaper; we're trying to make a small difference to these people, that makes it a good thing. Two is too mean for an immensely privileged Oxford college. It gives them a tiny bit of help.
MS: We don't buy 10 copies of the Times, even though we can, because it's pointless. We can then give £200 to charity.
DH: Different place.
SS: Move to vote. People have decided where they are.
CG: I oppose this move to vote as there are other arguments.
AT: Vote on Move to vote.
// Move to vote passes. Amendment passes. //
AT: Now we consider the amendment to raise the number of issues purchased from 2 to 5 from DH.
// - Amends number of issues to five. //
DH: We're arguing over very small amounts here. We get a copy of the Times every single day which is lots per week. The Big Issue may go missing very quickly. Five is therefore a reasonable number to have.
AT: Short factual questions?
TN: Would you buy one a day?
DH: I'd go out on a Big Issue buying trip.
TN: The Big Issue would get thrown away.
DH: Okay, I'd buy a different one each day.
AL: How many copies do we get of other weeklies? For half of those, the JCR pays but they get put in the library.
AT: Onto debate.
GL: I agree with Michael. It's an ineffective way of helping the poor. The guy who owns the Big Issue gets all the money and homeless people still starve - he smokes cigars and drives a fancy car. Reducing the number to 2 and then giving money to direct local Oxford charities is better; I've got qualms with the Big Issue.
JO: I agree, it would be better to give £3/week directly to charity. But on a separate note, anyone who has read the Big Issue will know that it is terrible.
CG: It's not.
SS: Move to vote.
SS: We've just had the argument about buying lots or few and about periodicals vs. charities. People's position probably hasn't shifted or, if it has, they'll know it.
CG: I have a new argument that is quite important.
// Move to vote appears to pass. //
MS: Is there a clear majority?
AT: We'll see hands against then.
25/15, we continue.
CG: I agree with Michael and Dawn but I disagree with them both. We should either buy twenty or none. Dawn has thought this through: if you buy 2 copies, then people who are umming and arring won't then buy one themselves. If we buy any we should buy loads. My personal opinion is that we should buy none and let people choose, and then do a charities motions.
RC: Some arguments from Michael have been good but they've been besides the point. There are very small margins, but the Big Issue sellers have already bough the Big Issue that day, so you are giving them the only money they're going to get, otherwise they make a dead loss. They are worried, on any one day, about shelter on that day, so they want cash right now. This is the only way of getting it to them. It is a more secure way than just giving them money - since there is a vetting procedure - there are some qualms, but there is no better way of meeting immediate needs.
MS: Chris, I understand your argument, but isn't this for the motion as a whole?
CG: Okay I'll say it again in a minute then.
AL: Ronnie said that for the Big Issue sellers, we are paying for their immediate needs when we buy from them, but we get people doing real jobs when we give to those charities, not just standing on the street selling Big Issues. There are arguments either way but as a JCR we shouldn't buy Big Issues because Big Issue sellers have bought Big Issues from the Big Issue company. We're not helping them get out of being homeless.
SM: Charities like Shelter do more in the long term, but to get a bed and shelter you have to pay, so the homeless people do need to access help and raise money and Big Issue is the only way to do that. As Dawn said at the beginning, doing something personal is better for them as it's not just begging as they're doing something to earn.
JI: The only justification is what Sally just said. Michael proposed giving to charity to give them skills. That helps them in the future. This is much more efficient. I oppose if some motion is coming out in the future.
IJ: Are we still debating the amendment? The amount, not whether we buy? Why are we debating whether the Big Issue is worthwhile, then?
SPW: Move to vote.
MS: Summing up please.
DH: It's miserly to just buy two per week, and we don't want JCR copies to be lost due to things being thrown out every day. We want a permanent supply of all that good literature in the JCR.
MS: We should separate our being miserly and wanting to read it. We could ask the scout not to them throw out. The fact papers survive fine means it's fine.
// Amendment passes. //
SPW: Move to vote.
MS: It's not been five minutes since the last move to a vote.
GL: Where's the money going to come from? Is this a charitable donation or a purchase of a periodical - charities account or JCR funds?
DH: I don't know. Where would you, [as treasurer], suggest?
GL: It's like buying posters from Cancer Research, so it should come from charities.
MS: Big Issue sellers are not a registered charity.
GL: I'll look into it for you Dawn.
DH: Thank you.
SS: I oppose this. Dawn is willing to go and do this round Oxford, and we don't want to mandate a new committee to do this as they might not be willing to. Lots of Oxford people are begging because they are not official Big Issue sellers. Part of the point is that people get some experience of working. The Big Issue doesn't ask for charitable donations, it asks you to buy a Big Issue.
Making this a charity donation defeats the point of the Big Issue and we should look at other charities like Shelter, or whatever. We buy the newspapers because we are all going to want to read it so why buy it separately. The point of the Big Issue is to get money to other people to encourage people to buy it separately and if we pass the motion we'll destroy this.
RC: As the economists tell us, in the long run, everyone is dead - so while we're donating to charities people are suffering. The fact is they are basically begging. This is probably the only way of being able to help people immediately. For vetting, all registered Big Issue sellers wear tags, so the mandated person would ask Big Issue sellers to show their tag and we'd circumvent that problem.
AL: People might not want to read it and would want to do the crossword. We need it only if people want to read it or it is a waste of paper and we're just making litter. It doesn't make sense to buy it as a publication: no-one here wants to read it. Last time I read it the crossword was mis-printed, clues didn't make any sense - it would just make more litter around the JCR. If we want to give money to homeless people we should give it to a charity that is more effective.
MW: There are clearly lots more effective charities to donate to, there are better ways of giving effective money (cf. Toby Ord's talk) but we don't because we care about local things. The most local thing we can do is to give money to the Big Issue - we're not making the effectiveness argument fully anyway.
MS: I agree, there is a charities GM motion to give money to a local Oxford charity. Half of the money goes to a big national charity, so the better thing to do is to give all the money to a local homeless in Oxford charity. Yes, everyone is dead in the future. That won't happen in the next six weeks.
JH: In terms of buying the Big Issue, it is more suited to buying as an individual, not as an institution, as this discourages people to buy it [themselves]. There is so much division over the best way to do it so it's not fair to force the JCR to do it.
// Move to vote. //
DH: In summary: I've probably said all this before: I think that the Big Issue is a good way of getting money to individuals who we pass every day on the way to lectures. We're not discouraging people from buying it as people don't buy it for the purpose of reading it. It doesn't make any difference about five copies in the JCR. If we can help a few unfortunate individuals who don't have the same privileges as us, then we should.
SS: It is important to do something about homelessness in Oxford; I spent the term before last looking for ways of doing this with Stephen and Eleanor. We went round lots of different homeless shelters, and we'll have motions brought by Michael to give money to homeless shelters at the charities GM. The reason why we favour our locality is, I think, that it's not about someone in London having worse homelessness than someone in Oxford, not where someone lives, but that we think that people in Oxford should have somewhere to live.
So we should have long-term fixing. The implementation is impractical as once Dawn gone it won't happen. It's also kind of against the spirit of the whole Big Issue concept. Buy it because you want to buy it, not because you want people to beg for money. Those people [bogus Big Issue sellers] wandering around are defeating the concept of the Big Issue, that's not what it is about. They should be working for a wage and a stake in society.
// Motion fails, 18/20. //
Result: Failed
Motion: Jowett Walk Accommodation by Isabel Thompson and Rhiannon Garth-Jones
This JCR notes:
1) Jowett Walk is looking very attractive to the first years as a housing option for next year.
2) It's potential popularity is unprecedented.
3) Some fourth and third years choose to live in Jowett Walk, and although the number is not great, it does create extra pressure on room availability.
This JCR believes:
1) We may have to hold a ballot for the rooms if Jowett Walk is oversubscribed, which is possible since there are not enough rooms for all the first years, let alone any other years.
2) It is only fair that the fourth years or third year finalists have precedence over second years when it comes to living in Jowett, as it is more convenient.
This JCR resolves:
1) To, if it is over-subscribed this year, hold a room/flat ballot for Jowett Walk.
2) To give finalists precedence over second years, if this is what the JCR believes is fair.
AMENDMENT 3 - Seb Fassam - PASSED
1) Third years (and fourth from a year out) get priority as to where they want to live.
2) Fourth years get the pick of the rest
3) Remaining rooms allocated to second years.
4) Third years (and fourth from a year out) get priority as to where they want to live.
5) Fourth years get the pick of the rest
6) Remaining rooms allocated to second years.
7) In the unlikely event that Jowett is oversubscribed and college is undersubscribed, fourth years and then third years who want to live in Jowett are 'forced' to live in college. These fourth or third years would not be penalised in the ballot with respect to others in their yeargroup.
Minutes: // AT retakes the chair. IT is not present. //
RGJ: Basically, an awful lot of first years - more than ever - really want to live in Jowett next year. There is not enough room for all the first years and that doesn't include the 3rd year finalists and 4th years finalists who often/might want to live there.
If it's the case that Jowett is hugely over-subscribed, which it looks like it might be, then we need to decide if third/fourth have preference. It's much more convenient if you have exams to be in Jowett. That option isn't available for those who choose to live in Jowett. So we want to ask if it is fair to give them that preference. We believe it would be.
CAIT: Can't third years live in college, don't they have that option?
RGJ: They usually do. It's much more about fourth years. The third years who want Jowett are a minority.
VSD: How many years does the college guarantee?
AT: Two, but they do not guarantee two years in college.
VSD: That wouldn't guarantee fourth years.
MS: Suppose three staircases are closed for renovation. Wouldn't there then be a problem with third years who then can't live in college?
RGJ: As Sean has wisely amended, it's just for this year, so it's just in the case of over-subscription this year. We'd look at [your scenario] as a separate issue if it became necessary.
SM: It is an outright preference, or only if they can't get a place in the Broad St. site?
RGJ: It's basically anyone who puts Jowett as their first preference; they are the people whom we are looking at. Not many third years do this, and fourth years don't have the option of college so they live in Jowett. It's very little to do with third years; it's really much more to do with fourth years who have lived in college in 1st and 3rd and therefore aren't guaranteed a room in college, so they have Jowett or living out.
NS: What are you planning on doing about second years who have exams?
RGJ: Classicists etc. have this problem. I don't know what we should do, perhaps you should propose an amendment.
BS: If we get on the Jowett Ballot and don't get a room in Jowett, does that affect our ability to get a room in college?
RGJ: No. That's why we're doing this early. Then those who miss out can try for college or find a house.
SB: What happened to the plans to build the fifth tower at Jowett? There's a big gap between four and six. Is that going to happen?
RGJ: It's certainly not going to happen in time for this.
GL: Is there going to be a point of information to change this or is there an amendment?
AT: Let's have Sean's amendment.
// - Replaces Resolves 2 with 'To, if it is over-subscribed this year, hold a room/flat ballot for Jowett Walk. //
SPW: My amendment is just a clarification of the wording, since `if necessary' is a bit ambiguous, and I just want to bring that in line with the rest of the motion which implies that we'd hold it only if oversubscribed.
MS: Doesn't that mean that your motion limits it to this year? Don't we want to establish a general principle?
SPW: Let's not decide on a long-term policy now. This situation is unprecedented and may not happen again for a long time.
RGJ: The Notes say that it is just for this year anyway.
CAIT: If it is over subscribed, how would the ballot work in terms of shared flats?
AT: That's not related to this [amendment].
// There is no opposition, so the amendment passes. //
// AT read out the second amendment, from SS:
- Amends Resolves 2: 'ldots over second years IF they cannot be housed in college.' //
SS: The idea is that finalists get preference over second years if they couldn't get their guaranteed year. Then they don't stop someone else from getting a room in Jowett. Otherwise the second year is forced into college and have to use their guaranteed year early, which is unfair.
MS: So the motion applies only to finalists who can't get accommodation in college.
SS: People who go for Jowett and don't take rooms in college don't get priority.
BS: If you've stayed in Jowett is that one of our years of guaranteed accommodation?
// Isabel arrives and several things are repeated for her. //
SMW: It's [college policy] worded so you can have two years in Broad St.; Jowett doesn't count.
KC: A second year in Jowett used to count as a year, putting you lower down ballot in third, but not anymore.
GL: If I lived out in second year but if I wanted Jowett in third year instead of Broad St. I wouldn't get preference.
SS: If it would force a second year to live out because you want Jowett when you could live in that seems unfair.
CG: That wouldn't come up due to two years guaranteed.
// No. //
CG: Sorry.
AT: Into debate.
MS: I disagree with the amendment as finalists should always have priority. I am one in Jowett. Jowett is a stone's throw away from the best library, nearer to exam schools, more convenient than Broad St.. Vac res in Jowett is very good for finalists, or a 36-week contract which is essentially guaranteed vac res. Finalists would be able to benefit from this and it's easier to get vac res in Jowett, particularly in Michaelmas, as they often end up going to Jowett. So finalist second years can still enter main ballot.
// AT read out the amendment from SF. Seb explained how this would have three sequential ballots for fourth, third and then second years for college rooms:
- Third years (and fourth from a year out) get priority as to where they want to live.
- Fourth years get the pick of the rest
- Remaining rooms allocated to second years. //
SM: It's slightly more convenient for Jowett but there's such a small distance between Broad St. and Jowett this is not really a good enough reason - only a three minute walk. It's nice that a whole year group can live in one place and know what the deal is. Being slightly closer to a library is not a good enough reason.
DH: Second years could move into college rooms if they want to. That would penalise them later.
SEB: Basically if there's space and everyone else has got rooms, then you can have it. There'd be three consecutive ballots. Everyone then knows where they are in their year by the end of the week. But there won't be college rooms available by the time third and fourth year have had their pick.
GL: I agree with Michael Slater. Finalists should have piroroity as living on college site as a finalist can be pretty horrible due to lots of noise, for example, staircase 14 and 15 which have finalists in the rooms at the top. Jowett doesn't have people spewing on your staircase or traffic noise so should get priority.
RC: I'm slightly worried about sentiments coming from Greg and Michael - second years have to live out just for finalists, who are already privileged - this creates a bad atmosphere in college.
IT: The entire issue is desperately complicated, such as second year people who have to live in for medical reasons and all that kind of rubbish.
// There is an awkward pause, then some laughter at the welfare officer's comment. //
IT: [With this motion] I was trying to make it really simple. It all depends on whether we're going to have a mass change-around. Third years rarely live out, so if we remain as we are then we have the question of the fourth years. Third years live in for being close to tutorials and Hall if they want it, so, those on four year courses don't want to have to live out in their third year when the rest of their year is in, but I just feel that they should allow those ten people who want to live in Jowett in fourth, those few should be given precedence over second years since we have a history of second years living out.
That works if the majority of people stick to the pattern we've had over the last five/ten years. If we get to the stage that we need to rethink everything, such as many third years thinking of living out, then we're going to head into more problems. Do we want this to be a whole reworking of how everyone chooses to live? It looks like for the first time ever Jowett will be full, then 4th years get priority due to finals, and second years can come back. It's now escalated.
CG: A question: grads live in Jowett as well. Do undergraduates have a designated part of Jowett that we can fill or do grads come second, filled up by college?
AT: It's quite unclear at the moment.
IT: It's not been an issue ever before.
RGJ: Wadham people fill it because we don't.
KC: Grads do their ballot the day after [ours].
SMW: My impression: more third and fourth years living in Jowett would force second years to live out. There are the same number of rooms for second years, whatever. So more people would be forced to live out because more want accommodation as whoever gets preference, the number of rooms is immutable. Basically what Seb has said.
SEB: Yes, what I was going to say.
MS: I'd say what Simon said.
GL: Move to vote.
SS: I put this through because I was concerned that if you only have two years guaranteed. If you have to use those up in first and second that would be very unfair.
AT: Doesn't Sean have to oppose this?
// No. //
MS: I oppose this because finalists should have preference. I support Seb's amendment.
Amendment passes.
// Seb proposed his second, unwritten amendment. It was submitted in full to the JCR mailing list the following morning as follows:
- Third years (and fourth from a year out) get priority as to where they want to live.
- Fourth years get the pick of the rest
- Remaining rooms allocated to second years.
- In the unlikely event that Jowett is oversubscribed and college is undersubscribed, fourth years and then third years who want to live in Jowett are 'forced' to live in college. These fourth or third years would not be penalised in the ballot with respect to others in their yeargroup. //
SEB: Essentially my amendment says that there are about 210 rooms split between college and Jowett. I'm of the opinion that 3rd year students since matriculation (so that rusticated students still live with their own year group) should have first pick. Then fourth years have second pick and note that most of them live out. Then almost certain the Broad St. will be full, and second years can take the remaining Jowett rooms.
This is the fairest way of doing it. It doesn't change that much what was done in the past: the third year get to live wherever and the fourth year should be able to live in Jowett as we have theses, finals, dissertations. I was always of the view that people who lived out once who should have priority over those who have always lived in and just a continuation of that.
JS: If this passes will this be fixed for 4th years?
IT: Not unless amended.
SM: Please clarify precise amendment.
// Seb does so. //
JI: Long term consideration. It seems all the trouble is about 4th year students who are doing their finals. Third years can just live in college. Wasn't the system created so that finalists - 3rd or 4th - have precedence over everyone else? Then non-finalist 3rds and second years come next.
SEB: But it's nice if people live with their own year group. They will have exams in fourth year and they should then have pirority as it really does affect people's exams. You could bring an amendment to give your entire year prefernec to live in, but that'd be very unfair.
HO: Just thinking about it. Say you have a second year who wants to live out and be independent and cook, but who doesn't want to live in Cowley. They'd be forced to live in college all three years.
SEB: That's possible but incredibly unlikely. It'd require no fourth years and half of the third year wanting to live in Jowett which is very unlikely.
KT: Would second year finalists given priority?
SEB: No. They have finals in their third year too.
KT: For Psychology it's 40\% in the second year which is quite a lot to sacrifice.
SEB: Second year finalists shouldn't have priority over fourth years. They shouldn't have priority.
SS: Is there any course other than psychology where that much is decided in the second year?
KT: It's 40\% in physics if you're on a three year course, and for Maths.
AT: Into debate.
EL: A lot of people in their third year would want to live in Jowett rather than college - can cook for themselves and they're nearer to things and it's a bit nicer maybe. It doesn't seem fair that people in their third year should supersede people in their second year to live in Jowett.
The whole purpose of Jowett is for second years.
// There is a roar of opposition. //
SMW: Jan - just about every course that is four years has exams in the third year. Grades in these decide whether people can continue for a fourth year. All the first years are scared of 2nd years taking all their spots in Jowett. Yes it's nice, but in almost every way Broad. St. is more convenient. Odd people may prefer Jowett.
SEB: Only 10 of my year live out, 92 live in.
SMW: The point is not that third years are going to invade.
MS: In the past college has recognised that third years have particular academic needs and thus have priority. Seb's amendment puts third years in control of what they think is best for them, unlike the old system which forces them to choose college. I chose Jowett, other people choose Jowett and still have priority.
SM: I'm slightly concerned that if this passes it's not just, Jowett if not college. Jowett is a lot nicer to a lot of people including third years. A lot of people want the right to have Jowett. If they're in their second year they might want/prefer Jowett for their third year, so they put college as their third choice when college is not that bad, and this messes up the second year living together - we need a safeguard.
IT: Not many 3rd years choose Jowett at the moment as this is not the done thing. If we make it, in the end, that half of the 3rd years end up in Jowett because they like cooking and independence, we'll be re-working everything and this leave me totally stumped.
GL: Michael made the point well. We're digressing. We have to decide if second years without specific academic needs should have preference over third and fourth who always do [have such needs], and they should always have priority, since it means a lot to have birds outside the window rather than a bus.
RC: It's the only time I'll ever say this, but college isn't just an academic community, it's a social community too. We don't want one specific year to be shortchanged. Demand is not immutable even if rooms aren't. Some people, for example Michael, who were in Jowett Walk in their second year, if they were allowed in again in their third year at the expense of someone in second year. Because then he has brought the penalty on himself. We're saying that finalists, irrespective of what's done previously, finalists get much more choice and power in addition to the guarantee they have at present.
// Move to a vote called, but it fails. //
SB: There's one thing I want to check. The current status quo is that not having a place in college gives one precedence in the Jowett ballot, as Simon. That seems better. Most people in Jowett want to live in a group of six/seven/five, then we'd have a luckless member of that flat end up in Balliol alone. This system keeps everyone in college, not in the private sector if they do not want to be.
KC: If you lived in Jowett in your second year you would get penalised in 3rd/4th, so there is a precedent, as Jowett used to be popular. We don't have this system now because Jowett became less popular, so it became stupid to penalise people who lived there. So the system is already set up by giving third and fourth years preference, so it now makes sense to extend this to Jowett since it will be popular.
SEB: I'd like to withdraw my amendment and change it - to force third and fourth year combined to fill college rooms before going into Jowett. This would prevent a situation where hundreds of rooms in college are available. This solves all problems.
MS: I oppose your withdrawal of the amendment.
AT: Then Seb needs to propose the withdrawal of the amendment.
CG: I have two quick points. I considered living in in Jowett in my third year but I couldn't find enough people to live in a flat with, there aren't many people, don't worry about them taking all the rooms. Also, if Jowett is your first choice, if the third year goes for Jowett and doesn't get it then they end up in the worst college rooms which is really bad for finalists. If you don't get in Jowett as a third year you get terrible room in college. We're risking that for a small group of people.
DK: The language of this debate is a lot of bad faith between the individual years in the JCR. On that ground I oppose the amendment in the name of college unity, due to the antagonism between different years.
MS: If a lot happens, if 50 third years want to live in Jowett, then 50 [second years] live in college with their friends, not a problem. Where's the problem?
HO: Chris - although that might be the case this year, next year it'll be different and so it's not fair to force people to spend all three years in college. This isn't fair. Seb's amendment with extra added clause would make more sense.
SEB: What I've got right now is not watertight. I will write an amendment to make it fair for everybody. It's not going to happen, we're wasting time in this GM, 50 third years are not going to want to live in Jowett.
DH: I object to some of reasons but it's logical to have second years at the bottom of the Jowett ballot, then people at the bottom are of a common year rather than random individuals. They can then club together and get a flat. This is better than a couple of third years, a couple of second.
I'd like to ask: is it an individual ballot, will friendship group flats be split up?
IT: Those second years who have e-mailed me, you e-mail saying what your first choice is, then Isabel says on Wednesday `that's okay, so send me your flat groups.'
DH: If flat doesn't get into Jowett...
CG: Move to vote.
JI: If this fails do we then vote for second amendment?
SEB: It doesn't matter if this passes or fails if the second one passes.
MS: We need a speech in favour of amendment. Let's do it properly, guys!
// Seb's amendment fails, 22/29. //
SEB: Right, here's my new amendment, not sure how to word it, in some way: we should fill all college rooms with third and fourth years if they choose not to live out. Then it's not a problem. We'll fine that college is always filled up before 4th years get a chance.
IT: If someone comes top of room ballot...
SEB: We do it in reverse order. Count how many people put first choice as college, if less than, say, 95 wanted to live in college, we'd ensure that some of third years...
IT: We'd hold a ballot of those who live in Jowett
SEB: If there are less than 95 in college, we then force some third and fourth years in via ballot. This is very unlikely to happen, but it addresses these hypothetical scenarios.
MS: If we are forcing third and forth years to fill college but a second year wants to live in college then that doesn't make sense.
SEB: We add up all people who's first preference is college. Then we send out an e-mail telling second years that there is room, and ask if anyone wants one, with no future penalty. If this isn't taken up, we force Jowett people to live in college.
JE: You were comparing your amendment to Simon's. What's the thing with rustication?
SEB: I said `3rd year since matriculation' due to one wanting to live with one's year group; that is how it is done every year.
JE: That's the main difference between Simon's motion and this one.
IT: What if there are a couple of second year who desperately want to live in college?
SEB: I just answered that; we'd send out an e-mail.
AT: Into debate.
RC: Can I table a procedural motion?
SB: OH GOD.
RC: We should postpone - we need a solution this year.
IT: We're not committing.
AT: What are you saying?
RC: We should commit to having a motion in a subsequent GM on the same topic this term.
GL: Sorry, but I don't want the last fourty minutes of my life to be wasted. Seb's motion will solve this.
SEB: I can e-mail [the final version] out and people can object if I have something different in spirit [to what I've said]. I'm not trying to screw anyone over.
MS: If there is no-one who has a better version of this in the long term, we can bring a motion, why must somebody be forced to bring one?
AT: Any more debate?
// Amendment passes. //
AT: So the motion as a whole ...
SB: Move to vote.
// No objections, so no vote required and motion passes. There is rapturous applause. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Introduction of Associate Members by Alastair Travis
This JCR notes:
1) The rude words that constitute most of the name logs in previous sign in books.
2) The current legal obligation to sign in non-members as dictated by the licensing conditions on our Club Premesis
Certificate under the licencing act 2003.
3) That the current list of club members is the college list.
4) Failure to sign in non-members may incur fines / confiscation of the licence.
This JCR believes:
1) Amending our standing orders to define students belonging to other colleges as 'Associate Members' will relieve pressure on the bar staff to maintain the sign in book.
2) That the introduction of "Associate members" will not affect the operation of the bar under the Club Premises Certificate.
This JCR resolves:
1) To add "Members of other common rooms from the University of Oxford are deemed to be Associate Members of the Club" to section 14 of the standing orders.
2) To add "Associate Members enjoy no rights of Membership other than the use of the facilities of the Lindsay Bar and JCR
Pantry"
3) To add "Associate Members can be refused entry at the discretion of the Lord Lindsay or Jack/Vera Duckworth."
4) To continue to sign in visitors from outside the University.
5) To continue to keep records of visitors as deemed necessary by the Dean.
6) To submit the amended constitution to Oxford City Council at a cost of £15.
Minutes: // SS takes the chair. //
AT: It should say `introduction of associate members to the bar', as they'll not be part of the JCR [as a student union]. At the moment we don't comply with bar licensing obligations, as we don't use the sign in book which we should. We want to introduce the concept of associate members, which has been permitted by the council (it was in fact their idea).
People from other colleges would legally allowed to come and visit the bar and would not be required to sign in. The Dean is still quite keen that we require that people from other colleges are guests of other members, though. We should still sign in crew dates and so on. The motion frees up our legal obligation and Doug is now our boss, so less dangerous I suppose.
GL: Just to clarify, the associate members would not just be such of the bar, but the bar, pantry, TV room and JCR, as that is our premises?
AT: Yes, the bar is a private members club and includes all of that. These regulations are in place due to alcohol.
RGJ: Aren't students from other colleges supposed to pay? Does this mean they wouldn't have to?
AT: No, we'd still want them to. They'd still have to; nothing would change in the way we operate.
MS: Nothing will change. We could exclude people from the Norway Room on a bop night. If we are granting associate membership to everyone, they would just be able to go the bar in a costume of the same theme as our bop, which negates totally the effect of the payment, just so long as the bar is open.
AT: We haven't dealt with payment and I'd like to change that slightly. Legally they would be allowed to do what you say but I'd like to table that and deal with it later.
// No debate, and the motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Drinks in Sealed Containers by Alastair Travis
This JCR notes:
1) 14.6 of the standing orders "Unless it is in a sealed container no alcohol served in the Lindsay Bar or from Pantry can be taken outside College Grounds"
2) That removing alcoholic drinks outside college grounds is forbidden by our Club Premises Licence
This JCR believes:
1) That as honest upstanding citizens, Balliol students should obey the law.
This JCR resolves:
1) To remove "Unless it is in a sealed container" from 14.6 of the standing orders.
2) To submit the amended constitution to Oxford City Council at a cost of £15.
Minutes: AT: This is just editing the SOs to comply with the law. You can't take drinks away from the JCR historically, and so the `sealed container' was in for that history. Now it is irrelevant since we can take drinks away from the bar but we're still not allowed to take them outside college, so it's a legal obligation.
NS: We're licensed to take stuff outside of college anyway.
AT: We haven't submitted the constitution to the licensing authorities since 2005, so it's a change.
// No opposition, motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: OUSU Levy by Greig Lamont
The JCR notes:
1) That in Trinity Term 2009, Standing Order 8.6.1 was amended to read: ‘Levies may be imposed on undergraduate members of the JCR for specific purposes by a resolution of a GM. Graduate members are not charged JCR levies’.
2) Consequently MCR members do not pay JCR compulsory levies, and so no longer subscribe to OUSU through the JCR.
3) The MCR now pays directly for its members’ affiliation to OUSU.
4) Our OUSU subscription has thus reduced, and levies require to be altered accordingly for Hilary Term 2010 and Trinity Term
2010.
5) Levies for Hilary Term 2010 have already been debited to Battels, resulting in JCR members being overcharged for this term’s OUSU levy.
5) That the levy will require further alteration in Michaelmas 2010.
The JCR resolves:
1) To alter the OUSU compulsory levy from £2.91 to £1.45 for Trinity Term 2010 to reflect reduction for Hilary and Trinity
Terms 2010.
2) To mandate the Treasurer to review and alter the OUSU Compulsory Levy as required in Michaelmas 2010.
Minutes: // Passed with no opposition or discussion. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Rent Negotiations Meeting by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1) Rent negotiations are due to take place this term.
2) Rent negotiations involve a number of complex issues.
3) It is possible that negotiations will begin before the next GM (scheduled for Sunday of 3rd week).
4) The JCR President intends to meet with the MCR President and OUSU representatives and collate relevant information (e.g. college finances) in the next week.
This JCR believes:
1) It is important that the JCR President and others involved in rent negotiations have a clear understanding of the views of the JCR before and throughout the process.
2) The next GM would not be appropriate for discussion of this issue because (i) negotiations may have already begun by this time, and (ii) the complexity of the issue necessitates a full discussion that would likely take more time than is commonly available at the end of a GM.
This JCR resolves:
1) To hold an open meeting on Sunday of 2nd week in order to discuss the JCR's approach to rent negotiations. This meeting will take place in the Norway Room and will be chaired by the JCR President, minuted by the JCR Secretary and attended by any and all interested members of the JCR.
2) To mandate the JCR Secretary to advertise the open meeting through posters and emails.
3) To mandate the JCR Committee to discuss rent negotiations in 1st week's Committee Lunch in an attempt to identify the main issues
Minutes: CG: This motion was basically put together by me and Ali. There are rent negotiations this term and we need to have a proper discussion about our approach to them and this allows for that to happen in time since the negotiations begin before the next GM. It's better to have a meeting seperate to the GM because no-one wants to be around at 11 since the GMs go on for a long time.
AT: Any SFQs?
MS: Any idea what time?
CG: Leave that up to Sean.
// No opposition, so motion passes without a vote. //
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-01-31
AT: We have quorum so let's get started. Nick, your officer's report? NS: Buy more booze, be nice in bops.
AT: And Chris?
CG: We answered e-mails, got more and more annoyed about the rule against charities motions at GMs other than the last in a term. And we've been advertising Amsterdam.
---
// The following report from JK was given at the end of the GM: //
JK: The first bop of term went well, we made a loss of £3. The current bop made a profit of over £500.
NS: You owe the bar money. ~ CG: Where does the money goes?
JK: The entz account.
---
// AT tables a procedural motion to table SB's two motions to the next GM since he isn't present. //
MS: I object to tabling Stephen's motions. With the first one, the amendments don't lead us to doing anything, and so if we table it then we can't get a report back until the first GM of Trinity. We couldn't actually get [Sky] until 3rd or 4th week of Trinity. So the amended form should be passed quickly now. We can have serious debate at the GM after that.
SMW: Stephen's not here, he asked me to ask to table it.
MS: Like I said it doesn't commit us to doing anything in its amended form, so we should have the actual debate now. We can then have [Sky] quicker if we decide to have it.
// The procedural motion fails. //
Motion: Donation to Sexual Minorities Uganda by Matthew Parsfield
This JCR notes:
1)The tabled "Anti-homosexuality bill" presented to the Ugandan parliament.
2) That the bill, in its current form, advocates the death penalty for "serial offenders", HIV-positive "offenders", or those engaging in homosexual activity with a minor or disabled person, as well as Life imprisonment for homosexual acts.
3) That the bill may be modified, but even current legislation provides a maximum sentence of 14 years for homosexual activity.
4) The difficult and courageous work of the campaigning organisation "Sexual Minorities Uganda" (SMUG).
5) That M.Parsfield has been in contact with SMUG to seek assurances that a financial donation would be welcome, and not liable to cause a negative effect due to being seen as 'foreign interference' etc.
6) SMUG are a poorly funded organisation and are currently trying to raise money to (amongst other things) improve their website in order to promote international awareness of LGBT issues in Uganda.
This JCR believes:
1) That the proposed anti-homosexuality bill is discriminatory, and likely reflective of a wider homophobic atmosphere in Uganda.
2) That the work of SMUG in opposing the bill and promoting LGBT rights in Uganda is admirable and worthy of support.
This JCR resolves:
1) To pass £200 from the political campaigning fund to SMUG, via Western Union deposit to the Program Coordinator or Director.
Minutes: // RM takes over the Uganda motion in the absence of MP. //
RMC: This sounds like a really good idea, the only [other LGBT] motion we've had since I got here was the Iraq motion we did a few weeks ago; it's a topical recent issue so we should support it.
MS: How much is in fund, now?
// After some thought, GL reports £483.78. //
AT: Greig Lamont, more than just a calculator, eh?
GL: Shut up.
// The amendment from GL is considered: - Amends Resolves 1 to: To pass £100 from the political campaigning fund to SMUG, via the Western Union deposit to the Program Coordinator or Director. //
GL: I want to reduce this in similar vein; it's a fantastic cause, we should support it, but I raise these issues as the level of money is too high and it'd all pass with literally no opposition. Funding this is more important than `pooling ideas' -- I'm not being derisory -- this is why the amounts are different. It's just a drop in the ocean, but it's still a drop; a big drop.
SS: I oppose this. I think in terms of campaigning this is a very worthy cause, and we should support it. If we've given £75 to a group we can't attend, if we're comparing figures, [we should oppose this amendment].
GL: You should have brought a motion [sic] to reduce the last number, then. TEXTSTERLING:200 is a lot of money. 50\% of the remaining budget is left for rest of term. Living Wage is more dependent on us and other things are coming.
CG: The Living Wage is not asking for any more money as we have some left from last term. We should keep it at £200 because this is what political campaigning should be used for. The last one should have been from charities if we're able to. We should give substantially to this, even if we have to cut down on other things.
RMC: Like Greig I don't want to pass loads. But they only asked for a modest amount of £200.
MS: We should consider what this motion is actually for. The Ugandan government thinks that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for consensual adult homosexual sex. This is disgusting. This is a far more worthy objective for political campaigning -- I cannot conceive of an issue more important than this that we should support more strongly. Basically we should pass the original amount then sort out Barr's motion which is not as valuable. It's much more important to sort out basic rights than to discuss climate change. I'm not convinced Oxford students can do [much on that], but here we can have a positive impact.
IT: Move to vote.
GL: In summary: in context I can see where people coming from, of course I support this, I'm not going to vote in favour of my amendment because I agree, but I want to say, I'm going to bringing these throughout term as TEXTSTERLING:200 is a lot of money. Forget about this motion. TEXTSTERLING:200 is a lot of money on any motion, [especially when we're] not seeing precisely what it'll be used to do, so I don't know the difference between giving £100 and £200; we could see the effect on the last motion, have to leave as uncertain here. Don't vote for my amendment.
SS: I agree with GL, you shouldn't pass the amendment. I'll leave it at that I think.
// Amendment fails. //
DH/IT: Move to vote.
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Makes Amends by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes:
1) The amending process.
2) That frequently, a lot of time is taken up by people asking for amendments to be re-stated.
3) The overhead projector.
This JCR believes:
1) That this is a problem with a simple solution.
This JCR resolves:
1) To mandate the Computing and Website Officers to trial a system where we project the current motion and amendments on the overhead projector during GMs for the rest of Hilary and for another motion to be brought to the last GM to confirm the procedure.
Minutes: SMW: Basically, at GMs it gets a bit confusing with endless amendments being submitted so this is meant to be Ben and Ian projecting them above Ali's head.
// The amendment from SB is considered: - Replaces ``D&M'' with ``Computing and Website Officer'' in all instances. //
SMW: This amendment is just because he still managed to write D&M even after talking to Ben for ages.
SS: I'm not sure we should be mandating people to do this.
RGJ: This is just the amendment.
SS: Okay.
// The amendment passes. //
// The amendment from RGJ is considered: - Replaces Resolves 1: to mandate the Computing and Website Officers to trial a system where we project the current motion and amendments on the overhead projector during GMs for the rest of Hilary and for another motion to be brought to the last GM to confirm the procedure. //
RGJ: It sounds like a great idea, but if it doesn't work, we don't want to mandate people to do it. It might blind Ali permanently. My amendment is to try it for the rest of Hilary and then if the GM likes it then we confirm it and make it standard practice.
LW: Would that require another motion in the last GM?
RGJ: I'm not sure.
SPW: It'd have to be a motion.
LW: Just write into the motion to ask for a simple vote.
GL: It'd be a simple motion anyway.
LW: Okay.
// The amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
SS: I object to this [motion]. The Website and Computing Officers don't need a mandate to do a trial period. It's not necessary that we put it into policy at all. It's a waste of a motion.
CG: This amendment makes it into a trial.
SS: Officers should be allowed to go about these things; GMs slow the process down.
HO: What if they forget after we all leave? This is a good way of remembering things. I don't see any problem with it.
GL: We should just let people do it -- but that won't happen -- now it's been thought of, let's make them do it.
MS: On Hannah's point, people will remember it as they'll be people around who are sad geeks like me who read minutes before coming to Oxford; Sean keeps good minutes, so the future me will do that.
SS: They'll assume the trial failed if we don't go through.
SMW: In summary: it's quite useful for people to have this done; we've talked about it for a while so might as well have it as a motion now.
SS: Objection summary: there's no need for motion, I'm sceptical about whole thing being worthwhile anyway, but there you go.
// The motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Oxford Forum for International Development by Joanne Lau
This JCR notes that:
1) The Oxford Forum for International Development (OxFID), an annual student-run conference organised by the OxHub, engages students about international development issues and will take place on 5th-7th February 2010.
2) The theme of this conference is 'Development in Crisis and Conflict' which focuses on how development survives in areas of military conflict, humanitarian and social crisis and natural disaster.
3) OxFID's aim is to bring the decision makers of today into contact with the decision makers of tomorrow. This facilitates exchange between high quality speakers via workshops with a view to finding solutions to the challenges that international crisis and conflict bring.
This JCR believes that:
1) OxFID allows students to engage with speakers in the vanguard of international development and can inspire students to seek positive solutions and take action on global challenges of the 21st century.
2) Student-led initiatives with positive goals warrant support. A donation will enable OxFID to meet its budget to host workshops, fly speakers from abroad and record the event to post online, creating a pool of ideas available throughout the year to get more students involved.
3) Monetary support will enable OXFID to continue to offer low prices to students to ensure the accessibility of students from disadvantaged financial backgrounds.
This JCR resolves to:
1) Assist OxFID by donating the sum of £75 from the Political Campaigning Fund.
Minutes: JL: This is organised by OxHUB. It brings students together with petitioners and academics in international development. The theme is development in crisis and conflict. We want to keep the ticket price low and want to fly in speakers so we're running at a budget deficit. We need £500 more to meet out budget. £200 would be really helpful.
MS: OxHUB is a registered charity. Is the conference a registered charity?
Jo Evans: The event is run by OxHUB, so the money goes there, which is a registered charity.
CG: Is there any way it could be donated to OxFID not OxHUB; we're not supposed to donate to charities outside the last GM of term. If you assure us it goes through direct we can pass it; it's a silly system.
SPW: It's a convention.
MS: That can be overridden at the Chair's discretion.
AT: It's the political campaigning fund anyway.
GL: It's not clear in the thing. I have an amendment. If it went to you it's campaigning, if it goes to them it's charities.
Jo Evans: It'd absolutely be used for the conference, not the OxHUB annual budget. I'll make sure that 100\% goes on OxFID. It has to go through the OxHUB bank account as the conference doesn't have one.
// GL provides the current balance of the Political Campaigning Fund and the Charities account. //
MS: If you go over budget, will you rebate the difference to common rooms who pass money?
Jo Evans: Yes. We've secured funding from another couple of JCRs and a college board and money from the Oxford department for International Development. Another couple of motions at another couple of Oxford colleges are going through tonight. [We need this by] next week so we know where we are. We know spending and ticket sales. There's no chance we'll end up with too much money. We have a £500 deficit and we've kept ticket prices very low, and all revenue is in. All the money has come in. We're about £150 under on the budget. Any money make above and beyond will go to speakers who are sitting waiting for confirmation.
AT: Reads GReig's amendment.
// AT reads the amendment from GL: - Amends Resolves 1 to: Assist OxFID by donating the sum of £75 from the Political Campaigning Fund. //
// There is a break in official proceedings to reacquire quorum. //
Jo Evans: There's an amount of flexibility. We won't spend it. It's about getting speakers.
MS: If every GM tonight passes money, and you invite these speakers, will you still not be making a profit?
Jo Evans: No profit will be made on this at all. The deficit will have to be funded from the OxHUB budget.
SS: You've sold out of tickets?
Jo Evans: We offer two tickets to any people supporting us; we offered that to other JCRs.
MS: For Oxford students, was this publicised so that we would be able to go before this motion, regarding Simon's thing -- we'd not be able to go [at all] if this motion did not arrive.
Jo Evans: There are a number of Balliol students speaking. [The big important UN guy] we have speaking is ex-Balliol too.
GL: I have amendments for all the following motions. We're [potentially] passing £700 from £500 fund in this GM. Yesm we never use that fund so we give quite a lot to the ones that come. This whole issue was brought up at Sean's motion to donate to Wikimedia. There's a growing trend for £200/£300 donations; Haiti was large but that's a vast issue so I support it; my worry that we don't actually have that money. Only about £200 goes in [to the political campaigning fund] per term, maybe even less than that, in the non-compulsory levies. We need to be careful. Signy and Matt are bringing £200, Barr wants TEXTSTERLING:300, this [motion] is £200. I amend it to reduce to TEXTSTERLING:75. That's quite a fair amount to give, it's a great thing that sounds fantastic, but as the stingy scotsman treasurer, [I say that] we should be very careful. I'll be continually doing this throughout this year to bring levels down; we really can't afford it. It's only the second GM of term.
AT: To clarify, this would be out of political campaigning.
GL: Yes. I'm happier for it to be that, since the Charities account is low.
CG: I thought it was charities. I want an amendment to change that.
GL: It's fine, this is political issues and not a charity; unless I'm missing something in the constitution, Michael, that should be okay.
DT: Can we not use the political campaigning fund anymore if we become a charity?
GL: Yes, that's an issue, unless our charity furthers those things then we can't support them. We don't have to use up all the pot right now as this won't happen for ages, perhaps not even this year.
CG: A point of information: at the last GM we mandated you to ensure we can donate money to political campaigning [when we register].
GL: Where?
CG: It was snuck into the Living Wage motion.
GL: Someone should tell me these things.
// The amendment automatically passes with no objection. //
// AT uses his discretion to dismiss an amendment from Chris. //
// The motion automatically passes with no opposition. //
MS: A point of order: I want to switch the order of the last two motions. In favour: I'm going to bring a motion next GM to move emergency motions taking precedence over all other motions in their category so late motions shouldn't be ahead of those that are on time. They're in a stupid order.
SPW: As a point of information on that, they're in that order because we have to have Oxford issues before issues for the rest of the world. You might want to change that too.
// The procedural motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: New Washing Machine by Katy Theobald
This JCR notes:
1) One of the washing machines available for use in college is very ineffective (on the right as you enter the laundry room) 2) This washing machine sometimes fails to work entirely
3) This leads to people spending a lot of time going to check if their washing is done and also going over into other people's slots.
This JCR believes:
1) Good hygeine and clean clothes are important for the wellbeing of the college community
2) Wasting time waiting for your washing cycle to finish is inefficient and not good for the wellbeing of the college community
This JCR resolves:
1) Mandate the JCR Treasurer to discuss the possibility of repair, or replacement, of the existing broken washers and dryers with the Clerk of Works in College and ascertain whether the cost of the purchase of a new machine would be paid out of the Joint Refurbishment Fund.
Minutes: AT: Do we have Katy?
KT: It's pretty simple really, everyone knows that one of the machines is really bad; it doesn't get clothes dry if it washes them at all, so we need a new one - simple as.
JO: Are we going to keep the old one? Three good machines plus a slightly faulty one is better than three.
KT: I'd at least amend it such that that we have it fixed.
AT: It's worth noting Greig's amendment.
// AT reads out the amendment from GL: - Amends Resolves 1 to: Mandate the JCR Treasurer to discuss the possibility of repair, or replacement, of the existing broken washing machine with the Clerk of Works in College and ascertain whether the cost of the purchase of a new machine would be paid out of the Joint Refurbishment Fund. //
GL: I apologise as Katy did come to me to ask and I said we had enough money, but where it comes from is under debate. The joint refurbishment fund is for stuff used outside term for conferences; we pay two thirds and college pays one third. There is ambiguity if that covers washing; it's not laid down in a rule as, for example, the chairs in JCR which are covered; things like that. Also about talk of getting it repaired - I've been away for the weekend so I've not been able to see the Clerk of Works, ideally if we can get it repaired that's great. If we can't, then we want it to come out of the fund if we can. I'm mandating myself to look at the position of this before we spend lots of money.
AT: Any SFQs on the amendment?
EC: How long are we talking, with you reporting back?
GL: Ideally I'll report back at the next GM. Hopefully we'll figure it out and just get it repaired. Then we won't have to wait. If we have to buy a new one, then we have to have another motion, and a slight delay. I'll have to work out where it'll come from. Sorry; this is partially my fault since I've been away.
// The amendment passes with no opposition. //
// AT reads out the amendment from KT: - Alter ``washing machine'' to ``washers and dryers''. //
KT: If we're fixing washers we might as well fix the dryers too.
AT: This'll mandate the treasurer to do both.
// The amendment passes. //
MD: If we ask the treasurer to discuss the possibility of doing that, do we have a set time frame in which something is to be done?
GL: I'm giving a verbal commitment to [report] at the next GM. That should have been in my amendment.
IT: We should make sure they don't fob us off if they want to repair it badly. If it breaks soon anyway, they may want to repair the drum instead of replacing it. [Washing machines] have a set period of life so it's probably best to get a new one and we don't want them to say it's cheaper [to repair] and then we find we [lose out].
GL: I'll strive to get best deal for the JCR.
// Motion passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: OUSU Levy Correction Motion by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes:
1)The motion passed at the GM of 17/01/2010, motion number (2).
2) That Finalists are batteled double compulsory levies for Hilary term in
Trinity term.
2) That if 'resolves' of said motion is implemented this will result in current Finalists being undercharged.
This JCR resolves:
1) To alter the OUSU compulsory levy from £2.91 to £2.17 for Hilary and
Trinity term 2010 to reflect this reduction. 2) To mandate the Treasurer to review and alter the OUSU Compulsory Levy as required in Michaelmas 2010.
Minutes: // Motion (a) passes without discussion or objection. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room by Jim Ormiston
This JCR notes:
1) Many, though not all people in this JCR like mustard.
This JCR believes:
1) The presence of mustard in Hall would improve the quality of life of members of College.
2) That the small cost of having mustard in Hall would be fully justified.
3) Mustard is good.
4) There is a shocking and disappointing lack of mustard in Hall, despite the presence of sachets of other condiments.
5) The aforementioned absence of mustard in Hall is arguably one of the worst, if not the very worst thing about Balliol
This JCR resolves:
1) To mandate the JCR President to write to whoever is in charge of these matters in Hall politely requesting that they provide, at the very least, English mustard if not the seeded French varieties.
Minutes: JO: As I've said, mustard is good and everyone I've spoken too has been similarly upset about the lack of mustard in Hall. Added to this is Sean's excellent motion title. It'll mandate the President to write to the relevant authorities to request mustard on behalf of JCR.
RP: On every bench?
JO: No, they have sachets of mustard --- something like that, even if you [have to] ask --- they have it in Pantry already.
MD: Do sachets of mustard exist?
JO: Yes.
BS: Why is mustard so good? I don't like it that much.
JO: Do you like spicy food or pepper? It's the way it bites you, it's exciting. It's especially good to make a sandwich and if you don't really spread it properly, all of a sudden it jumps out on you as if the sandwich is fighting back. It adds a whole level of conflict to the dining experience.
AT: Any more pressing FAQs?
// AT reads the amendment from SPW: - Moves Notes 2, 3 and 4 to Believes. //
SPW: I felt that these notes were not something we could regard as neutral statements of fact but rather pejorative statements about mustard.
JO: I object: mustard is objectively good.
GL: It isn't.
// Move to vote. //
// Amendment passes. //
// AT reads out MS's amendment: - Adds Resolves 2: To make mustard a hero of the JCR. //
MS: I'm not a mustard man myself but the image from Jim was a very persuasive case. Good things are to be encouraged, so we should recognise mustard.
NS: Colonel Mustard or mustard?
MS: Just mustard; Colonel Mustard was a dick.
GL: The President has to write to mustard and tell them about being made a hero of the JCR. Who does Ali write to?
JO: A brand name.
MD: Why mustard above all other condiments?
MS: Mustard is the best.
AnB: Do you have enough time to sit in the JCR arguing about mustard.
// Cries of `yes'. //
IT: Two questions: are we allowed to make inanimate heroes?
SPW: Yes.
IT: And do we have any self respect?
MS: Not quite sure on the first. And no, we have no self respect.
SS: What's so good about mustard?
MS: It's spicy; peppery. This is about celebrating all mustard, we're not trying to further petty national prejudice.
MD: If we make it a hero, do we have to have it in Hall?
// The amendment fails. //
// AT reads out the amendment from RC: - Replace ``probably'' with ``arguably'' in Notes 4. //
RC: Given that we may have other disputes with college in the future, we shouldn't commit ourselves to one of the worst things about Balliol being the lack of mustard.
HM: Why?!
// Move to vote. //
MS: Good thing to give a deeply positive impression to outside people.
RC: It mis-represents the truth.
RP: Have you lost your minds?
// Amendment passes. //
// Move to vote. //
MD: I object to this as it doesn't deserve a place in Hall, as it's caused so much trouble here.
AT: We need some summing up.
JO: Having mustard in Hall will not inhibit the dining experience of those who don't like mustard. So this is good for some and bad for no-one. It'd be quite unfair not to pass this.
// The motion passes with no opposition. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Reach for the Sky by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes:
1)The wide variety of programs on Sky. 2) That these programs are avaliable to other JCRs but not to us.
3) That the number of sports bars in Oxford is few.
4) Sky is considerably more expensive for clubs than it is for Home users and Sky will not allow us to have a home subscription.
5) College have previously not allowed the installation of a satellite dish.
This JCR believes:
1)That Sky TV offers something for everyone.
2) That getting Sky would improve the JCR and attract more people to the bar and pantry.
3) That the recovering of lost revenue to Eurobar would make up for the cost of Sky.
This JCR resolves:
1) To mandate D&M to find out which Sky package would best suit the JCR's needs.
2) To mandate D&M to meet with College about getting Sky or Virgin cable.
3) To mandate the Treasurer to find out the monthly cost to the JCR of the various Sky packages and live online footy and report back at the next GM
4) To make Rupert Murdoch a villain of the JCR.
Minutes: // MS adopts the motion. //
MS: Basically what this motion does is say that we should get Sky, and the amended form considers Sky and Virgin together. I support the amended form.
IT: Point of Information: we tried to do this one or two years ago - it costs several thousand pounds because we're a `centre' not a `home.' We can lie, though. New College signed up as New Cottage and they never noticed, but legally without twisting it we can't get it for less than £2000.
DH: OUSU recently passed a motion to investigate Sky giving a discount to Common Rooms. It might be worth waiting; I'll contact whomever passed that and [we should] wait until they've done something.
IT: We could sign up as Norway House.
HO: Yes, that's happening.
// The amendment from SB is considered: - Replaces Resolves 3 with: Passes £60 to install sky and £50 a month to maintain sky //
MS: Stephen's amendment is a no-brainer as the original motion doesn't take [that] cost into account.
// Amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
// The amendment from SF is considered: - Replaces Notes 4 with: Sky is considerably more expensive for clubs than it is for Home users and Sky will not allow us to have a home subscription. - Adds Notes 5: College have previously not allowed the installation of a satellite dish. - Adds to Resolves 2: or Virgin cable - Replaces Resolves 3 with: To mandate the Treasurer to find out the monthly cost to the JCR of the various Sky packages and report back at the next GM //
MS: We should pass this because Sky may not be feasible through the OUSU grand plan or due to the age of college buildings and the unsightly dish messing up the view, so Virgin is another option. It's sensible to get the Treasurer to look into it; the Treasurer can then report back as to the actual costs that we incur and any other merits or demerits.
// Amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
// The amendment from MH is considered: - Adds to Resolves 3: live online footy. //
MH: This adds that we look at live online footy too. It's around £16. It's done by wireless.
// Amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
DT: There are guys at college who have jobs who are in [the TV room] in their lunch breaks. This is fine when we're just paying for a TV license. Do we want to allow them in if we're paying for Sky? Can we stop people from doing this?
MS: If this is a problem we should look into it if the JCR feels that's a problem; it's not a reason to object overall.
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
AT: Well done Stephen and team.
Result: Passed
Motion: Shutdown of IT Suite Computers after midnight by Conor McLaughlin
This JCR notes:
1) that there are at least 15 computers in the IT suite;
2) there are usually only 1 or 2 people in the IT suite after midnight;
3) leaving computers on all night uses a lot of electricity;
4) turning computers that are not in use after midnight would save a lot of energy;
5) no work will be lost as only unlogged-in computers will be turned off;
6) these computers would still be able to be turned back on, if necessary. 7) That the JCR office computer is left on all the time too.
8) There are 4 computers in the JCR.
This JCR believes:
1) that any computers not in use in the IT suite should be turned off at midnight.
2) Ditto for the JCR.
This JCR resolves:
Amends Resolves 1: Mandates D&M to investigate power saving solutions for the JCR, JCR Office and Computer Room computers and implement the most effective solution ASAP.
2) To mandate any committee member who leaves the JCR office after 7:30pm to shut down the office computer.
3) To mandate the Computing & Website Officers to get the JCR office computer to turn off automatically at midnight.
Minutes: CM: There are 15 [computers] in the suite and 4 in the JCR which are on all the time - we want to turn them off automatically after midnight. The IT manager can do that for us and it'll only be if they're not logged in -- there's absolutely no risk of losing any work. If you come in at 3am you can just turn them back on.
MS: How much energy is used when turning a computer on; I think they're quite inefficient in the early stages; how long do you have to have them turned off for to make it more energy efficient to do so overall?
CM: The IT manager has measured it. Turning the monitor off, which is the current policy, saves a lot but the actual computer does save a [notable] amount. We're talking about seven hours. I can't tell you exactly, but it's definitely worth it.
CG: Do you have to login when you turn them on? If you do then no-one knows the passwords. I don't know my own password.
MS: Have you consulted with the IT department about doing this?
JLK: Yes, that's where we got the ideas from.
ITEM:[Someone:] Why are we discussing this? Isn't this a college issue?
CM: It affects JCR members who work there.
// AT reads out the amendment from SPW: - Adds Notes 7: That the JCR office computer is left on all the time too. - Adds Resolves 2: To mandate any committee member who leaves the JCR office after 7:30pm to shut down the office computer. - Adds Resolves 3: To mandate the Computing & Website Officers to get the JCR office computer to turn off automatically at midnight. //
SPW: The JCR office computer is left on too so I just want to include that in this motion.
NS: With the one in the office turning off automatically, we have a different situation to the ones in the room as there is only one login and you could easily lose your work, so it's a bad idea.
CM: It's not the same for the office computer, it's more a policy of a mandate.
AT: No, it's automatic turning off too.
SPW: JCR officers should be more careful with saving their work, but anyway -- when computers shut down automatically they present yes/no/cancel dialogs and won't shutdown if something is unsaved.
LW: Can't the officers just turn it off themselves?
GL: We never will.
// The amendment passes. //
// AT reads the amendment from TN: - Amends Resolves 4 to ``Putting unused PCs to sleep'' etc. - Amends Believes 1 to Should be put to sleep if unused for 30 minutes. - Amends Resolves 2 to Mandate Pet Compsci to get the JCR computers to go on standby. //
TN: The aim is to save energy. We can save more energy by putting them to sleep. If sleep is set up right, it uses 1\% of the power used while running at full blast so this is a superior solution.
CG: Which computers?
TN: The IT suite.
CM: The IT manager is very helpful..
AT: Let's have questions first.
DH: Would that save more energy overall compared with powering them back up?
TN: Yes. Turning them on and off only saves eight hours while this would be saving around 12.
BS: Ian Plumber has given those as our two options without combinations or variations.
CM: Basically the IT manager is really really helpful, and is willing to put these schemes into place, but he's not been very flexible. We do it or we don't do it. He's convinced that putting them to sleep doesn't save as much energy. I think at the minute just the monitor does so; I think everything goes to sleep after 15 minutes, so we want to keep the status quo plus add a shutdown.
GL: I'm really confused. The only reason that doesn't save electricity is with going onto standby? It uses more energy than when it goes to sleep? Please clarify.
CM: It doesn't save much when it goes to sleep as the amount of electricity used in sleep mode is comparable...
GL: Tom said that is uses 1\%.
TN: If you set it up properly, it's 1\%; it just keeps a voltage across the memory and this only uses a few watts.
CM: The IT manager is insistent. He's measured everything with a, er, wattmeter.
TN: Fair enough. I can look into how to tell him that he's wrong.
AT: Any other debate? Any objection?
GL: If this doesn't pass we'll pass Conor's. There's nothing to look into the sleeping idea.
GN: We'll implement shutdown and continue to look into standby.
MD: Ben said that was impossible?
AT: To have both?
ITEM:[Someone:] This is due to the stubbornness of the IT manager.
IJ: We can have sleep or shutdown. We can't [have] both. It's sleep or shutdown and this amendment makes the motion as a whole both.
TN: We don't know what Ian [Plummer] would do. Vote against this motion and mandate me or the computer officer to look into it.
SS: Mandate someone to go and talk to him.
// Amendment fails. //
// SS reads his amendment: - Amends Resolves 1: Mandates D&M to investigate power saving solutions for the JCR, JCR Office and Computer Room computers and implement the most effective solution ASAP. //
// The amendment passes. //
// AT reads the amendment from CM: - Adds Notes 2: There are 4 computers in the JCR. - Adds Believes 2: Ditto for the JCR. //
CM: This is just the whole motion applied to the four computers down there.
Someone: We can't logon. None of us have the password.
LW: They turn on straight to the desktop. Only if you log off do you get that.
DT: What if one wants to know some argument-settling piece of trivia instantly -- you don't want to wait for them to start up.
CM: There is wireless Internet [access] in here, so you can use your iPhone, BlackBerry or laptop to do that.
DT: My laptop doesn't have wireless. When one comes back from Hassan's, one may not have one's laptop.
// The amendment passes. //
// The motion passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Oxford Climate Forum 2010 (2) by Barr Even
This JCR notes:
1) Balliol JCR passed a motion donating £200 to the Oxford Climate Forum
2010 from the Political Campaigning Fund at the last GM of last term, for which the OCF team is very grateful.
2a) Since the passing of this motion, the OCF team has not succeeded in raising the £10,000 it was aiming for. b) The forum would benefit from additional funding particularly to help with reimbursing speakers’ travel and accommodation costs and to print materials for the day. c) Since Balliol JCR has already made a contribution to the forum, if it were to make a further donation then its support would be acknowledged on
OCF’s publicity material.
3) Since the passing of this motion, the events of Copenhagen have made the aims of the Oxford Climate Forum even more pressing.
This JCR believes that:
1) Helping to solve the problems of Climate Change is a Good Thing
2) Since students are clever and motivated people, increasing the involvement of students in helping to solve the problems of Climate Change is a Good Thing
3) The old saying ‘You can’t donate too much money to a Good Thing’ is exceedingly wise.
This JCR resolves to:
1) Donate a further £300 to the Oxford Climate Forum 2010
Minutes: BE: I placed £300 in the motion, not being aware of the circumstances, so it's a bit ridiculous, however I should talk about the motion in general. The budget was meant to be £10 000, for various reasons I'm happy to explain it's fallen quite substantially short of that, and in a meeting last week we cut the budget £7000. Balliol has already supported the conference and so I ask if you're willing to put a bit more in. It's a worthy cause, regardless of what it's competing with, and it will have a positive impact -- more impact than a standard Oxford conference.
MS: Suspend the meeting while we do a quorum count.
CG: Can you run through what the forum is?
BE: It's to be held in a couple of weeks, after Copenhagen, originally to try to carry on that momentum. The aim is now trying to maintain that momentum, around the world and in the UK in particular, after Copenhagen disillusioned many, and energy dissapated. This'll get students more involved who are not really involved at all until now. We'll get student leaders, i.e. people who can do something; student union presidents so it's not just a talking shop, E&E officers from all over the country.
GL: When did you collect your last cheque from Denise?
BE: Last week.
GL: Why did it take over 2 weeks to collect if it was that urgent?
BE: Now we're printing programmes, paying for transport and placing deposits -- there is very little demand for cash in the lead up to a conference; we [just] needed to be able to commit.
MS: This would make is £500.
CG: Are you supported by OUSU? Have you tried to become an OUSU campaign?
BE: Yes, we didn't get anything.
CG: Can get all your printing for free?
BE: [We're under OxHUB.]
CG: In that case you can get free printing.
BE: I put that in an amendment. It'd go towards that, I believe that to be true, I wanted to know where it'd be going.
MD: I read in the Sun that this is a panic caused to get us to ignore the economic crisis. Why are we giving money?
BE: I'll not answer that.
LW: Why not simply raise money; how stable is the forum?
BE: It'll happen. £4000 has been raised, £7000 is hoped for. It's been so bad because, I am told -- I'm not actually in the funding team -- it's the first time the conference has been run so we have no long term partners so it's been more difficult. February is a bad month as big company funding commitments run in the financial year, so one doesn't get money from big companies. Companies who give to moral causes that OxHUB doesn't want us to go to -- investment banks -- there are big easy places to get money that we haven't tried.
LW: Will our students be more effective than all the world leaders chatting about it?
LW: Will you fix climate change? That's my big concern.
BE: It won't stop it, but it'll have some positive impact.
LW: Are people who think it's a complete waste of money wrong?
GL: I don't have an amendment for this one; I just oppose it completely.
SJ: Will you be serving champagne?
BE: They're paying for their own transport and accommodation, the delegates.
RGJ: How likely is it you'll make up your budget?
BE: What'll happen is that we'll fund more of the trips; some delegates won't come otherwise. OxHUB can help more but basically it'll fail.
IJ: Without amendment can we afford this?
GL: No.
JMB: Will students be able to attend?
BE: Yes.
ASH: You say you are helping delegates -- are you paying students to come?
BE: We're just providing food.
SS: I oppose this. We don't have enough money. It will happen without us so if they have less nice food or delegates then that's bad for them but we don't have enough money. I'd rather have given money to Uganda or another future thing. If it's happening anyway, that's fine.
// Move to vote. //
CG: Propose MTV: we've had the basic argument; people will have already decided.
GL: We've already given money to this. It's bad toldots
// CG, HO and SPW attempt to stop GL from discussing anything other than the MTV. //
MS: We didn't have enough opposition, Barr made a long speech; there's been a big time difference between the two sides.
// Move to vote fails. //
MS: There's not much money in the account. We're being asked to pass TEXTSTERLING:500 for this. It's wrong that we only paid £200 against Uganda laws that lead to people dying.
IT: If this fails we're all going to die.
MS: It's more valuable than ``student leaders'' -- anyone who doesn't read the Sun is aware that it's a bad thing. It's not fair.
DH: Believes 3 - it's not very wise as you can donate too much when you don't have it.
BE: In summary: This is going to fail. That's the right decision. I didn't know the financial situation, so don't be so worked up about it. Balliol JCR is good as we reason and have a good argument. I could have done more research but we've had a good debate, it's been rejected, not as good a use of money as other motions.
GL: I don't know what happens if we can't physically pass this motion. We've already supported this. When we're asked to support again something that's not been able to secure funding, that's a bit bad. My worry is that people get money from the JCR and keep coming back and Balliol is a bank- roller of certain things; always bear that in mind when double motions are brought when it's their own failings.
// Move to vote. //
SS: Once again I agree with proposer; we shouldn't pass this.
// Motion unanimously fails. //
Result: Failed
Motion: Urgent Challenges for OUSU and the University by Ash Thomas, Dawn Hollis, Simon Stewart
This JCR notes:
1) That OUSU, like other student unions in the UK, will be registering with the Charity Commission as a result of the changes made by the 2006 Charity Act.
2) That the intended date of registration is the 1st August 2010.
3) That OUSU is currently an unincorporated association, the trustees of which are liable for the activities of the organisation.
4) That OUSU will be incorporating prior to registration with the Commission, because of the protection from liability that a company affords to the trustees of the student union.
5) That the process of incorporation involves adopting a Memorandum and Articles of Association, which determine among other things the role of Council, the composition of the Board of Trustees and the membership of the company.
6) That the membership of the company is a crucial issue to be addressed prior to incorporation, as members of the company have the final say on fundamental changes to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and the right to call referenda.
7) That in order to register with the Charity Commission as an independent charity, OUSU must be a going concern and able to stand on its own two feet financially.
8) That OUSU has had recurring deficits for 8 of the last 10 financial years, of up to £65k.
9) That a funding model based on common room affiliation fees has left OUSU structurally under- funded and will not be able to sustain a student union that has a responsibility to deliver its services to all of its members.
This JCR believes:
1) That all students should be members of the new company, in line with the recommended advice of the National Union of Students and the Charity Commission.
2) That such a membership structure not only follows specialist advice but also conforms most closely to the 1994 Education Act and places control of fundamental changes to the structure of the charity in the hands of all students of the University.
3) That a funding model which is dependent on common room affiliation fees is incompatible with a universal membership structure and the requirement that OUSU be a going concern in order to achieve independent charitable status. 4) That the University should fund OUSU by means of a central block grant, so that OUSU is funded on the basis of its responsibilities to its members.
5) That Thomas Hull House is inaccessible to some students, comparatively expensive, and ill-suited to OUSU’s activities, and that cheaper and more accessible premises would be preferable.
This JCR resolves:
1) To support the proposals and supporting reasoning in the Annexed Paper ‘Urgent Challenges for OUSU and the University’, as laid out above.
2) To mandate JCR representatives to convey this decision to OUSU and to vote in favour of this proposal at OUSU Council.
Minutes: SS: As Ash says this is quite exciting for a motion that says OUSU in the title. Following Hannah and Yuan's report, and meetings with OUSU presidents considering the continuing deficit every year and problems with funding, Stephan has produced a paper to request a block grant from the University rather than the affiliation fees structure. This would avoid uncertainty. All other universities aside from Cambridge and Buckingham do this, but we don't know; basically the thing that he has proposed is sensible. We've been using OUSU a lot this term. The new sab team is good, if their new things are sustainable. If we don't want OUSU to be a hilarious farce then we should support this motion. If JCRs don't come out in favour of this then the University won't do it and we're stuck with a rubbish students' union, so we should help those trying to make things better.
HO: A question -- can we just make sure that they don't take it out of grants to JCRs. Don't let them give less money to colleges so that it is taken from us that way. Make sure that the University is genuinely footing the bill.
SS: I'm not sure if that's case.
HO: Talk to Stefan and make sure he knows that's a possibility.
// IT requests a quorum count, which is successful. //
MS: A question -- OUSU is asking for significantly more money. How much do they want?
ASH: £100 000 from the University, which is more than they are currently getting.
ASH: We get £11 per head. We want to raise that to £17 per head.
SS: It's £98 at Warwick. Our central student union is 30 years behind everyone else's, is what they said to us.
MS: The problem here is that OUSU doesn't think it is getting enough money. The block grant doesn't resolve its financial problems. They want more money. Secondly, the reason you have money problems isn't because you're not getting enough in; it means you're spending too much. The Cherwell said last term that the charities sab officer is paid more than he saw come in through RAG.
SS: So, most expenditure goes on the OUSU premises, and so they want to move to pay less, and also deficits are covered by the university anyway because they have to. So they want more in the budget rather than having to beg and get it anyway.
RC: The other thing this motion does it support OUSU in taking steps in order to meet demands of the new Charities Act. Affiliation fees to OUSU paid by common rooms wouldn't work with the new legal status of OUSU; that's the other reason why we have to do this.
DH: Do we believe everything that's written in the student newspapers? One of the sabs thinks they tried to make a statement to rebut that but the Cherwell wouldn't accept/publish that. They know they have a problem, they're not trying to cover it up. Support them to help us more.
MS: OUSU aren't facing up to problem; they're not making it clear. They don't have enough due to the block grant, if the University allows that, and they'll be in same situation they're in right now.
HO: About the charities sab -- he's linked to university pay scales; he legally has to be paid that amount; there's no negotiation on that.
MS: Why does he have to exist then?
GL: I was there when Stefan gave his declaration of his intentions. They need to change their spending model, they didn't make it entirely clear. At the moment there is a distinction between what NUS and OUSU have to get -- those who are not affiliated are getting more than they should; it's such a grey line -- that would solve lot of funding problem. It's about getting money for services it is providing which is not the current situation.
RC: We're arguing for OUSU to cut its services. We don't want this, and we don't have power over it here. The university draws up a budget with OUSU at the start of every year, and the University has asked for it to be revised in unrealistic ways when good budgets come through, for reasons that remain unclear. Basically OUSU knows that the services it provides are more or less essential; I'd challenge you to pick services that should be cut.
DT: The charities sab?
RC: The sab team is already overstretched with welfare between all the sabs, so it would involve cuts to OUSU services if that sab was lost. There's going to be a proposal to alter portfolios and share responsibility around in a more equitable fashion. The point is that OUSU needs all of the money it is spending. Funds it is currently relying on are nearly depleted. This JCR should support it getting more money.
MS: Why can't OUSU ask us to support them getting more money, why not ask us upfront? The block grant is not a magic bullet.
// Move to vote. //
SS: In summary: Michael made some points of opposition but OUSU are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes; they're up front about the TEXTSTERLING:11 thing versus Warwick, this is just them making steps in the right direction. They're having a full strategic review. Stefan is wasting his presidency on this. This is the most sensible thing to come out of their policy group in ages. It's what we asked them for.
MS: They're not addressing their problems. They're confusing the issue of where they get their money and how much money they get. They're trying to obscure it. They're clearly saying that the block grant solves all their problems. Actually they need a block grant of $x$ amount. There are good things in this motion but I don't think we want to support the block grant. OUSU gets much less but it does a lot less. For example other unions pay for nurses. OUSU doesn't do that, Balliol does that. The amount is irrelevant. Colleges do what a lot of student unions do.
// The motion passes. //
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-02-14
Ali Travis (AT): Okay guys, let's get started. The minutes are okay. Greig, your officer's report?
Greig Lamont (GL): This is a verbal officer's report because I had to report back on Sky. I'll do that first. I was mandated to look at various TV things. It's £392 per month for the ultimate package or £321 for the base package, so that's over £4k a year, and we're only here six months. Virgin doesn't do Business Premises TV so we can't get it from there. Mike Howarth's online footy is £6.25 for sixty days, so that's worth looking into further.
Something else to report on is washing machines, where's Katy - she's gone, oh well. I e- mailed the Domestic Bursar and a new machine is £2.5k. We'll get that as soon as college gives the okay.
As for my report in general, I've not too much to report. We've been looking into accounts. The JCR has lots of money - £100k is our liquidated worth. We're getting .004% interest with HSBC. We want to capitalise on our capital, and use it like college is doing. We should look at our own endowment. If you have any great ideas to increase our wealth do come to me.
Seb Fassam (SF): Is there anything in the constitution to stop us investing in shares; perhaps it's considered to be un-left-wing?
GL: We can invest in hedge funds, and these are effectively shares, so we'd all have to make a decision - it's a bit risky.
SF: How do you know we can do hedge funds?
AT: I don't think the constitution affects us [here]. It's less risky to get an account with 4% interest, where the withdrawal fee is just the loss of the interest. We'd want financial advice but that's a potential [plan].
GL: I've been to the bank: we can invest in high earning hedge funds but you tie up your money for fifteen years, but that's not something we can do. They know our status and we can do that.
AT: Entz, your officer's report?
Joanne Clarke (JC): Nothing to say.
Joe Kinsella (JKi): We did the welfare training day, we did our board, though it's not finished. We're obtaining posters; I think that's about it. We had a meeting with Glynis to work more closely with college, that was very good as well, that's it.
Chris Gross (CG): I spent too much time writing for JdeB so we haven't solved poverty yet.
Conor McLaughlin (CM): We've had two E&E committee meetings and that went well. It's Fairtrade fortnight in 7th/8th weeks. We've got money from the Co-Op and we want some from Tesco and Sainsbury's too. We went to OUSU, it was boring. We bought a timer for the non-environmentally friendly fridge in the bar, now it's turned off for fourteen hours a day. We had a meeting with the scouts about recycling to get them to sort out things properly. But there are problems with students not sorting well so we'll look at that.
AT: Let's move onto the motions.
// No motions automatically pass with no objectionsldots //
Motion: The Danger Zone by Simon Stewart
This JCR resolves:
1) Not to put any Top Gun-related decorations in the Bar.
Minutes: MS: I have a procedural motion. The Danger Zone is of immense importance. We say ``MTV'' normally, for this motion we should say ``I feel the need, the need for speed''.
Tom Phipps (TP): Shut up.
AT: That's debate. There's opposition so we vote.
// The procedural motion fails. //
---
JC: Basically the pool room doesn't have a name and it looks pretty bare. It's not got an official title. We all know that Top Gun is awesome so we should put murals up and rename it and that'd be pretty cool.
Isabel Thompson (IT): What if people think that it's dangerous and don't go in there?
JC: They'd be really stupid.
IT: You'd be really stupid to go into a room labelled ``The Danger Zone''.
JC: You can look in without going in - that's the beauty of it.
TP: A point of information: it's already called the Billy Shark room.
JC: Oh. Well I prefer Danger Zone.
Matt Parsfield (MP): What is wrong with you?
JC: [I was] bored and drunk.
IT: What would the murals be?
JC: It's in the amendment. Have a read.
AT: Would you paint it yourself?
JC: Yes.
Nehall Bajwa (NB): Are you aware that there used to be murals but they were so terrifying they had to be painted over? There was a minotaur, some balloons, a naked woman.
JC: It was terrible, but this will look really cool.
DT: What is the Danger Zone in the movie?
// MS sings a snippet of ``The Danger Zone.'' //
// The amendment from JC is considered:
- Strikes Believes 3
- Adds Resolves 2: To paint a 10 foot mural with the words `danger zone' in it on the main wall of the danger zone
- Adds Resolves 3: To paint a 6 foot F14 on the other wall.
- Adds Resolves 4: To paint aviators, as big as we can fit, over the quiz machine
- Adds Resolves 5: To get some cardboard cutouts of characters from Top Gun and place them artistically in the danger zone
- Adds Resolves 6: To paint, on the pool table side of the shutters which close the bar, Val Kilmer in a kitchener fashion with him saying `the bar is closed' - Adds Resolves 7: To have a launch night of the danger zone during which a full screening of Top Gun will be put on in the JCR //
Juliette Kelly (JlK): Are we allowed to paint on the machine?
JC: It's the wall above it.
MS: An important detail: for the 6ft F14, will it be the correct way up or inverted at the time?
JC: It'll probably be in the process of turning.
RC: Is there any prospect of this actually happening?
JC: Yes. I will try to do it at Easter. It'll definitely be before the next academic year.
AT: Into debate.
CG: This is obviously bullshit. I don't want Top Gun all over my bar.
SS: I think we should oppose this amendment because we might accidentally pass the motion as whole. We need two chances to shoot it down.
SC: Cardboard cutouts?
JC: They'll get ripped, I could scrap that.
SC: What else is on there?
JC: A launch night[, and] Val Kilmer on the pool table side of the shutters - it'll look really cool.
// Move to vote. //
MS: Can we take this apart? No, okay, I get the message, no-one wants any of this.
// Amendment fails, 28 to 29. //
NS: This is going to happen anyway, so HA.
// Applause. //
// The amendment from SPW is considered:
- Moves Notes 3 to Believes. //
SPW: There's sufficient opposition so we should put it in Notes as Believes more important than Notes.
JC: The Top Gun cast are being made heroes of JCR, so...
// Amendment passes. //
// The amendment from JO is considered:
- Adds Resolves 2: To mandate D&M to build a system such that there is a giant red flashing button which, when pressed, will set off Kenny Loggins - The Danger Zone at full volume in the newly renamed Danger Zone. This button will ideally only start flashing and become usable immediately after all the balls on the pool table are potted. //
Jim Ormiston (JO): It'll add to the whole Danger Zone environment. It's technically possible, and I can help out with making it; it happens when all the balls are potted, then there's a limited time to smash the button and get the song to come on.
AW: I can't read that. Can you shorten the amendment?
// JO reads the amendment out for AW. //
NS: How likely is this to actually happen?
JO: We'll find out.
Jonathan Edwards (JE): Can you give us a quick rendition of the song?
// Move to vote. //
JO: Summary: It's obviously a good idea; it's more exciting than murals. Lots of people from other colleges will be shocked when we tell people about our amazing Danger Zone.
SS: Opposition: People from other colleges will think we're weirdos with our bullshit Top Gun bar. Also this'll never never work. And even if it did it'd be shit.
// Amendment fails. //
// The amendment from MS is considered:
- Inserts Resolves 1, 2 and 3 of JC's amendment. //
MS: I thought these parts were quite cool - the good bits of Jack's amendment. No-one likes Val Kilmer. These three bits are actually good.
FF: Just the two murals.
DT: You've picked the worst bits.
// Move to vote. //
MS: Summary: 1/2/3 are awesome, F14s are awesome. It'd be great to have a big mural of the Danger Zone.
DT: The exact opposite [holds].
// The amendment fails. //
// AT reads out the amendment from TP:
- Adds Notes 3: This is fucking stupid and anybody who votes for this should be made a villain of the JCR. //
TP: Someone else went to Balliol. Why do we want to cover the bar with it?
MS: Since when did we make members villains?
// Move to vote. //
// The amendment fails. //
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Strikes Notes 1 - 3. - Strikes Believes 1 - 3.
- Changes Resolves 1: Not to put any Top Gun-related decorations in the Bar. //
SS: I've brought a wrecking amendment with a purpose. Nick is shouting it's going to happen anyway. He assumes he can do whatever he likes in the bar.
NS: Try and STOP ME.
IT: Nick, do you want a room in college?
SS: We can stop him by passing a motion to say we disagree with the whole motion, and [if he breaks it] we can legitimately no-con him.
JKI: Does this not change the nature of the motion too much?
IT: No, I think it's fine.
Ben Spencer (BS): Don't you have a soul?
SS: No.
MS: I think...
CG: Move to vote.
MS: This is vindictive and aims at persons. Let's vote against it.
SS: This is just to stop people explicitly doing something everyone in the JCR doesn't want to happen.
GL: That was the summary.
// Amendment passes. //
// JC withdraws his support for the motion and SS takes it on. //
// The amendment from DT is considered:
- Restores original Resolves 6 & 7. //
DT: I really like the idea of Val Kilmer telling me that the bar is closed. Viewing the film is fine. This is in keeping with my diverse range of interests. Will it be the fat, modern Val Kilmer of the Val Kilmer at the time the film was made?
JC: When can I withdraw?
ITEM:[AT/SPW:] You have.
SC: Is there actually a film with Val Kilmer playing the barman anywhere?
JC: No, this is Val Kilmer's character in Top Gun.
MS: It's an epic, epic film. Val Kilmer is the worst thing in it. You spend the whole film thinking that Maverick should have friendly-fired those missiles. It's a bad idea.
// The amendment fails. //
// IT tries to speak. //
CG: Move to vote.
IT: Fuck you, Chris.
SS: What's in the motion is nothing except don't put any Top Gun stuff in the bar. When Nick tries to steamroller it through anyway, we can no-con him.
MS: I oppose Simon's motion, Top Gun is awesome, and it's up to Nick to put decorations up.
// The motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Rage Against Muse by Matt Parsfield
This JCR notes:
1) The excessive and anti-social abundance of Muse songs being played on the Lindsay bar's jukebox.
2) That Muse's sole song-format (depressive wailing over a heavy tuneless bassline) makes conversation in the bar very difficult.
3) The apparent correlation between being the kind of person who regularly plays Muse on the jukebox and being the kind of person who has body odour.
This JCR believes:
1) The bar would be a happier, more pleasant (or at least more varied) environment is Muse wasn't being constantly pumped out of the speakers every single bloody night. 2) That if Muse's albums were removed the jukebox, the poisonous minority of JCR members who are smelly Muse obsessives might realise that there is more to life than idolising a bunch of talentless west-country Dr Who perverts doing a bad Radiohead impression. Without the safe-option of playing 'Black Holes and Revelations' three times every evening, these nerds may explore other musical genres, or even start showering.
This JCR resolves:
1) To remove all Muse cds from the Lindsay Bar's jukebox.
2) To mandate the most hipster/fashionista-type member of the JCR Committee (Chris Gross) to choose a replacement in the jukebox.
3) To make Muse frontman Matt Bellamy a villain of the JCR for crimes against bar ambience.
Minutes: MP: You can read the motion. If anyone is personally offended by this and feels it's vindictive, good, that's entirely the point. Most of you in the last motion proved that you're not fools, so vote this through.
JC: What exactly do you have against Muse? I just opened a can of worms...
MP: There's not a short answer. They're not the worst band in the world, they're not even worst band on the jukebox. But they're on all the time; you can't go down there as it's really depressing. If muse wasn't available it wouldn't be.
JE: Can you sing us a clip from your favourite Muse song?
NS: In keeping with the motion on vandalism, since we don't own the muse CDs, would the responsibility lie with the Secretary or would it come out of the JCR's account?
MP: I don't give a toss.
SPW: Thanks.
// The amendment from CG is considered:
- Replaces Resolves 2 with: To mandate the most hipster/fashionista-type member of the JCR Committee (Chris Gross) to choose a replacement in the jukebox. //
CG: Essentially we shouldn't fuck about. I have this cool hat, I'm the most hip and fashionista, and I'll put the soundtrack to Superbad in the jukebox. That's better than muse; vote for the amendment.
MS: What does hipster/fashionista mean to you?
// CG puts on his hat - ``this''. //
SB: What will happen when you graduate slash die?
CG: Long before then I will have replaced the CD. If not, bring another motion.
MS: I object. This amendment doesn't put CG forward enough; vote it down.
CG: I've already given a summing up.
MS: CG is even more awesome than this motion says.
// Amendment passes. //
// The amendment from JKi is considered:
- Replaces Resolves 2 with: To mandate Nick to organise the replacement of Muse - Black Holes and Revelations with Logistics - Crash, Bang Wallop. //
JKI: This is like the Peacemaker motion. The JCR really wants this but it doesn't know that it wants it. If we truly understood it we would want it and pass it. When you do hear it in the bar you know you'll have made the right choice in voting for this amendment.
AW: Logistics - is it also like Muse?
JKI: It's not the same.
JC: What genre is this?
JKI: Liquid drum and bass.
Ben Spencer (BS): Is this similar to the Peacemaker I never saw?
JKI: No.
IT: We're considering a minimal techno mix during the stress relieving day. Is it the same?
JKI: No, it's very different.
DT: You have bad taste so would you get bad odour?
JKI: That view is not shared by the majority of the JCR.
// Move to vote. //
DT: I object to the move to a vote as it is bad taste.
AT: We vote on moving to a vote.
// Move to vote passes. //
JKI: Summary: this CD is better than Muse, better than the Superbad soundtrack, and I promise/guarantee you'll love it.
DT: I oppose this constitutionally. It conflicts with Amendment 1.
JKI: No, it replaces it.
// Amendment fails. //
// The amendment from MS is considered:
- Strikes Resolves 3. //
MS: Since the Bar doesn't own the CDs, breaking them would incur a cost to Sean. We shouldn't mandate our secretary to vandalise the JCR. The CDs should be removed but not destroyed.
AT: Any questions or can we move to a vote? Sorry, I shouldn't have said that.
// There are no objections and the amendment automatically passes. //
// The amendment from CG is considered:
- Adds to Resolves: Places ``Chris Gross is the most hipster/fashionista member of the JCR Committee'' into Standing Policy. //
CG: It should be in Standing Policy and I've not heard my own voice enough this evening.
MS: This would make you permanently the most hipster/fashionista. What if, after this season, you find yourself on the wrong side of the curve?
Holly McCluskey (HM): Do you think Michael Slater is in love with you?
CG: I dunno.
GL: Opposition: I'm sorry, but as someone who lives with Chris...
CG: Mr Purple Jumper.
GL: Yeah, he has no purple jumper. I hear what he does in his room at night, with music playing. This should not go into standing policy.
CG: Summary: Do it.
GL: Don't do it.
// Amendment fails. //
// The amendment from RGJ is considered:
- Adds Notes 4: Muse isn't the only terrible music in the bar.
- Adds Believes 4: If we remove Muse, we should remove other bad music.
- Adds Resolves 5: We should renew the entire jukebox in e-mail consultation with the JCR and Chris Gross. //
RGJ: I just think if we're going to do this we might as well look at the jukebox as a whole; we should redo the jukebox. In consultation with Chris Gross as well as the rest of the JCR.
SS: We need to focus much more heavily on how terrible having Muse in the bar all the time is.
RGJ: This doesn't strike that.
SS: It's important to pass a motion to make that happen. Bar staff people send out things to update the jukebox every so often, it's a rolling thing; we shouldn't have to GM that.
// Move to vote. //
RGJ: I don't care. Make it mean slightly more.
SS: As much explicitly anti-Muse stuff we can pass is good.
// Amendment fails. //
AT: Now we consider the motion as a whole.
SB: I hate Muse, it's appalling. I dread the inevitability of Nights of Sidonia on the jukebox every fucking night. A lot of people use it, and the free market, which obviously I support -- no, I do -- has shown that people like it, so we shouldn't get rid of it. But if we do we should put jazz on.
MS: There are major externalities here. This doesn't get the optimum social level of Muse.
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
CG: RAMSTEIN IT IS!
Result: Passed
Motion: The College That Cried Fire by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes:
1)That on the 11th February 2009, the Jowett Walk fire alarm was tested at 8.45am.
2) That this caused anguish and alarm to the residents of Jowett Walk.
3) That the fire alarm tends to be tested on Jowett Walk and the main site at an unnecessarily early hour (ie, before 12pm).
4) That the frequent testing of the alarm at an unreasonable hour causes people to ignore the fire alarm and lie in bed hoping it will stop rather than quickly leaving their rooms as they should.
This JCR believes:
1) That waking people up at an unreasonable hour is both unnecessary and uncool.
2) "Before noon" and "an unreasonable hour" are synonymous terms.
2) That the fluid nature of people's work timetables means that they will have lie-ins on different days, and that this is no-one's business but their own.
3) That the College's persistent habit of testing the fire alarm at an unreasonable hour encourages a dangerous atttitude to fire safety.
4) That College should test the fire alarm later in the day, preferrably after noon, but at the least, not before 10am.
This JCR resolves:
1) To mandate Mr D&M to ask Buildings Committee that the fire alarm be tested at a reasonable hour, or, at the least, after ten o'clock in the morning, and to report back to the next GM.
2) To enter Believes 1-4 into Standing Policy.
Minutes: // AT takes the chair. //
Stephen Bush (SB): My deadline is on Tuesday evening, and I wanted to sleep in the next day, but the test was in fact a drill. There are so many tests in Jowett that I stayed in bed for ten minutes then finally left, and I was by no means the last person to leave. I'd be dead, everyone else would be, because college persistently cries fire.
MS: Does this motion apply to drills and tests?
SB: Only tests. I thought it was a test at the time and I'm not a morning person when I wrote the motion. This wouldn't have applied to Wednesday. It would apply to the persistent thing at 10.
Jack Cox (JC): The main site too?
SB: I don't care, I'm in Jowett.
SF: How about removing fire drills? I never get out of bed if there's a fire alarm.
SB: College won't ever do that. But they will stop pressing it three times in some bizarre game. This is a much easier to get.
Edlyn Livesey (EL): How often do we do tests; what's the policy? What's the difference between a test and a drill?
SB: A test is just to see if the button still work. It can be at any time provided a trained mechanic is there to hear it work. A drill is to see how quickly students will run for their lives in the incidence of a fire, so it has to be when people are around.
Aime Williams (AW): They do it in the morning - they want it to be awkward, and then they know everyone is in.
Felix Faber (FF): They do it three times in five seconds and then it stops; they don't expect people to get up.
AW: Oh right.
// The amendment from RC is considered:
- Replaces `12am' with `12pm' in Notes 3. //
RC: It's fairly self-explanatory; 12am means midnight.
SB: I'll accept this; I'm not a morning person.
// Move to vote. //
// Amendment passes. //
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Amends Resolves 1: To mandate the President to ask the Clerk of Works and/or Domestic Bursar that the fire alarm be tested at a reasonable hour, or at least, after ten o'clock in the morning, and to report back to the next GM. //
SS: This changes [the mandate on D&M] to ask the President to send an e-mail to the relevant people. D&M don't sit on the buildings committee. It's weird to request they be invited to that to make a complaint about fire alarm testing when we could do it easily through e-mail. We didn't need a GM motion - we could have just passed it on. There's no buildings committee until next term.
// Amendment passes. //
AT: Now for the motion as a whole.
// There is no debate. //
// The motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Charges resulting from damages by Ali Travis
This JCR Notes
1. The Domestic Bursar will submit a paper to the next College Executive Meeting establishing a new procedure for allocating costs borne by damages.
2. This paper advocates the creation of a committee, with representation from the JCR and MCR, that will decide the allocation of charges on a case-by-case basis on 0th week of every term.
3. This committee will allocate the costs borne by damages to one of the following: individuals, the JCR, the entirety of undergraduate/graduate population by means of a charge on battels, a subset of the total undergraduate/gradute population, the College Domus account.
This JCR Believes
1. That while charges to students are undesirable, it is necessary to ensure that, where possible, charges are do not fall on those not responsible.
2. That costs faced by students should not exceed the repair/labour costs associated with the damage.
3. That costs arising from damages attributable to an individual should be met by that individual.
4. That costs arising from damages arising from JCR Entz events, where the perpetrator cannot be determined, can be considered externalities of JCR
Entz, and should be charged to the Entz account accordingly.
5. That costs arising from damages where the perpetrator cannot be determined, and where there is a possibility that the damages were caused by graduates/fellows/visitors, should be charged to the College Domus account.
6. That costs arising from damages, where the perpetrator is shown to be an indeterminable undergraduate should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
This JCR Resolves
1. To insert Believes 1-6 into Standing Policy.
2. To mandate the JCR President to advocate the policy of allocation of damages outlined in Believes 1-6.
Minutes: // SS takes the chair. //
AT: This follows from the Domestic Bursar's draft new procedure for allocating charges to students. I passed it round committee. I want a list of things to go along with this paper that are our priorities for charges. I believe that the bursar's paper is fundamentally quite fair. They'll be a committee to discuss each problem that comes up. They'll be an opportunity to allocate to the JCR, the undergrad and grad population, an individual, or the college Domus account.
These are in place to emphasise that in disputable cases, college is still potentially liable. As a common example, there is a £25 fee for throwing up in your room's sink; that's £5 for the cleaning kit and £20 for the scout.
The second one is perhaps the most contestable: this is damage from JCR events, [i.e.] bops. This is the real reason we're bringing the motion. The vandalism of, particularly, last term means that college is refusing to fund it out of the Domus account. It's considered an inevitable cost of putting on a bop so we charge the entz account. The other two state that Domus can be liable overall, and we should take a levy to the entirety of the undergrads on a case by case basis.
SS: Short factual questions?
Dave Thomson (DT): Does this affect the King of Norway table motion? It'd come out of Entz rather than asking Greig.
AT: The table was a gift to the JCR, so it's different; it's not college properly. I'd argue if it was, it should be the Entz account - I'll e-mail the Clerk of Works.
MS: We're assigning the cost of events to the entz account. When responsibility is not determined it goes to Domus. There's a problem here. So many other people from other colleges come to our events because they're damn good. Would we have to show a Trinity person was dicking around before damage happened? Would we have to show that to get it out of Domus?
AT: Yes, and this is the purpose of the security system. We will have a log of names and colleges and a list of people from outside. For example on Saturday with Crutchett's fencing mates - he was liable for all their potential damage.
// SS introduces the amendment from CG:
- Removes ``where the perpetrator cannot be determined'' from Believes 4.
- Appends ``If damage cannot be attributed to an individual, then the individual should be charged by the JCR to compensate.'' to Believes 4. //
CG: This edits Believes 4 to remove ``ldots not determined''; it adds to the end that an individual should compensate the JCR for paying out. It's still an individual who pays the fine, but when college come to us when something is broken, it automatically comes out of entz - then we have control over where it eventually comes from. Then we would know that we put way too much vodka in drinks, so some would come out of entz.
Michael Skelly (MSk): Can we force people to pay?
CG: It'd be a compulsory levy. Can we do that?
MS: Can we do litigation? Who in the JCR has that authority?
CG: It's not discipline, it's a charge for cleaning.
SS: We're paying a cost for something we've put on. It's not a problem to battel that to people.
MS: Second part of Michael [Skelly]'s question: who has power to do this? Who in the JCR does this? The President, Committee, the GM?
CG: I dunno. Why not compensate the JCR rather than college?
Mike Howarth (MH): I'm just wondering, does the JCR have the ability to put fines on someone if that person has opted out of JCR?
SS: This is college fining us then the cost going out.
SF: In what way does this not already apply in Believes 3; this renders the amendment totally irrelevant.
CG: If something breaks, who do college go to? With this it's the JCR, then we goes somewhere else.
SF: Scratch Believes 3, then.
CG: No.
SF: It's logically the same thing with different implied consequences, so we now have a contradiction.
SS: Believes 3 is for bops. Believes 4 is general - it's not something to do with an entz event, which is what college look at at the moment.
MS: Why is this necessary? Believes 4 deals with it when no individual can be ascertained. In the event you know who did it, then Believes 3 applies.
CG: All this is doing is saying that the individual pays the JCR.
MS: It's already there. The cost is met by the individual.
CG: This is saying it's always from the JCR then we pass it on. The individual is responsible to the JCR, in a sense.
MS: How does that make a difference if they're paying the costs?
CG: The JCR has overall control of this.
SS: Into debate.
MS: Opposition: I can't see how this is not covered by Believes 3. 4 deals with when we can't identify, 3 when we can identify - it clearly says it already. It's a much better way of doing it. It's quite damaging to the JCR to set up system of punishing people. This is totally different to levies. We all pay the same compulsory levies. This imposes a fine on a person - it's the difference between a tax and a fine. You're trying to achieve something already there.
MSK: I understand the sentiment behind this: we don't want college to go on the warpath against someone. But logistically it's very very dodgy. What about appeal processes? People could go to college, get it off their battels, saying ``it's not what I signed up for.'' [With the unamended motion] college come up with all the horrible paperwork and review boards.
// Move to vote. //
CG: I've been convinced I don't want to do this.
MS: If Chris doesn't think it's a good idea let's vote against it.
// Amendment unanimously fails. //
SS: Now the motion as a whole.
Ronnie Collinson (RC): Believes 3 seems fair but there are two problems. It's an enormous incentive not to own up to things and let entz or Domus take the hit. Sometimes it's just impossible. If someone has a fit and smashes all the windows in the library, they're not going to be able to afford to pay that back.
Nick Spanier (NS): Point of information: we already do this in the bar.
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Late charities motions by Michael Slater
This JCR notes
1) The level of funds in the charities and political campaigning accounts is rather low.
2) Standing Order 3.4.3 states ‘Emergency motions shall be considered at the commencement of the category to which they belong’.
3) That currently motions submitted after the deadline may be heard ahead of other charitable/campaigning motions submitted on time.
This JCR believes
1) The order in which motions are heard may affect how much money is passed for each motion.
2) People organised enough to submit motions on time should not be penalised for doing so.
This JCR resolves
1) To amend Standing Order 3.4.3 to state ‘Emergency motions shall be considered at the commencement of the category to which they belong unless the motion passes money from the charities or campaigning account’.
2) To add to the order of business (Standing Order 3.4.1) after the category ‘Other Motions’ a new category of motion: ‘Charity or Campaigning motions received late’
Minutes: AT: Let's have Michael's motion.
Michael Slater (MS): We didn't need this last year, as we had about £2.5k in the charities account - we could pass whatever and whenever we wanted. Now we have aroundldots
GL: £410.22
MS: That means we're going to have to decide what charities to support and how much to give them. The procedure at the moment is that motions after the normal deadline, if accepted by the President, get heard above all other motions in their category. That's wrong. Our presidents allow stuff in, and because of that you could get an advantage, so it's not fair if you get your motion submitted on time, which make Sean's life easy - it's not fair to have it heard after late motions. If something like the Haiti disaster happens, we can still vote to suspend standing orders to change the motion order in that particular case.
AT: Short factual questions.
SF: Don't we do them all in the last GM of term anyway?
MS: This applies to all GMs, and some [charities motions are] heard earlier. This applies to all GMs.
Scott Carless (SC): There's a problem with the procedural motions approach. There are a couple of silly motions here, and something about charities, even if it is late, should come before those.
MS: Deciding on the importance of motions would give the person setting the agenda too much authority. Tonight we're not going to lose quorum, we haven't lost quorum in ages, but my issue is concerned with there not being enough money to fund later motions, that's my concern, not quorum. If there's a danger [of losing quorum] we can move jokes to the end.
Sean Whitton (SPW): Where did you get the idea that emergency motions are heard first?
MS: Emergency motions are considered first. That's what [late motions] are called.
Simon Stewart (SS): I disagree with this motion. The way round we have it now makes sense. Emergency motions should be heard first regardless of the time it is put in; when this situation arose at the last GM, the emergency motion was submitted late but it was not that serious a cause. Michael put through a procedural motion to swap it round. These occasions are sufficiently rarer than actual emergency motions, so having them first makes sense.
MS: In response, we could move them round as we did, as one motion was particularly good last time. We can do this in exceptional cases, but those cases are fewer in number. Motions last week such as Barr's motion, and that other conference motion, were emergency motions even though the situation hadn't arisen in [the proceeding] two days. Ali decided to let the GM decide as he is right to do. An emergency by the standing orders but not an actual emergency - these are the ones I am dealing with. We can use 2/3rds majority for things like Haiti.
// Move to vote //
AT: This needs 2/3rds.
// The motion passes 28 to 6. //
Result: Passed
Motion: The King of Norway's Table by Ben Spencer & Tom Nickson
This JCR notes
1) We had a nice table in the Norway room, a gift from the Viking king of Norway himself
2) A travesty of dancing caused its death
3) We have the technology
4) We can rebuild it
This JCR believes
1) The King of Norway will be very upset if his table is not repaired, or at least not given a Viking Funeral
This JCR resolves
1) Mandate the President to write a heartfelt letter of condolence to the King of Norway
Minutes: Tom Nickson (TN): Last night, even though many people may not remember, we had a bop. The table was shattered into two pieces, dead. We should pass $6m from Greig's personal account to rebuild it.
Caitlyn McMillan (CMc): Would it be put back into the JCR?
TN: I'm not sure.
SB: It's some poet - Hopkins - not the King of Norway. Won't he bit a upset by e-mail?
BS: It has come to our attention that table has nothing to do with the King of Norway.
DT: Garald Manley Hopkins is dead, we can't e-mail him?
AW: A point of information: Last year, Kieran passed a motion to buy a plaque to commemorate the poet and put it on an arbitrary table. So this one just happens to have a plaque on it.
RGJ: Wasn't it you guys who were dancing on the table?
TN: That was the bop before.
MS: The figure of $6m is admirably precise. Can you explain why it is in dollars, and secondly provide a detailed breakdown of the costs?
TN: With the current exchange rate that's about £2.50.
GL: No, it's £3.4m, I worked it out.
AT: Into debate.
IT: I don't wanna be mean or anything but you were the ones dancing on it, I repeatedly told you to get off it, as the table leg was going. We can identify you. We haven't yet changed damages, but you are responsible and I can name the others. $6m dollars quite a lot for the JCR to fund.
GL: The JCR?!
IT: I'm not convinced whether this is fair.
TN: You are fielding vile accusations. It was not the latest bop, one before.
IT: [That weakened it.]
TN: We performed a rigorous structural analysis after every song. That wasn't done last night.
// Move to vote. //
JKI: I object to the move to vote as we should hear more from Greig.
// Move to vote fails. //
FF: Following on from the second motion, it should now come out of the Entz account. Has it got that much to spare?
GL: No.
SB: This concerns a seemingly fictional table. A long time ago some guy had to pay for cornroses out of his own money because he lost the receipt. One siren voice [Greig] said in opposition ``Stephen already has a terrible enough life''. Now he can repay that debt. This strikes at the very core of our JCR community, these motions. I am opposed with every fibre of my body.
CG: It would be hilarious if it wasn't the King of Norway's table to send him a heartfelt letter. For a generic table. If anyone worries about Greig not having money - he has a lot of money, I go into his bank account at night, that's why I'm playing a CD - he's definitely got the money.
GL: Ali had to change it as a constitutional crisis would result from forcing a JCR member into bankruptcy. There is no basis for asking me for arbitrary money for some knobhead's damage.
// The amendment from JKi is considered:
- Strikes Resolves 1 - 3. //
JKI: Resolves four is quite amusing.
SB: This puts in the most dangerous part, given the geopolitical situation. We'd end up with Norway vs. Balliol JCR.
MS: We could take them.
AT: Into debate.
GL: The King of Norway paid for the JCR, so it's bad to send a letter taking the piss, even if he won't read it.
Someone else called Ali: A viking funeral is really fun, even if it's not the King of Norway's table.
HO: If we write to him he might actually give us a new table; that would solve our table problems.
CG: Stephen is right about the geopolitical situation. It's dangerous // not // to write a letter of condolence.
IT: Doesn't he give us the Christmas tree that goes in Broad St. [every year]?
JKI: It all depends on your letter. If you write an inoffensive letter we'll have no problems.
AT: I don't know if I can do that.
// Move to vote. //
// Amendment passes. //
// AT disregards, at his discretion, the amendment from TP and MP, which is nothing but a phallic scribble. Ian Jones (IJ) sketches it on the overhead projector. //
// The amendment from RC is considered:
- Strikes all Resolves.
- Inserts Resolves 1: Mandates D&M to discover how much it would cost to replace or repair the table. //
RC: This strikes everything under Resolves - anything that remains - and replaces it with getting Messirs D&M to find out how much it'd cost to repair or replace the table.
FF: This'll happen anyway. That's what we do.
TN: Objection: We're going to do that anyway.
CG: Objection: This gets rid of writing the letter.
SB: This is their job, but the other day Nickson bought a drill on JCR money which he then used to drill a hole in Ben's door.
RC: Being sensible, we need to get rid of the letter. We need to reinforce how important, given the large time we've been waiting; we need to be practical about the table.
NB: According to Stephen we should just no-con them. There's a larger issue at stake here.
// Move to vote. //
MS: I object to the MTV: this GM has only gone on for two hours, which is not long enough: we can make it last much longer.
SPW: Support MTV: I'm running out of battery so if we don't finish soon you'll have no minutes.
// The Secretary is accosted with demands to save his work. He does so. //
RC: It's really embarrassing to send a letter to the King of Norway.
CG: I disagree entirely with sentiment of this amendment.
// Amendment fails. //
// Move to vote. //
BS: Some false accusations have been made about us being something to do with the breaking of this table - if those were true, which they're not, we ought to help rebuild it. Since they're not true we will help anyway because we're cool.
DT: What were you doing dancing on the table? When you repair it will you strengthen it?
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-02-28
Ali Travis (AT): We have quorum so let's get started --- you alright
Sean? Okay, let's get started. Guys in Pantry --- we're starting. Any
matters arising from the minutes? No. As usual. It's the last GM of term
so we have non-committee reports. We have a full set for committee. For
the following non-committee positions, if anyone wants to take the
opportunity to give a report, let me know now. Okay, then we move on. We
have some procedural motions.
// Motions (a) and (d) pass automatically with no opposition. //
---
Procedural motion (a)
Iain Large (IL): I made a promise at the end of last year that I
wouldn't be involved in GMs this year. I did really well until now. This
isn't to do with the subject of the motion at all. As far as I can tell it
was voted down at the last meeting, and there is no reason as a principle
to resubmit the motion. The GM exists to make decisions and that's that.
They can then be taken as longterm statement about what the JCR thinks
about something. If there is the potential for people who disagree to
bring things back again and again until it changes, then it defeats the
point. I've got more reasons in `this JCR believes.'
Marine Debray (MD): Are we dismissing the amendment about Jack Hobbs
[being] a twat?
AT: Yes.
Matt Parsfield (MP): That's for the Matt Bellamy motion --- a mistake
from Sean Whitton!
// Oooooooooooooooooooo. //
Jack Hobbs (JH): Usually, I would entirely agree with you. [But]
they've been cases in the past when we've brought motions back with no
changes. The clock motion in my first year [was] rebrought four times; the
Sun motion was brought at the following GM. I brought this motion not
because of `The Danger Zone' naming, but to highlight the importance of
fresher involvement in GMs. It's about getting them involved in JCR
politics. I wanted to bring some more debate; bring a different viewpoint.
If you don't wanna hear it that's fine.
IL: There's the interesting case of the Sun debate --- that was an amendment brought to an original motion. We then had the case against it two weeks later. But it was a completely different case --- the amendment was not on the original agenda, so no-one who opposed that had any idea before the meeting to come along and oppose it. Circumstances changed between the two meetings: the
Sun came to Oxford and, for some people, acted in a way that changed their views on the entire issue. So that was a different case. As for the other one
--- four meetings on one issue proves the point for this being a bad idea.
Michael Slater (MS): I completely agree with Iain. I supported the Danger Zone motion apart from the Val Kilmer parts. The Sun GM was packed
--- no-one saw the amendment coming, only the small number of people who
made it. [The second GM] was then fairer; all the amendments were laid out
in advance, we had a good turn out --- we shouldn't get bogged down into
the same things over and over again.
Jackson Ehlers (JE): I agree with the general principle but the problem
is that this motion you want to withdraw --- the core elements are exactly
the same --- the main reason last week was the murals, and that couldn't be
voted down separately to the motion.
IL: At that meeting there was ample opportunity in the form of amendments to bring it down to just a few things. The fact is motion was completely reversed...
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
---
Procedural motion (b)
Simon Stewart (SS): I'm not sure how many of you [had] time to read
this, but, there is a motion o which suggests we don't donate money to any
other health charity. Political Campaigning is in the middle of charities.
Also, motions n and o give to the same charity, and everything in n is as an amendment to o; I want to merge it together and this will make more
sense in having a charities discussion.
Dawn Hollis (DH): We're merging n and o. What if, considering o's
Believes that are not in n, o falls, then the n person can't propose
slightly different meanings.
Max Deacon (MDc): I proposed the one with lots of Believes. There's an
amendment to add them to Jim's. I'm happy to get rid of mine. It makes no
difference.
// Move to vote. //
Stephen Bush (SB): Does this change the total amount we're passing [at this GM to charity]?
SS: It does nothing.
Greig Lamont (GL): It reduces the maximum by £200.
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
---
Procedural motion from MS
AT: Let's consider Michael's procedural motion to withdraw motion j.
MS: My motion j clashes a bit with Polly's motion k. They're basically the same. Since I have another motion too, it might as well be mine that we pull out, and then we only pass money to one of them. I have two motions already and that's greedy so we do it this way.
Eleanor Connolly (EC): I oppose this. Polly's is a subsidiary of OxHub.
They do really good work. But their primary objective is to organise
students to volunteer. They're just thirty students, which is not
comparable to an actual charity. I oppose Polly's and support Michael's.
MS: Are you saying that Polly's motion doesn't directly support shelter training?
EC: // Something the Secretary couldn't heat at all. //
MS: I'd like to change my mind. I'd like my motion to stay in if possible.
I'd like to discuss this motion.
Alex Crutchett (AC): We'll keep both in?
AT: We're voting on it.
// Move to vote. //
// Procedural motion fails. //
// SS takes the chair. //
AT: I'd like to bring a procedural motion to watch // Greig's Downfall //.
// No-one opposes watching the video. //
GL: This is a so-called accurate depiction --- but in fact it's entirely fabricated. Fucking hell, what's going on. The bigger picture is that someone is trying to create a negative spin campaign against a JCR officer.
Someone: My debate is: shut up Greig.
// Move to vote. //
// The procedural motion passes. //
// AT takes the chair. //
// The video has no sound. //
SPW: Let's do a few more motions and maybe we can fix it in the process.
// HO moves in to fix the speakers. //
MS: How are you minuting this?
SPW: Perhaps the minutes could include a free CD this week.
// Note: they don't. E-mail the Secretary if you want the video (it's good). //
---
// The video is very much enjoyed by all. JJ receives raucous applause. //
Motion: Donation to Homeless Action Group by Polly Ashmore
This JCR notes:
1)Homelessness is rife in Oxford. HAG provides beds, food, and most importantly training for getting back into work and for recovery (physical and psychological).
This JCR believes:
1) We should support the homeless by supporting shelters
This JCR resolves:
1)To give £200 to HAG, which will be spent on training equipment and the running and staffing of shelters and soup kitchens.
Minutes: Polly Ashmore (PA): This is very similar to Michael's. The homeless
action group is affiliated to Oxford Homeless Pathways. OxHub has promised
if we make up a third of the budget, then we'll get two thirds from OxHub.
This means that they get £600 if we pass £200. It
goes to things like the place in Cowley, [where homeless people can]
practice photography and art and chill out --- it's really nice. Take a
shower, get a cup of coffee. It's really important to help out this
specific charity.
EC: When is this deadline? When did OxHub say ``we'll match it''?
PA: They said that at the beginning of this term. We were advised to get our accounts in order by the end of Trinity. Then they'll match it when we say how much we have.
MS: Would it be possible to bring something for this charity at the end of
Trinity?
PA: Sorry, I meant the end of this term.
AC: You've asked for £200. Is the two thirds thing just for
£200?
PA: I'm not sure.
AC: Hypothetically, if we donated 400, would they up it?
PA: Yes, basically. They'll still triple it if we make it more with amendments.
AC: What is the key difference between this group and the previous one?
PA: This is affiliated to that one. It's an umbrella group. It looks at different shelters, and says which ones are doing well, and what specific materials they need.
EC: Point of information: I'm head of a project that works with HAG. It's a great cause, but they're a subsidiary of Oxford Community Volunteering, which is [in turn] a subsidiary of OxHub. We're talking about thirty volunteer students. This is just organising students to volunteer. This is great but compared to others... well if we're donating money we should give to a shelter rather than helping students helping out at centres.
PA: I spoke to the organiser of HAG a couple of weeks ago and he said to get as much money into the account, so that we can triple it, and keep it ticking over for a year. We want specific art materials for training. Once we get more funds --- we have £300 at the moment, so we can't really do much more.
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Replaces Believes 1 with: We should support the homeless by supporting shelters. //
SS: This changes Believes: I think some people might want to give cash to homeless people, we don't need to believe that we shouldn't do that; we can support shelters without that requirement. Just Believe this less contentious claim.
// The amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
// The amendment from GL is considered:
- Amends Resolves 1 to donate £66.67. //
GL: On my projected figures I didn't think both of these would pass. I thought
Michael would remove his and I should have amended it. If we pass this, then we're giving too much. We need to start amending the amounts that we're giving. If we give £66.67 they still get 200. This would give
£200 in effect. We can't afford that much so we should amend this as we amend other stuff.
Charlie Stevens (CS): Is money we're spending that you just said --- does this take into account all of the amendments?
GL: No.
CG: Further to that question, if you take account of all of // your // amendments, how much money is there?
SB: If we leave this neat and not pass the one we already give a levy to
[(SCI)], what does that do?
GL: If we give away what I've amended we give out about £1277.67
--- that's a very considerable portion of what we have. My reasons for amending, for halving pretty much everything, is that we should have at least
£300/400 left in the account for the beginning of next term, for emergency motions that needs money ready. We don't get the musical money, if it goes to the JCR at all ...
CG: It will.
GL: ... until 5th/6th week on battels, the charities auction if we have one won't be in. We shouldn't leave it to chance. As shown by the earthquake --- things can happen very, very quickly. I don't want to give it all away. Good, now I don't have to explain my other amendments.
SB: If we didn't give money to SCI who we already give money to, how much money would we give then?
GL: We'll give away $ hicksim$£1300.
AC: Would it be better to delay this to the end of the other charities motions to see if we can give the full amount? There's nothing we can do about
Michael's. We didn't know about the tripling of the money. It's not exactly the same motion but we might have felt slightly differently about it.
// AC brings a procedural motion to move this motion to the end of the GM.
It is decided that the amendment will be voted on first. //
CG: This is part of the whole idea of having money left. We don't have to leave it up to chance. We will do a charity thing in 0th week next term so we have money in the budget for the GM on Sunday of 0th. I feel uncomfortable leaving money in the charities budget, not being spent on charities.
RMC: We'll still need to modify somewhat, because we don't have enough.
CG: Yes, but [let's not] leave [a] £500 buffer.
GL: I agree with Chris, I don't want to leave money, but with respect I don't want to leave it to us giving money in 0th week with collections; finalists have particularly important collections. It's really not very sensible --- just because you can't predict what you're going to raise and you might raise nothing.
SB: Having passed money from charities myself in the past, it can be a while before people come and get it. If we don't have enough money --- I disagree with the ``Charities GM''. Trinity ran out of money before [the disaster in]
Haiti, but they got £1000 from a cocktail night; their charities officers did that in four days. Chris and Ronan are capable of that. There's a danger of worrying about running out. We should trust we have two competent charities officers who can do fundraising, which is what countless other colleges do.
AC: Why is there a problem leaving it in the account, we'll still use it, just later? It'll get rolled over, right?
CG: It will. But it'll stay in the account at end of next term, and over and over.
AC: It'd be decided in each separate situation.
CG: If we continue [such a] principle...
AC: All we're doing is having something for swine flu, Haiti --- such an event that requires emergency charity money; we're just accounting for that. Just delaying for a matter of weeks.
CG: It won't get used.
SS: Only if [there's] an emergency.
RGJ: I agree with Chris and Stephen. If there's an emergency we can raise money. We should be concerned about us not having enough money to donate the amounts people have applied for. Greig's amendment is to reduce the amount we give to something we can afford to do. Whether we do so in other motions is besides the point --- we have to amend something. If you disagree with this, then bring another amendment.
MS: In response, the money will never be sent if we leave a £500 buffer. If we use that buffer, at the next Charities GM we'd then have to apply the same principles; [say we had a] £2000 income for that term, we'd only pass £1500 of that. There'd be loads left over.
There'd always be money left over. We can increase our giving in a one time shot by giving an extra £500.
SS: The reason we're having this charities GM is to give money to non-emergency charities. There could be an emergency [charities motion] here but there isn't. There are non-urgent charities. Why can't we, as the sovereign body of the JCR, give these amounts of money to all these charities? Well shit, we don't have enough money, okay charities officers, raise
£600 to fill our commitments. Put posters up to say we've promised more than we have. Have charity events until we pay for it. There's no problem with committing ourselves to donating even if we don't donate instantly.
EC: Why are we talking about a £500 buffer? Could it be a lot less than that? A small buffer? [Maybe a] different debate.
RMC: Simon's idea is good in principle but you can only give so much; we only have so much money to spare. I'm not comfortable with running into a deficit and ordering people to give more.
SB: What we're giving should be aspirational. Sometimes we'll exceed something. I would put 20p in a pot in the bar instead of buying sweets with my drink, which I do mainly to round up the amount because I can't do Maths.
That kind of little amount of money is something to encourage. We won't have people beaten up. It's good to aspire to give more.
PA: I agree with the principle [... but it's a] crazy idea to force people, in a way --- we're guilting people into doing something. We should not cut down in this way.
SS: We could still pass motions to commit ourselves to £200 and not do a charities drive. The first unpaid motion is motion a. We have all these charities still to pay. At the next charities GM, hold on, let's not pass more money until we've paid the others. We should not tie ourselves too heavily if we're assuming we're going to raise more money in the future. We don't have to pay these urgently.
CS: Deficit aside, if we underspend --- if we spend the whole budget, we raise more money and give more to charity; this can only be a good thing.
Sally Murray (SM): Possible to leave out a motion, have fundraising
drive for that cause, more of a positive thing.
// Move to vote. //
GL: Objection: what we decide here dictates what goes to all other motions.
I've done some maths which I don't want to go to waste. Otherwise we'll just have this debate on the next motion; [which would be] completely pointless.
SB: Each motion is how much we feel comfortable giving to a specific cause.
The point of having named levies --- charities levies are about other things.
Other people may disagree but that's a different discussion. Money means a different amount to different people. Talking in some bizarre unified whole is a misreading.
// Move to vote fails. //
AC: Back on Ronan's concern, I can understand why you are concerned about giving this money. As long as events are made fun then people will turn up.
Whatever. No matter. People will want to have a go and this is fine. It wouldn't be particularly hard to make money with some small fundraising effort.
CG: Point of information: we haven't done something this term. It's not because we've been lazy. We wanted to put stuff on [but] people have said
``we're putting a cocktail night on'', etc. etc., so people independently do this stuff. I don't know how that makes people feel but it's not that we have an empty calendar to put events on.
GL: Passing more money than we can currently fulfill is very reckless on the basis of an assumption that we can raise money to an unlimited amount by virtue of passing motions and saying we'll make up the money. This is not the way the
JCR should proceed when giving money to charity, because one charity says ``we want the money [you passed us] now'' --- we say ``sorry you'll just have to wait''.
Stephen said that Greig is going through cutting things. It would be lovely if we gave £127 to this one £64 to this one. We can't do that because we don't have an unlimited budget. My first step was to indiscriminately half everything, but then we build them back up due to having loads left over. It'd be lovely to give a relative value onto everything.
Who's to say £200 to Cancer Research is better than
£200 to another thing? We have to be pragmatic as well as principled. We can alter all these motions. We just need to accept that there are limits to what we can do.
MS: I have no problem with donating every last penny in the account tonight and using future events to make it up. But we shouldn't go into a deficit. It's a problem of [our] democracy. We can say at the next charities GM that we have no money. But there is a problem for [our] democracy: it allows the current GM to tie the hands of future GMs. There are people here who I haven't seen at any other GM. Next time there will be people like them and then [their hands are tied]. It's a particular problem for Michaelmas because a third of the JCR are new. [They'll be] pissed off at some people, some [of whom] have left, who have tied their hands. We can run down until there is nothing left in it but we shouldn't go into a deficit.
JO: Not only do I see the problems that Slater has just highlighted, there's no benefit what so ever. If we want to raise more money, we should have an event,
[but the] fact we haven't mandated money to be spent on it isn't going to inhibit our ability to do that. On the other hand, being in deficit [brings] a whole host of other problems. I've not seen the case made on why it is sane to spend more money that we have.
SS: In response: Ali wants to move onto debate about whether or not we go into deficit. We've got ourselves into the situation of a Charities GM and we're looking at all the motions at once; we have to take step by step all these issues --- all these things brought to the table to get money for.
Here's an argument: take all of these on a case by case basis --- decide if we want to donate, then for next term, either we have no money in the account, and then we're committed to raise this amount before the next Charities GM. I dunno. Set targets for Charities Officers.
Look at the whole way of structuring charities motions like this; it's the first time it's been done. If people have brought reasonable level of donations, especially when they are being matched [by external organisations], if they have time pressure on it, it's bad to have got them under unfortunate timing because of the charities system they've set up. Committing ourselves to extra money from this GM and leaving it up to officers is not necessarily the worst thing in the world.
SB: I understand the thought process behind it, but reducing the money by two thirds on a homeless shelter reduces [its effectiveness] by a significant amount. I would oppose the specific reduction.
// Move to vote. //
Jonathan Scott (JS): We should give money to other charities. We're
taking away £400 from these people.
MS: Stephen and others brought up the dangers of cutting giving to homeless charities. We've discussed in some depth keeping a surplus. We've covered the debate, the time is right --- we should vote.
// Move to vote passes. //
CG: A point of information: If we keep this as it is, and we do all of Greig's amendments, and do another one I've added to my last motion, that's almost the right amount to empty the budget --- it'd be left with just a few pounds. Vote
// against} this amendment, and emph{for // every other one of Greig's.
GL: In summary: If you're an idealist, you can vote for this, I sail as the wind changes, I don't know what that means --- it will get three times as much. Let's keep a bit of money in the pot for something bad that could happen.
SB: Resisting this cut is not about idealism, but this is the value of our money towards combating homelessness. It reduces [its effectiveness] much more than reducing [what we give] to other charities. [We're] misunderstanding the amount of money that combating homelessness in Oxford costs.
// Amendment fails. //
AC: Procedural: We should move [this motion] to the end of the rest of the charities motions. See how much we have left. This one has the ability to give more due to the tripling option.
MS: There are other charities such as SCI and TB that are more important so those should be left to get considerable amounts left.
AC: I'm not suggesting this is more important; there are other causes that are more important in my opinion. But if we decide how much money we spend on this one now, because of the tripling --- we've said we don't have that much money and we're looking at how much we can spend. The more we can spend on this the more money goes to the charity overall. So do the others first, then maybe we can spend more. If we do it now we'll look down the list and not spend
£200; we should wait and see.
GL: I agree with Michael. We've asked for £200. We could give a lot more to Cancer Research. Maybe we should give more to that. We should vote on this and then move on.
DT: I oppose this motion as there is a case to be made for every charity to be moved to the end. In relation to Eleanor, the function of the Charities GM was to better scrutinise charities we give to, and Eleanor raised strong objections.
AC: You got the wrong end of the stick. I am in no way suggesting we give more than £200. I'd prefer to give more at the end to Cancer Research.
I want to give £200 here.
SS: There are no amendments to reduce this amount of money.
// Move to vote. //
// Procedural motion fails. //
// Move to vote. //
GL: Opposition: I want to hear from Eleanor.
SB: We've had this conversation. The mood of JCR is to spend the unamended amount. It's a very very long GM. Some of have puns to think of later on in the night.
// Move to vote passes. //
PA: Point of information: Eleanor's main problem is the outsourcing of volunteers but not necessarily where the money goes.
EC: In summary: It's the least cost-effective of all the charities we're giving to. We're giving money to them to pass to other homeless places. It would be great to give to this as well but this is going to students [not] to shelters.
We should give as much as we have left over; not more than [we give to] Cancer
Research.
PA: I disagree. It's the most cost-effective; we don't lose any money in the interim. It's outsourcing to shelters, and [it's being tripled], so it's the most cost-effective.
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Cancer Research UK by Judith Robinson
This JCR notes:
1) The work of Cancer Research UK
2) That a quarter of a million people are diagnosed with cancer each year in the UK
3) That with £61, Cancer research can buy 500 petri dishes for growing cultures of cells in experiments
This JCR believes: 1) That Cancer is a terrible experience for all involved
2) That Cancer Research is a responsible organisation that can make a difference
3) In supporting its students, both in supporting Judith to run a half marathon, and in the prevention of other student's suffering were a loved one of theirs to get ill
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £200 from the Charities fund to this Sponsorship.
Minutes: Judith Robinson (JR): Everyone has heard of this one. I want to say a
bit about their projects at the moment. Different kinds of chemotherapy
target different cancers. People getting the same therapy respond
differently. Cancer Research are taking people's cancers and doing
biopsies and they have this theory that every kind of cancer is different
and has a different genetic code. So they can then design chemotherapy to
fight a specific person's cancer. People have heard that it takes out hair
and toenails; it attack all fast growing cells.
Chemotherapy isn't nice. [They are researching] tailor made chemotherapy that targets specific people's cancers. [It leads to a] better quality of life. This would actually work and be more effective. It would give people longer with their families, and longer breaks between sessions of chemo. They'd be more chance to experience the extra life you are giving them.
They've already done a lot of work on finding these genetic codes and they've found some of them --- [they've identified] different kinds of breast cancer. Now they need to figure out how to make tailor made chemotherapy. A third of all people will get cancer at some point in their lives; everyone will go through a loved one suffering. If we can stop that... It's not an old person's disease --- a friend of mine died at twenty-four. It's not going to be when you're old. It'll not be after you've got your degrees, not after you've had kids and grandkids.
But it could be cured. There is proof that this works. The overall death rate fallen by 10\% in the last ten years. It's working. We can continue to help it work. People have asked why I've asked for £61. I didn't know the budget when I wrote this, and wanted something modest. There's an amendment to change it. I asked for £61 because I have this thermometer of what they can buy with particular amounts of money.
£61 is five hundred petri dishes for growing cultures. An amount that actually means something. This is directly how it is going to help --- a lot of people have just said ``it'll help'' with their generic £200.
To see if it works, you try it first in a dish before clinical trials. This affects a lot of people. Yeah.
AT: Short factual questions?
CG: What does the thermometer say for £218?
JR: [We can get] fourteen lab coats for £210. £125 would pay for one of our cancer information nurses to work for one day. They talk to people at any stage of treatment about what's going to happen for however long they suffer from it.
// The amendment from AC is considered:
- Amends Resolves 1 to double the amount donated to £200. //
AC: This is similar to Chris. If the other one passes, £218 will clear our budget.
GL: There's a bit of confusion over cheque writing, but either way is fine.
AC: Chris and I have the same idea. This money is important and we haven't donated to any other [similar] charity tonight. I may as well withdraw my amendment and focus on Chris's; it's the same, just £18 more.
CG: I've taken £50 off my amendment and put it on this one. Mine is the odd pence that will be all the money out.
MP: Which is still there?
CG: Village Reach. It's differnet to cost effective health charities.
DH: I don't oppose increasing the amount but it's bloody minded to empty the account completely. It's good to use as much as possible. Making a point of reducing it to zero pounds is a bit silly.
CG: There's no point in leaving £18 in the account; if we can spend it we should. Emergency scenario [argument] doesn't hold for £18 as [we would] want to raise more money anyway. It's better than it just getting 0.0002\% interest.
DT: This is a brilliant motion --- it's not just talking about cost-effectiveness.
AC: I agree with Chris. It's not just a case of emptying the account, it's about using as much as we possibly can. I'm dissapointed we don't have more left to give more to this charity. There is a lot of opposition to going into the red. Let's use as much as we possibly can. I feel strongly about this cause.
// Move to vote. //
// The amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Changes the donation amount in Resolves 1 to `£244'. //
SS: I multiplied sixty-one by four. We've got to decide between this and
Chris' motion. We've been talking about the amounts we want to give to things and not just giving random numbers. £244 is four times as many petri dishes, and I think we should give that amount of money; it's a carefully considered amount that was asked for, and maintain that throughout the thing
--- what we want to buy, rather than comparing to our finances. There's no particular reason on the other motion for that particular amount.
GL: A point of information: There are two different figures for the actual balance [of the charities account]. There's what Denise gave me and what's on the posters. I'm not sure which one is right. The one I'm working from is
Chris'. Then, we definitely have enough money for that one.
CG: Simon is suggesting we reduce my one to a good amount from Judith.
Tom Nickson (TN): Was £61 for five hundred petri dishes, or
was it because it was a number that they quoted that was an amount you
thought would pass? Is, then, buying two thousand dishes pointless rather
than giving an arbitray amount?
JR: When I didn't know the budget I thought that £125 was too pushy. I can read out the numbers to see what you want to pick, but I'm just happy people want to put it up.
CG: I'll reduce Village Reach.
// Move to vote. //
MP: I feel weird about moving figures around; I know the budget is tight, but it's not appropriate to take more out of Chris' just for sake of the petri dish figure. Compared to other charities we've been talking about, Cancer
Reserach is very well funded. They have no trouble getting this money; they won't notice it at all. Chris's charity will notice the money more. It's a token gesture to Cancer Research to the detraction of other charities. Cancer Research will not notice the money either way.
// Move to vote. //
SS: I wanted to propose this as five hundred petri dishes is good --- we want to move it up and give at least £200 to this cause --- I thought this was a reasonable figure to cost. Petri dishes as a good thing for an academic institution to be giving, rather than the other things on the list.
MP: In opposition, what I just said.
MS: We're only // potentially // buying petri dishes, so it's not particularly importanat.
// Amendment fails. //
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to The Oxford Gargoyles by Alex Kaiserman
This JCR notes that:
1. The Balliol College JCR has one member in the a cappella choir "The Oxford Gargoyles".
2. This is a high-standard jazz group that has contributed extensively to the Oxford music scene for 12 years and promoted it all over the UK and beyond.
3. So as to not financially exclude any members or potential members, the Gargoyles make every attempt possible to raise money themselves to cover the expenses of album recording, travel for gigs, venue hire and a tour through corporate events, concerts and busking during term time and in the holidays, with their main source of income coming form the Edinburgh Fringe festival, where they typically make £6000 - £7000.
4. With the recession at its peak last summer, the profit made during the Edinburgh Fringe festival was significantly less at £4000.
5. The Gargoyles usually charge £400 for a 45 minute set.
6. A donation of £200 now would be enormously welcome as funds for paying advance fees on venues and travel are currently insufficient.
This JCR resolves to:
1. Make a donation of £200 towards The Oxford Gargoyles in return for a concert/performance, however formal or informal at a time which suits the JCR in the future.
2. This could be at a summer garden party, one evening in the bar or JCR, formal pantry, in fresher's week of next year or any other JCR event etc.
Minutes: // Alex Kaiserman is not present, so DH takes over the motion. //
DH: This looks fairly good. We're getting a half-price set from the Oxford
Gargoyles. We're supporting something that it is a bit different. We're supporting [the] society and music. It'd be a good thing for next time we have
Formal Pantry.
SGA: Is this a charity?
SS: No, this'd be from the main JCR account.
AC: Resolves 2 says this could be at a garden party blah blah blah. Does it include the ball or something like that?
DH: Not sure.
AC: Realistically it'll be in the bar, or they'll sing for half an hour in the
JCR.
DH: It says any other JCR event. Leave it to that person if they are free for that night; it could be the ball.
MD: Is ``In the Pink'' not enough for you guys?
Jim Ormiston (JO): Could this money come out of the charities account?
It's not really a donation. We're paying someone to sing for us.
MP: Why does it cost £400 anyway? It's not a good deal.
SS: I oppose this. They're trying to mandate us to hire the Oxford
Gargoyles. ``In the Pink'' are happy to perform anywhere, any time, for attention, and they're a perfectly reasonable acapella group. We've had many wonderful events from them for that minority of us that don't hate acapella music. It's not a reasonable thing to mandate us to do. If we want to put them on in the bar, we can pass a motion for £200. They've dragged this to make it a bit like a charity motion; [they've] come begging for us to book them.
// Move to vote. //
MS: I object to the move to vote. We've [only] covered one line of reasoning.
There is at least one other totally different one that I want to bring up.
Michael Schumacher (MSc): This motion is masquerading: it's not a
charities motion.
// Move to vote passes. //
DH: In summary: I decided to propose this, as it would be a shame to let it get dropped automatically. [But] having heard what's been said, and having looked closer, I'd now say that I don't support it.
SS: I agree with Dawn apart from the first part of what she said, I agree with whatever Michael was going to say. Don't give them money in this particular motion.
// Motion unanimously fails. //
Result: Failed
Motion: Justice for Matt Bellamy by Jack Hobbs
This JCR notes:
1) JCR Standing Policy - "Jack Hobbs is a twat"
This JCR Resolves:
1) To restate in the strongest possible terms that Jack Hobbs is a twat.
Minutes: JH: I had to do work so I wasn't here last week. The passing of Matt Bellamy
[as a villain of the JCR] was a gross, gross piece of malpractice by this JCR as a whole. I'd like to hear what villains really are. People who reap souls, eat babies and have insatiable bloodlust. There are no proven cases of Matt
Bellamy doing any of these things. So he shouldn't be a villain of this JCR.
Signy Gutnick-Allen (SGA): Did you write a letter to Matt Bellamy, Ali?
AT: I was supposed to ...?
// There are roars of disapproval of Ali. //
AT: I overlooked that. I will do that straight away.
CG: Have you sent a letter to the King of Norway yet?
AT: I've started writing it...
// The amendment from MP is considered:
- Strikes Notes 1 and 2.
- Strikes Believes 1 and 2.
- Strikes Resolves 1.
- Adds Notes 1: JCR Standing Policy ``Jack Hobbs is a twat.''
- Adds Resolves 2: To restate in the strongest possible terms that Jack
Hobbs is a twat. //
MP: Like Iain said, this doesn't engage with the motion itself, this is more of a wider issue. Should the JCR twat really have any kind of political capital in this JCR? It is in Standing Policy that Jack Hobbs is a twat. This is merely repeating that empirical fact. Whether or not Matt Bellamy is a villain was comprehensively dealt with last week; Ali will write a letter anyway regardless of this motion. I like [Jack] though.
MS: Standing Policy is reviewed every three years...
MP: Resolves will not change standing policy.
JH: Yeah I'm a twat. But also Matt Bellamy [isn't] a villain.
MP: Not an issue.
JH: Yes it is, since [this amendment] removes all the old stuff. Only very very evil or banterous people should be villains. Matt Bellamy is a bit boring. He's not worthy for the villain's list.
MS: We should strike this. He should remain a villain. Steve McLaren screwed up England's football chances. Some Scottish bastards here are quite happy for us to lose but we shouldn't bow to that. Matt Bellamy should be [a villain] too.
SB: I disagree. I like four and five. Steve McLaren was the worst manager since Graham Taylor. But I'm biased because Murdoch denied me an internship recently.
RGJ: What poor judgement he has.
SB: A bad musician doesn't match up to this.
SS: Matt Bellamy is very bad as a guy. I was reading about him on
Wikipedia. He has the Guinness World Record 2010 for smashing the most guitars on stage. He's been quoted as saying ``9/11 was an inside job.'' He has a ridiculous falsetto voice. He does self-indulging guitar solos. By creating banal music he's subjected the JCR to horrible whining bullshit in the bar for years. It's really bad what he's done to members of the JCR. I firmly agree with his villainous status.
DH: Are we debating the amendment or the motion? On the amendment, we shouldn't pass this, it totally removes the entire motion and adds some slightly harsh statements about Jack Hobbs.
JH: Let me be the first to tell you, they are entirely well-based.
DH: It's not really an amendment; this is another motion.
MP: No, no no this is justice for Matt Bellamy.
DH: The amendment should fail because it adds some rather harsh things.
Motion should also fail in my opinion.
// Move to vote. //
MD: Objection: I want to vote on Matt Bellamy on the actual motion.
// General anger is directed towards Marine since this is a speech regarding moving to a vote. //
MP: This is something for the JCR to bear in mind: comparing Matt Bellamy to other villains is not that useful...
AT: Is this about moving to a vote?
MP: Not really.
JH: There are clearly a lot of viewpoints here. We shouldn't move to a vote as there is no stagnation in the discussion.
CG: I hadn't realised Marine wanted to talk so I now withdraw my move to vote.
// Move to vote is voted on and fails. //
MP: Comparing Matt to the other two villains is not that useful since no-one in the JCR really appreciates how villainous Steve McLaren is as we couldn't watch the English match as the porters are twats.
RGJ: What is there to debate? As a JCR we have voted on Matt Bellamy. As a
JCR we have consistently voted that Jack Hobbs is a twat. This amendment encapsulates out general viewpoint in life, Matt Bellamy and Jack Hobbs.
JH: On Steve McLaren --- he's a horrible man who accepted millions of pounds for being fired for being shit at managing. He was rewarded for a bad job.
Who else do we know who's done that lately? Bankers. He's basically a banker.
They're all bastards.
MD: It's too easy to pass this amendment and make the motion fail. Let's just vote on the motion to fail. It's too cheap.
MS: You're trying to draw an analogy with Steve McLaren as a banker. Let me tell you why you analogy doesn't work.
// Groans. //
MS: Basically Matt Bellamy has destroyed more property and done more damage to the environment [with his guitar-bashing] than a banker ever could.
// Move to vote. //
// JH walks out in disgust. //
Nick Spanier (NS): I object; no-one is proposing this motion.
// It is established that MP is still proposing his amendment. //
// The amendment passes, and so MP takes over the motion. //
MP: I accept Jack Hobb's view that we need justice for Matt Bellamy. This is exactly the kind of justice that Matt Bellamy deserves: for us to restate that
Jack Hobbs is a twat.
Joe Kinsella (JKi): I don't have anything to say but I just object to
this.
MD: We're all being twats right now.
Ben Spencer (BS): Does this motion do anything if he is already a twat?
// Move to vote. //
MP: Summary: vote for this motion.
JKI: Don't vote for this motion.
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: The Danger Zone by Jack Hobbs
This JCR notes:
1. The motion “The Danger Zone” proposed at the GM on 14/02/10 by Jack Cox.
This JCR Believes:
1. That fresher involvement in the JCR is one of the hardest and most important things to encourage.
This JCR Resolves:
1. To rename the Billy Sharp Room as “The Danger Zone”.
Minutes: // Motion struck off the agenda by procedural motion (a). //
Result: See minutes
Motion: JCR Heroes and Villains by Jack Hobbs
This JCR notes:
1. That currently a number of JCR heroes and villains exist (see appendix 1).
2. That currently these heroes and villains are forgotten as quickly as they are inducted.
3. That many other colleges have heroes and villains (sometimes referred to as honorary members) and they are commemorated with photos / pictures.
4. The lack of decoration in the Billy Sharp Room / Danger Zone (delete as appropriate).
5. That a box of 12 A4 clip frames can cost as little as £15.16 from a certain online retailer.
This JCR Believes:
1. That the titles 'hero' and 'villain' are serious and important.
2. That people worthy of baring these titles should be remembered for their actions of heroism / villainy.
3. That the current bareness of the walls in the aforementioned room is an aesthetic nightmare.
This JCR Resolves:
1. To record the list of heroes and villains in Standing Policy under the title “Heroes and Villains” with a description of what merited their recognition.
2. To honour the heroes of the JCR by decorating the main wall of the aforementioned room with their likenesses.
3. To refer to the wall as “The Wall of Heroes”
4. To use no more than £60 from the Lindsay Bar account to pay for the decoration.
5. To mandate Mr. & Mrs. D&M to perform the decorating.
6. To ensure that all heroes, present and future, are commemorated in an equal fashion.
Minutes: JH: There are two distinct sections to this. One is to ensure that we remember our heroes and villains --- we haven't put them in Standing Policy for the last five years, after someone lost the book that they were written down in. The second half is to note how terrible the Billy Sharp room looks. We should honour our heroes by decorating one wall.
AT: SFQs?
MS: Are we honouring all our heroes? They include the entire cast and crew of
Top Gun and Jurassic Park. That's a hell of a lot of photos.
JH: They passed as one group, so they have one representative [for the wall].
MD: If we lost the book, how do we know who to put in Standing Policy?
JH: The short answer is that we don't. I've gone through the last four years on the website. It's all in Appendix 1. There are possibly other ones.
Apparently Tom Cruise is also a villain but there's no citation for that so I didn't put it on the list.
MP: How long have we had this system?
JH: Certainly at least four years before I arrived. There will be inevitable losses, but we can't reclaim them.
IL: What form would the representation take?
JH: A4 clip frames cost practically nothing. There'd be an A4 page with half a page devoted to a picture and the other half for their name and a short excerpt from the motion/debate as to why they were put in. Perhaps a banterous quote from a movie they were in. It'd be at the discretion of whomever passes them through as to what goes on there.
SB: Would this be a rolling mandate? Will heroes shuffle along? Basically
I'm asking how many heroes do we have to make before we can get rid of the cast of Top Gun.
JH: It'd be an infinite scrolling wall around the entire JCR.
AC: If this passes, will you be taking it on yourself to do this? If so, when you leave, what'll happen? Will we need a position for hero and villain officer?
JH: Resolves 5 passes it to D&M but I'm quite happy to help them.
Dave Thomson (DT): Does Simon's motion from the last GM stop any Top Gun
stuff from going on?
SB: That's not binding, it's just not to do it.
MS: I oppose this. It's an attempt to bring in Top Gun by a back-door route to avoid Iain Large objecting. People didn't want it. The plain walls are nice.
JH: My response to that would be --- you bastard. It wasn't intended to do that in the slightest. The murals idea was originally brought up because that room is bare. It was originally a minotaur and balloons [which were great]; it would be nice to commemorate our heroes in that way. It wouldn't be in a non-equal fashion. It'd be A4 clipframes; not murals everywhere. It's entirely different from the Top Fun motion. It merely accidentally --- possibly --- puts an A4 page with one Top Gun picture...
// Move to vote. //
MD: I object to the MTV; I'd like to debate.
// Move to vote passes. //
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to SKIP by Ruth Morgan, Danny Anson-Jones and Emily King-Oakley
This JCR notes:
1) Students for Kids International Project (SKIP), which funds projects in Eastern Europe, South Asia and Africa.
2) The work of Balliol students in raising money for a specific project funding schools in northern Thailand.
3) Donated money will go towards school equipment.
This JCR believes:
1) That schools in the developing world are Good Things, because children deserve to have an education which will lift them out of poverty.
2) That funding these schools is a worthwhile use of JCR money.
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £250 to SKIP
Minutes: ITEM:[Danny Anson-Jones (DAJ):] [This is] £250 to a student run
charity [whose] aim is to develop and maintain sustainable healthcare
provisions in poorer countries. SKIP Oxford is going to Northern Thailand.
Thailand doesn't get that much charity provision, and as a charity, on the
whole it's not too bad. They're really poor in this specific area. We're
asking for £250 towards a £6000 target. This will
only go towards healthcare facilities in the area. [The people there] rely
very heavily on SKIP. [We also do] stationary for local schools and
contraception. The aim is just to improve health in a sustainable way.
MS: You mentioned a target. What is that for?
DAJ: All our personal costs --- flights, accommodation costs --- they are all paid by us.
Ruth Morgan (RuM): All the money [donated] goes straight to the causes.
ITEM:[Emily King-Oakley (EKO):] The £6000 was set by us [as an
amount] to make a difference.
MS: You'll still go if you don't get that?
MSC: What will £250 do to the £6000?
EKO: It goes only to the healthcare centre, so if they don't get that money, they won't have [those] provisions and people there will suffer. I'm not sure what this £250 will go to but it will go to healthcare [in that] society --- initiatives: hand washing, basic hygiene education.
RUM: [As an example, we did] sinks at a primary school last year.
RGJ: The Thai government doesn't send teachers to Northern Thailand?
DAJ: It's a hill tribe area. The Thai government doesn't recognise them as
Thai citizens; [they're really] immigrants from Burma.
// The amendment from GL is considered:
- Replaces `£250' with `£150'. //
GL: SKIP used the bar for a quiz --- if my calculations are right, if all my amendments go through, we're using up the exact amount [in the charities account]. If we give £250 we have to further reduce another charity by another £100.
SB: Assuming we cancelled the Charities GM and only had to make up the deficit once, it'd be a one off journey into the red.
MSC: We've already paid levies. We'd start with more money anyway.
GL: If Chris' additional passes, that's £600 over.
CG: If we did that I would withdraw my amendment.
SB: This has not been a good experiment. We don't have time this term to raise more money. Let's go into the red as a one off, and raise more money to get back to it, then go back to the less stressful system.
MSC: If we've given away the levies, we'll have £1000 next term from levies.
GL: Next term's levies don't come in until sixth week. Plus the money from the musical.
RMC: Generally --- weren't SKIP on optional levies last year?
GL: All levies have changed since last year.
SB: It was not SKIP, it was Students Supporting Street Kids.
AT: Into debate.
CG: We've given money to SKIP before because we have lots of Balliol people interested in it. Just because these three have raised money earlier in term their charity is not less deserving now. We're a member organisation --- we should give money to things people are interested in. Ten freshers are involved in this.
RMC: I disagree with Chris. We've given money to them before --- that does matter. At a GM last term and each term last year, and we let them use the bar. I'm happy to continue giving but not at this GM. It's not an experiment.
We had [the Charities GM] in years past --- we only changed to other system for the last two years.
EKO: We have a big influence on where the money goes. Last year's money has not affected this that much.
SS: I disagree with Ronan. Our constitution clause 1.2 part 3 says
`advancing charitable objectives supported by members.' A lot of stuff later in the GM will be about the most cost-effective charity. We should give to charities most supported by our members, and calculate however they want. Ten people are pushing for this charity and people can be organised to do stuff for them. We should wait for the Charities GM and look at the list; that's not the case this GM but it could easily happen --- there's a lot of support for this among our members, so we should give as much money as they've reasonably asked for.
MS: I strongly disagree with Stephen's point about going into debt for a long time thing. We'll set a precedent. Next term we'll just do it once more.
This is exactly how individuals, companies and governments get into trouble with debt. Because we have more motions than money we should cut some things.
It's not fair for this GM to bind future GMs to meet our obligations. We have to cut some things --- this cause is not as good as some other things.
// Move to vote. //
RMC: In opposition: People have their hands up.
SPW: In support: We're going in circles, and getting the same things over and over again.
// Move to vote passes. //
GL: Summary: I stand by my amendment. Chris said he could withdraw his last amendment to UNICEF. It is possible --- don't feel constrained. But then, all my amendments aren't gonna get passed and the last two charities won't get anything.
SS: In opposition: I think there's lots of charities giving to various worldwide health causes. There are not many giving to education causes. There are not many that can show this huge level of support from within the JCR.
This is worth donating to. People coming to ask for money for something they support so strongly should be given the money they ask for if we see it as a reasonable cause. I really really really think we should support these guys.
// The amendment fails. //
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Stop TB Partnership by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1) The charity Stop TB Partnership, which primarily runs the Global Drug Facility which provides government health programs and NGOs with drugs for curing tuberculosis as part of a highly effective treatment program called DOTS.
2) The Global Drug Facility focuses exclusively on the developing world, providing drugs to 93 of the world's poorest countries.
3) More than 1.7 million people died of TB in 2006, the vast majority of whom lived in the developing world.
3) Stop TB is one of both Givewell.com's and Givingwhatwecan.com's top three charities in terms of cost effectiveness.
This JCR believes:
1) Donating to cost-effective charities is a good use of JCR finances
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £200 to Stop TB Partnership
Minutes: // Motion struck off agenda by a procedural motion. //
Result: See minutes
Motion: Donation to GAIN by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1) The charity Global Action for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), which provides funding for micronutrient projects.
2) Micronutrients are substances that are needed only in minuscule amounts but that enable the body to produce enzymes, hormones and other substances essential for proper growth and development and as proper cognition. This means they are vital not only for their health benefits, but also their economic benefits.
3) Malnutrition accounts for 11% of the global burden of disease. Each year it kills 3.5 million children under five years old and impairs hundreds of thousands of growing minds.
4) The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 rates micronutrient supplementation for children as the highest-priority form of intervention in the fight against malnutrition.
5) GAIN is one of Givingwhatwecan.com's top three charities in terms of cost-effectiveness
This JCR believes:
1) Donating to cost-effective charities is a good use of JCR finances
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £200 to Global Action for Improved Nutrition
Minutes: // Motion struck off agenda by a procedural motion. //
Result: See minutes
Motion: Donation to Village Reach by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1) The charity Village Reach, which aims to improve the systems that distribute medical supplies to rural areas in Africa, so that life-saving supplies get to those who need them.
2) Village Reach have a funding gap of $398,199 for the next year.
3) Village Reach are Givewell.com's highest rated charity according to criteria of cost-effectiveness and transparency.
This JCR believes:
1) That donating to cost-effective charities are a good use of JCR finances.
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £150 to Village Reach
Minutes: CG: This is for Village Reach. They're about distributing and giving drugs.
SCI gives drugs because people give money which is great, but then the drugs can't get to the people who need them. This charity provides vehicles and such and encourages the building of social enterprises to get people to generate money. These businesses get used by NGOs. It's a good charity [with a] huge funding gap. They won't collapse; our money won't be wasted, but they have specific goals. They won't be able to do that if they don't have all the money. I support Greig's amendment. If we lower it we'll have enough money.
We have £150 left and the odd pennies.
AT: Short factual questions?
// The amendment from GL is considered:
- Replaces `£200' with `£150'. //
GL: See above. Move to vote.
// The amendment automatically passes with no objections. //
// Move to vote. //
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Trinity Term 2010 Punt by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes:
1) Usually in trinity term a compulsory levy is added to fund a punt from
Magdalen Bridge Boathouse for use by students.
2) Hiring one punt for use in weeks 0-9 inclusive will cost £1210.26 which, between 679 students (MCR and JCR) comes to £1.79 per head.
3) The MCR have agreed to pay this amount for all of its members.
This JCR believes:
1) That there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats.
This JCR resolves:
1) To add to compulsory undergraduate levies, for Trinity Term 2010 only, the sum of £1.79 per person.
2) To hire a punt for weeks 0-9 inclusive, which any student can 'sign out' at the Lodge.
Minutes: GL: I copy and pasted Iain's motion from last year and substituted everything but the right date. There's not much to say. It's £1.79 per person --- that's up 3p I think from last year. It's never not passed.
ITEM:[Rhiannon Garth-Jones (RGJ):] Why don't we have something permanent? If
there's nothing better, have it for every Trinity.
GL: The amount changes which would be a pain --- so that's why we keep having motions. But that's a good point; maybe we should look into that.
MD: What if one year no-one really wants to punt?
GL: We could revoke it.
AC: Since it works out as £1.79 per person, would it be worth hiring two punts?
GL: Probably not. They're not ever booked back to back; it's more than enough.
Chris Gross (CG): People don't go in groups of six, they go in groups of
more than six.
AC: They might want two punts at the same time. Are you able to get another on the day?
GL: Yeah, just not for £1.79.
Someone: [Was it] used regularly in previous years?
GL: People do use it. There's the MCR too. It's a lot more to hire your own
--- you only have to use it once to get your money's worth. By virtue of the
MCR paying slightly under half it works out very well for all of us.
AC: If you go in a group of more than six you have to hire out another punt?
MDC: Yeah. It's fine. We've done it for the last ten years and it's fine.
// The amendment from SPW is considered:
- Replaces `2009' with `2010' in Resolves 1. //
Sean Whitton (SPW): Greig's already proposed this.
MS: Opposition I'd like to pretend I'm still a second year so keep it as it is.
// Move to vote. //
// Amendment passes. //
// Move to vote. //
// Motion passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Morning After Pill reimbursement by Hannah O'Rourke & Georgina Sturge
This JCR notes:
1) That while a range of birth control is available to students, sometimes these do not work/are not used properly/are not used at all.
2) That in such circumstances, the Morning After Pill, while in no way intended as a form of regular birth control, is a good form of emergency contraception.
3) That the Pill is available for free from the College Nurse, The Alec
Turnbull Clinic in Cowley (open on Saturdays), and from the 19 Beaumont St. surgery during working hours.
4) That outside these hours--i.e. Sunday-- the only way to obtain the Pill is from a chemists, at a cost of £25, unless under 20 years of age. The Pill can
ONLY be dispensed by a medical professional, not by members of the JCR, or members of the College who are not the nurse. 5) That while the Pill can in theory be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse, it is most effective when taken 12 hours afterwards. Efficacy reduces with time, even within the 72-hour window.
6) That OUSU has recently noted some discrepancies in welfare provisions across various college JCRs, and recommended greater standardization.
7) That many JCRs now provide a system whereby members who need the Morning
After Pill at times when it is not available for free are able to buy it over the counter and, upon providing a receipt to the women's officer, are able to confidentially receive the cost of the Pill back.
8) That most the JCR committee, as well as the Dean, have already agreed that this would be a good idea.
9) A pilot scheme has been in place for a term now and having only had one re-imbursement so far it seems to be cost effective and not too much of a drain on JCR resources
This JCR believes:
1) That student welfare is a primary purpose of the JCR
2) That no member of the JCR should be placed at increased risk of unwanted pregnancy because of a reluctance to spend £25 at the time.
3) That this is not a 'female-only' cost; unwanted pregnancy concerns men as well as women, and this should therefore be seen as a welfare provision benefiting the entire JCR.
This JCR resolves:
1) To continue to reimburse members of the JCR for the Morning After Pill, when it is purchased on a Sunday and Saturday, from the main JCR account making it a permanent welfare provision and service
Minutes: // Motions (a) and (d) pass automatically with no opposition. //
Result: Passed
Motion: GM projector usage by Ian Jones & Ben Spencer
This JCR notes:
1. The trial of using the projector in GMs ends at the end of Hilary term.
This JCR believes:
1. The trial was a success
This JCR resolves:
1. To mandate Compter & Website Officer(s) to use the projector in future GMs
Amendment from Ben Spencer and Ian Jones for above motion:
* Changes Believes 1 to "The trial was not a success"
* Strikes Resolves 1
Minutes: Ian Jones (IJ): We're trailing this to the end of term. It's now the
end of term. There's an opportunity to say you don't like it, so do so.
MDC: Why was it not a success?
// The amendment from IJ and BS is considered:
- Changes Believes 1 to: The trial was not a success.
- Strikes Resolves 1. //
IJ: The amendment is an option to say whether or not it was a success.
MS: Hats up to this --- it's a really great idea. The projector is great, so scrap the amendment and vote the motion through.
DH: The fact we're reading this amendment on the screen is proof that the trial was a success.
// Amendment fails. //
// Move to vote. //
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Alternative Donation to Schistosomiasis Control Initiative by Jim Ormiston
This JCR notes
1) That while the relative good done by some types of charities, e.g. education, is very difficult to quantify of measure, for health charities it is possible to determine, at least to a good approximation the efficiency & benefit per donation of a given charity.
2) That research shows that the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative is one of the most efficient health charities in the world, and that Toby
Ord here at Balliol recommends the SCI as the best heath charity to give to, by this measure.
3) That research shows that the SCI’s preventative medicine for neglected tropical diseases is so cheap, that research indicates a donation of a few pounds will buy someone an extra year of life.
4) Roundworm infects over 1 billion people, whipworm infects 795 million, hookworm infects 740 million. Onchocerciasis, or river blindness, which is caused by a certain type of filarial worm, is transmitted from human to human through the bites of infected blackflies. Larvae nodules form under the skin, where they mature to adult worms. After mating, each female adult worm can release up to
1,000 offspring per day. These move through the body, and when they die they cause a variety of conditions, including blindness, lesions,
5) Prevention of NTDs is the cheapest known way to improve school attendance. It is estimated that deworming programs improve school attendance by one day for every $0.02 spent; or $3.27 for every aggregate year of additional school attendance. They thus have a claim to being the most effective educational intervention as well as a claim to being the most effective health intervention. 6) Charities which focus on such diseases are about 100 times more cost effective that typical developing-world health interventions. Giving £200 to SCI will save at least one hundred times as many years of life than giving to next most efficient type of health intervention charity.
7) Saving 10 years of somebody's life costs SCI
£2.50
8) A Balliol Blue costs £3.00
9) Between 2002-2007 SCI has delivered over 40 million treatments. It needs funding for more.
10) JCR Constitution 1.2 (iii) - ``The objectives of the
JCR shall include advancing charitable objectives supported by members''
This JCR believes
1) JCR members (as individuals) have the right to decide which criteria they choose when they decide to support a charity.
2) Cost-effectiveness should not be the sole criterion by which the JCR
(as a body) decides whether or not to pass a charity motion.
3) That we should consider each charity motion on its own merits.
This JCR resolves
1) To donate £500 to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative
2) To spend more time debating whether a given charity is the best possible cause in future GMs rather than donating simply because we have established that said charity is a good cause.
Minutes: // Jim's amendment appears not to have been discussed. I assume here that it passed, given discussion in the procedural motion that struck off Max Deacon's similar motion. //
JO: This is a good cause. There's some research I want to raise awareness of
--- a guy called Toby Ord, Junior Research Fellow here. He is looking into, specifically with health charities, the efficiency of various charities.
Because you can measure the benefits of health charities relatively well. If you delay death or save a life for an extra year, you get less if the quality of life is particularly poor. Half a year, say, if [it is one spent] in chronic pain. It's fairly arbitrary but it's certainly better than nothing.
The most efficient charity in terms of pounds per quality of life year is SCI.
It's £2.50 per year of life which is pretty amazing. Considering
--- I added the Balliol Blue thing from Max. Obviously, we can't afford to pass all the money for all the motions in this GM, so we're going to have to have cuts somewhere, but it shouldn't be here, even though I've suggested a large amount, because ultimately if we halve the amount of this, that's a reduction of £300 --- how many years of life is that actually?
I know this is clinical and I sound melodramatic, but this is the right way to look at these things. There's an amendment to strike Believes 3 as that is a bit contentious and I don't want this to end up militant. I don't agree with striking all of these things as suggested by other motions.
MS: Doesn't Dr Ord's Giving What We Can suggest three charities?
JO: Yes, but in an order, with this coming out first.
CG: I didn't realise these were the same people, I used that website for mine.
It doesn't say how far ahead SCI are?
JO: I can't tell you off the top of my head. He makes a point of saying these three charities in this order, so there is some measurable difference. One thing I would suggest --- and I'm not sure how this will be received --- but one place we could cut is from those motions because the reasoning behind those motions is efficiency, so we should put it into this more efficient motion.
SM: SCI is considerably further ahead than the other ones. I can't give a figure but it is at least three times ahead, and the others are slightly harder to measure, but the most cost-effective is definitely this one. How much good with this money --- on all accounts this one is definitely ahead.
JO: I have said in my big motion that charities involved in education and anything outside health are too hard to measure. You can't quantify the benefits of those. With health you can.
DH: The only value of health charities is in the extra year of life not the quality of life?
JO: Absolutely not. QALY accounts for quality of life. Take one hundred years of chronic pain; each year counts for less than one, that's why it's quality adjusted.
DH: Does a hospice count as low?
JO: No. That way, no treatment vs. hospice treatment would make it go from say, .2 to .8 or something. For a lot of people, that increases it a lot. The point of measuring is not comparing lives, but comparing how much we can do with the money we've got.
MH: A point of information: The third charity is GAIN which is a quarter as effective as SCI is.
MSC: What does the charity actually do?
JO: Neglected tropical diseases other than schis...
// MDc assists JO by pronouncing ``schistosomiasis'' perfectly. //
JO: They've expanded. They now do parasitic worms and other things. They're underfunded; it's more difficult to raise money for preventative medicine. If you show a picture of an emaciated person and ask for money, people give more.
That's not to say a better cause; this is just one of the reasons it is underfunded.
These diseases are neglected, and another nice benefit in there is that this charity is one of the top ways of increasing school attendance. Drugs are dolled out in schools, teachers are trained to administer them, parents feel pretty positive about sending their kids to school. Another nice byproduct of this. So it's sort of an educational charity.
CG: Point of information: Because I used the same website as this one, I'm going to withdraw two of my motions so we now should have enough to give to this one, since I did those on cost effectiveness. At the time Sean said we didn't have very many motions. They don't mean anything to me personally so
I'll withdraw them --- GAIN and Stop TB.
SPW: Procedurally dump those now as that'll affect how people vote [on this one].
CG: Procedural: Get rid of GAIN and Stop TB.
DH: I object to the way Chris said ``they don't mean anything personally to me.'' That doesn't stop it from mattering. That destroys Jim's argument.
CG: Saving lives means something to me; I have no personal attachment to them.
DH: I might vote for these as they are less contentiously worded.
CG: There are amendments to change the wording. We should not penalise the most cost effective charity due to the wording of Jim's motion. I put these in on the same thinking.
MH: There are not just three cost effective charities in the world.
// Move to vote. //
// Procedural motion passes. Motions r and s are struck off the agenda. //
JO: I wrote this motion and then found out Max Deacon had another, and he had good points, so I thought we'd add them. Can we just get this though; it's not controversial.
MS: I object. I object to the Balliol Blue thing. It's irrelevant.
CG: Point of information: I suggest we buy a Balliol Blue since now 6p from each sold goes to Sightsavers, and 12p cures someone of blindness. A pitcher saves two people from blindness while you make yourself blind.
AT: Any debate rather than just shameless publicity?
SB: If this passes, we don't add it to the screen until other amendments go through?
IJ: I won't let it get confusing.
RGJ: This is not contentious.
// Move to vote. //
// The amendment passes. //
// MS withdraws his amendment. //
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Strikes Believes 1-4
- Adds Notes 8: JCR Constitution 1.2 (iii) - ``The objectives of the
JCR shall include advancing charitable objectives supported by members''
- Inserts Believes 1: JCR members (as individuals) have the right to decide which criteria they choose when they decide to support a charity.
- Inserts Believes 2: Cost-effectiveness should not be the sole criterion by which the JCR (as a body) decides whether or not to pass a charity motion.
- Inserts Believes 3: That we should consider each charity motion on its own merits. //
SS: This is to do with the stuff in Believes. I want to get rid of it all.
Believes 1 says it's rational and right to give all out money to the most efficient cause --- this is contentious, and not something we want to believe;
I could get into the moral philosophy argument but I don't want to so hopefully people will just agree with me.
I would have left 2 in but we shouldn't be telling future GMs what they should discuss. This is not the only health charity we should donate to in this GM.
I did understand Believes 4 when I read it and didn't agree with it either. I want to put in that JCR members have the right to decide their criteria when deciding to support a charity. If Jim prefers Toby Ord, if I think ``because my dad works for it,'' the JCR has the right to decide on a case by case basis how they donate to each charity, so we should consider each charity motion on its own merits --- [there is] locality and [there are] other things to take into account.
// RGJ read a statement from MDc (who had left the meeting by this point), that started with the words `[i]n principle ...', but regrettably the slip of paper containing the statement has been lost. //
JO: I object to this amendment. I was deliberately controversial to get people to think about this. This is an interesting thing to be considered --- consider Toby Ord's research. I want to strike 1 and 3 as they are contentious. I think that part 2 that says Resolves, that doesn't evaluate whether something is a good cause, not monetarily or QALY[-based] --- it's very general.
It follows almost definitionally that you should donate to a better cause.
That's another reason why I brought this motion. In ordinary GMs if someone brings a charity motion it always passes. That's not quite right. The money in the charities account will go to charity sooner or later. At the moment people don't want to vote against a charity --- [but if you do] you're just saying [that] there's a better cause out there. It's not a good thing to indiscriminately pass money to any charity motion. We should keep 2 in for that reason. 4 just says stuff that is uncontentious.
MS: Have you been int he same GM I have? The last three hours have shown that we don't blindly vote stuff through, we do [discuss things throughly], that's why it's gone on for so long.
AC: The amendments by Simon are different on the page than onthe screen.
Inserts Believes 1-3...
SS: I'm going by the agenda.
AT: We'll get that clarified.
JO: You're right --- in this GM we have spent a lot of time arguing about the best causes. That's not the case in any of the other GMs I've been at.
Generally, outside of the context of competing with other charities, we don't tend to be considerate enough. If we'd done that more we might have more money to donate now to what are arguably better causes. If you agree with me then you think we should consider [properly], then [you have] no objection to having
2 in.
MS: It implies that the GM hasn't been responsible in the past.
SS: I object to ``even better cause'' thing. We don't have criteria for judging what's an even better cause; can't put in motions here. The constitution, I've noted, says ``[t]he objectives of the JCR shall include advancing charitable objectives supported by member.'' The way we should be judging should be whether our members support it. We could have a nebulous discussion if there is a better charity out there, but if that charity is not supported by our members it doesn't really matter. They should bring the charity motions in just like Jim has done. ``I like this you should support it too'' --- we shouldn't wrangle over what are better causes; [we should] decide between what people bring to us.
// Move to vote. //
SS: In summary: I believe everything in Believes in my amendment; I don't believe the stuff in Jim's motion. I urge you to do that as well.
JO: I am striking 1 and 3 with my amendment and I'd even be willing to strike 4 but otherwise it is uncontentious. It's very very vague. [Just] some stuff.
// Amendment passes. //
GL: I'd like to remove my amendment because we can now give £600 to this. People will give whatever they want. I'll be happy, we're still saving lives. I'll let Dave take the stingy bastard slack a bit.
AC: Have any of your previous amendments cut the amount passed?
GL: Is that a joke?
AC: If they have passed I would contend this because we've agreed we can't judge. If any of Greig's amendments passed, we should cut it.
GL: We take my amendment. We can vote it down or vote Dave's up, and decide how much we want to give.
AT: You're retracting your retraction of your amendment?
// The amendment from GL is considered:
- Replaces `£600' with `£300'. //
GL: You might not want to give £600, you may want to give
£150, you may want £300 --- people will hve made up their minds on how much you want to give --- [we have] three different options.
AT: Questions for Greig? None.
JO: Opposition: We can afford £600 now, since [some] other motions have been removed. It's a good thing to go for £600 given how many extra years of human life we can save.
MS: They do now balance so I support this --- it's an excellent charity; we can do so much good with this money.
DT: I support GL's amendment strongly. The idea of giving £600 to any one initiative is a dangerous precedent --- at JCR funding events, [people who give are] aware [that their money is] going to a huge range of things.
We'd raise £1500-2000 per term and give to three or four charities, to QALY system charities. [But there are a] whole host of things we support like the homeless in Oxford. Cancer Research has nothing like the immediate benefit but it is potentially enormous in the long term. [SCI] is demonstrable to be good in this instance but it ignores the spectrum.
SM: One of the benefits that Jim touched on is school attendance as well --- it's not just [about] giving out medicine --- curing people of stuff, they can then go to school. When parents are ill, children don't have to stay home and look after them. It's an efficient education charity too as well as health.
JKI: This is a fantastic cause on the benefit of QALY. I personally like it because it's a fantastic cause. These diseases are underfunded because poor people suffer from them. Research money is not cost effective for drugs companies. There's not a lot of money in it for these kind of drugs. [Money is more required here.] Give the full £600.
// Move to vote. //
AC: I object to the move to vote: I have something to say that needs to be made.
MS: We've had discussion from Dave about precedent, we've had Joe, we've had enough to make our decisions.
// Move to vote fails. //
AC: I agree with David. No-one disagrees that this is a good cause. It seems to me that the basis for giving £600 is that we have the idea that it is // the // most cost effective health charity and [it will] save the most lives. We shouldn't give £600 now because we can afford it --- for instance, I'm not sure how much is left in budget, but the amount to cancer is not enough, and we'll not empty the budget using this. It's not an amount due to what is left. We're not in a situation where we have money left. It's
[just an] excuse to use up the money in the budget.
Steve Dempsey (SD): It's a lot of money compared to recent amounts we've
been giving. There's an un-nerving parallel on the amount of money and
cost effectiveness. We should be considering the substantive point of
charity, not how much we get for our money.
SM: It's not the only thing we should consider. But this is // so so // effective. Every £2.50 we slash from this, we lose 1 year of someone's life.
JO: 120 years [in total].
DT: A similar objection: the principle you can come to a GM with an enormous amount of money and expect it to be knocked down --- I disagree with the principle you can ask for an enormous sum of money, and then expect that it should be knocked down, when someone else would get knocked down from
// that // figure. This is too much to give outside of emergency charities.
MS: Other Toby motions were knocked down. If Jim hadn't brought this motion, and we'd passed all the others, it would be £600. Because the website says that SCI is even better than the others, we've chosen to drop those to.
// Move to vote. //
CG: There are still people queueing to speak.
GL: We had a move to vote earlier. Alex [then] repeated what David said.
Sally said something [that was] discussed before. People are on one side or another. There are two options here so make a decision.
// Move to vote passes. //
SS: A point of information: we've just discussed cost-effectiveness, we should now be thinking about in terms of member support due to my amendment.
It won't be recorded that the charity is getting money for being the most cost-effective.
GL: For Simon, Sally and Dave, but not Jim's reasons.
JO: I forgot to mention it works out as 2p to keep a kid in school per day.
£3.27 for someone for a year. This isn't the sole criterion in judging charities, [but this one is] unbelievably effective --- we have several years of life in each of our wallets. Pass this. So much good.
// Amendment fails. //
// The amendment from SS is considered:
- Change the donation amount to `£500'. //
SS: That was very close. One of the arguments [against] that is setting a dangerous precedent for big donations. We've seen £500 before. If we pass the motion in the form that I've put it in we'll be saying we're supporting it on a case by case basis, on the basis of [a] good way to spend charities money. It was that close on £600, [so] we should work down and give as much as everyone feels comfortable with.
AC: If we donated £500 to this, would we lose money [for other motions]?
GL: We've got enough.
SGA: All this is based on Toby Ord. Has anyone else said that ``we agree with them''?
JO: It is various people. There are several people, there is other stuff.
It's not just him. There is a degree of disagreement but everyone thinks this one is great.
SS: I'm not worried about most --- [just that it is] very good. It helps people who are ill and helps get them into schools.
SB: If we passed £500, is there any left to amend [other motions] up?
GL: If £61 and £200 from Chris passes, we have about
£100 left, if we pass £500 here.
MS: This is an excellent amendment. We should give as much as we can to this.
[Another] reason that we use to work out if something is good is if it has
Balliol involvement. Various members are involved in Giving What We Can, not just Dr Ord. Lots of JCR members are involved in this, to say nothing of the
Balliol post-doctoral fellow. It's hugely cost effective. [It has] Balliol involvement. With these two together we should definitely give as much as we can.
// Move to vote. //
SS: We haven't heard any opposition.
GL: I register five voices.
SS: See what I've said before. [There's been] no opposition.
WJ: We want to keep a buffer. If we increase this by £200 we can't increase the cancer donation at all.
// Amendment passes. //
// Move to vote. //
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Campaign for Libel Reform by Michael Slater
This JCR notes
1) That British libel law has an international reputation for being particularly restrictive.
2) That the popular science author Simon Singh is being sued for writing that there is no evidence that some chiropractic treatments have any effect.
3) That Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, has sued for damages against an American author for a book never printed in this country on the grounds that 23 copies were sold here.
4) That doctors have been sued for libel for disagreeing with large corporations over the safety/effectiveness of their products.
5) That libel actions are more expensive to defend in Britain than elsewhere, meaning that many people cannot afford to defend suits even if they are likely to be successful.
6) A new campaign (www.libelreform.org) has been set up to attempt to reform Britain’s libel laws.
7) Libel Reform is trying to raise money to raise awareness of its campaign and especially its online petition.
This JCR believes that
1) It is wrong that wealthy individuals and corporations can choose to bring libel actions in the jurisdiction which is least favourable to the defendant.
2) Britain’s libel laws restrict free speech to the detriment of society.
This JCR resolves to 1) Place Believes 1) and 2) in Standing Policy
2) Pass £150 from the Political Campaigning Account to the Campaign for Libel Reform campaign fund.
Minutes: MS: This is an appropriate motion following that video. There's been many stories in the news recently --- libel laws that relate to suing someone for making statements about you; there's been some truly ridiculous cases lately.
Simon Singh was sued by chiropractors for claiming that adjusting babies spines does not help against coughs. They had no evidence --- right, but they threw a hissy fit. [These are] very expensive cases to defend, compared to other cases. They want to silence him quickly and easily.
Another case --- a doctor suggested at a medical conference that [a drug company's] method wasn't the most effective; they sued him for libel over good scientific practice. It's so biased [in favour of] those bringing the case. A
Saudi author --- only 23 copies of his book were sold in the UK through
Amazon.com, and based on that the author was sued in Britain (thousands of copies were sold in the US) because we have loose laws compared to the US's first amendment.
This group are against this. They have an online petition; whether or not this passes we should all go and sign the petition. They're also looking for money to increase awareness of the petition and the problem. They want the law changed, not just [an] interpretation --- a clear and transparent change in the law. Their particular demands: the claimant needs to demonstrate falsity and damage. Damages should be capped at £10k. They want to abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule. I am not a lawyer but the Internet says --- this is an ancient precedent --- the Duke of Brunswick wanted to bring a case for libel, from a publication printed seventeen years earlier. He sent his manservant to the office of the publication, who gave him a new copy, and that counted as a new publication, so he could then sue them.
This is bad for the Internet. Something I write today --- I can be sued in fifty years time. The Internet counts as a new publication. It was ridiculous back then, it's really ridiculous [now]. They want to try to stop libel tourists. At least 10\% of copies of the relevant publication need to have been sold in Great Britain before [they] can sue. [They want to lower costs.]
These cases should be dealt with in easier courts --- [where it's] easier to prosecute and defend. Small claims courts don't have significant barriers ---
[you don't] need a QC to represent you. It strengthens both weaker individuals, and protects people against them.
They want a stronger public interest defence. No problem if [the] suit [is] in
[the public interest]. They want to expand no comment. They want to cap costs. [Libel is] good news for lawyers, but it's less good for people defending. They can afford it, the other guy can't, and they use that to end discussion. Last thing is a special thing against religious falsehood. The principles in general are very good even if I don't agree with all of it, so it should be supported. £150 from the campaigning fund is an appropriate way of supporting it.
AT: Short factual questions?
RGJ: Point of information: the select committee for culture, media and sports, something like that, the select committee on Wednesday last week published a report that agrees with everything [the campaign says]. Our laws are atrocious and open to abuse. Lawyers were singled out as abusing procedures for getting money. The government has a report that says, yes the laws are awful and we should do something about it, and most of the things Michael just said. So we don't need to pass money to it.
MS: In response: yes, the select committee has done that. But they can say whatever they want and it means nothing. Our political system --- the committee doesn't mean that the government has to do something about it. For a start there is no time in this parliament; we'll have an election in a month or two. It's gonna have to happen in the next parliament. That doesn't mean the bill will be brought or get government support which is basically essential.
The problem is not anywhere near over.
IL: Can the JCR President say anything about libel within college, that has been suppressed?
AT: Can't think of anymore aside from Ian Bergson.
Will Jackson (WJ): What does our money do?
MS: They have launched a campaign to do this. This is political campaigning
--- it'll not change the money available for charities motions. The plan is to take up adverts; raise awareness in the wider population. They can decide themselves. It'll put pressure on the government.
SB: This will empty the campaigning fund. All of remaining money is earmarked for the Living Wage campaign.
GL: That's not true. That's been taken out.
SB: Okay, cool.
Sally Murray (SM): How much [will be] left?
GL: Any cheques get accounted out. There's £565.28 in there. Matt
Parsfield needs to take £200 out of that. That might not be possible, so at [the] least we have £365.28.
AT: [Into] debate.
GL: This is an incredibly worthy cause. I know the select committee said it but it took eleven years for the human rights ombudsman to be created after a select committee recommendation. It's fourteen times more expensive to bring a libel case here than anywhere else in Europe. The wealthy and powerful are abusing the law.
// The motion automatically passes with no objections. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Oxford Homeless Pathways by Michael Slater
This JCR notes
1) The problem of homelessness in Oxford.
2) The good work done by Oxford Homeless Pathways (formerly the Night Shelter) which provides emergency accommodation, longer term accommodation, healthcare and training among other services.
This JCR Resolves
1) To pass £250 from the Charities Account to Oxford Homeless Pathways.
Minutes: MS: Basically, homelessness is a problem [in Oxford]. The JCR certainly recognises that. When we voted against Dawn's [Big Issue] motion at the start of term, we implied we wanted to give money to the homeless in Oxford. It used to be known as Nightshelter, but they changed the name as that didn't reflect all the other stuff they do. They also provide more structured accommodation, I.T. and first aid training. And health care, which it not very well offered [for homeless people]. Doctors won't take people without addresses. It's very valuable at all levels. A warm bed for the night, and in the longer term to help people get their lives back on track.
// There is no opposition and so the motion automatically passes. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Schistomiasis Control Initiative by Max Deacon
This JCR notes:
1) Schistomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), who are attempting to eradicate a variety of neglected tropical diseases.
2) Roundworm infects over 1 billion people, whipworm infects 795 million, hookworm infects 740 million. Onchocerciasis, or river blindness, which is caused by a certain type of filarial worm, is transmitted from human to human through the bites of infected blackflies. Larvae nodules form under the skin, where they mature to adult worms. After mating, each female adult worm can release up to 1,000 offspring per day. These move through the body, and when they die they cause a variety of conditions, including blindness, lesions, and intense itching.
3) Prevention of NTDs is the cheapest known way to improve school attendance.
It is estimated that deworming programs improve school attendance by one day for every $0.02 spent; or $3.27 for every aggregate year of additional school attendance. They thus have a claim to being the most effective educational intervention as well as a claim to being the most effective health intervention.
4) Charities which focus on such diseases are about 100 times more cost effective that typical developing-world health interventions. Giving £200 to
SCI will save at least one hundred times as many years of life than giving to next most efficient type of health intervention charity.
5) Saving 10 years of somebody's life costs SCI £2.50
6) A Balliol Blue costs £3.00
7) Between 2002-2007 SCI has delivered over 40 million treatments. It needs funding for more.
This JCR believes:
1) It makes sense to donate to the most cost-effective charity.
This JCR resolves:
1) To donate £200 from the Charities fund to SCI.
Minutes: // Motion struck off agenda by procedural motion (b). //
Result: See minutes
Motion: Expanding Affiliations Officer Role in relation to the MCR by Ash Thomas
This JCR notes:
1. Members of the Balliol MCR make up approximately half of the Balliol student community
2. MCR-JCR relations tend to be occasional, subdued and are often non-existent.
3. Balliol MCR has a committee position of ‘OUSU/JCR Representative’ and, at present, there is no counterpart in the JCR.
This JCR believes:
1. A good relationship between Balliol’s undergraduate and postgraduate communities is essential for a harmonious and happy college.
2. By expanding the role of Affiliations Officer to cover liaising with the MCR, constructive contact with the MCR can be increased and a positive
JCR-MCR relationship can be developed.
This JCR resolves:
1. To amend Section 4.20 of the JCR Constitution, changing “The
Affiliations Officer shall be responsible to the Committee for the representation of the JCR to OUSU, the NUS and the management of OUSU–JCR and
NUS-JCR relations, and shall inform JCR members of the agenda for OUSU
Council.” to read
"The Affiliations Officer shall be responsible to the Committee for the representation of the JCR to OUSU, the NUS, the MCR and the management of OUSU–JCR, NUS-JCR and MCR-JCR relations, and shall inform JCR members of the agenda for OUSU Council.”
Minutes: // Motions (a) and (d) pass automatically with no opposition. //
Result: Passed
Motion: Support of independent student representation and ... by Ali Travis
Full motion title: Support of independent student representation and Queen's JCR
President
This JCR notes
1) The recent events at Queen’s College (see Appendix 2).
This JCR believes
1) Members of the JCR should be able to choose their representatives freely and fairly.
2) The events at Queen’s College are highly worrying, and set a dangerous precedent.
This JCR resolves
1) To mandate the President and Affiliations Officers to vote at OUSU
Council in favour of independent student representation in general, and in support of the Queen’s JCR President in particular.
2) Balliol JCR does not condone attempts to forcibly remove (for example, by threat of rustication/expulsion) a member of the JCR from their position on the JCR Committee, except in exceptional circumstances.
3) To insert Resolves 2) into standing policy.
4) Attempt to ensure any OUSU motion reflects Resolves 2 as far as is possible.
Minutes: // SS takes the chair. //
AT: This is a motion in support of something that will come to OUSU council in support of the Queen's' JCR President. He was forced to retired for a second time for failing to get a 2:2 grade. It's seen as a move against the CCAF.
The provost acted unconstitutionally. This supports an OUSU motion helping the
President of Queen's.
MS: You mentioned some appeals thing. Could you go into more detail about what they concluded and what force their judgements have?
AT: [The CCAF is] the final call for all appeals; it's beyond tutorial board.
It was agreed that threatening to expel him before he'd sat any kind of special collection was totally incorrect. When Nathan Roberts personally appealed, they pointed out that it was not a block for running for President again. Now the Provost of Queen's has gone to the governing body and been rather sneaky.
I've tried to sum up as best I can in Appendix 2.
MD: How badly is he doing in his work?
AT: He got a 2:2 in prelims which initiated all of this. I'm not sure how his work has improved in the mean time. He's not on anything special like academic probation.
MD: If he was doing lots of sport that affected his grades, they would ask him to resign from that.
AT: Yes, [he'd be] asked. This is a demand.
MD: This happens in sport too.
AT: Yes, which is what this objects too. Unless there are academic reasons, such as failing so many special collections --- that's the correct reason for being sent down.
SGA: Are people at queens who get a 2:2 regularly sent down?
AT: All I can tell you is that at Balliol that is definitely not the case.
Simon Wood (SMW): What subject does he take?
AT: PPE.
SB: The way Queen's has done it has been kinda dickish but one of the teams I cover, their striker has had to quit as College don't want him playing football and failing his degree. It's not his fault he is doing badly. But college didn't bring him here to play football. That holds true outside of sport.
[Nathan] was already being told ``you need to buck your ideas up'' before he ran. Then afterwards, they said ``we're still upset about this.''
AT: There's more that Queen's have done wrong in this case. This all happened last year. Then he reapplied [for President]. His tutors recommended that he didn't but didn't place any requirements on him. They didn't suggest there would be any consequences, and it was the same when he asked the provost. Then all this all of a sudden. He's under a lot of stress over bad communication.
CG: There are two issues here: the issue of whether the college or university have any rights to interfere with student representation, and also whether colleges should consider non-academic performance when considering sending people down. I can't believe they'd send someone down for getting a 2:2 normally --- it's because he's the President. That shouldn't be the case. It should be [one's] academic record. Neither the college or the university should have force on student representation because that is why we have it.
Tom Rowley (TR): I support this motion on the general principle of the
SCR going against the JCR's democratic mandate, which has been expressed
twice by the JCR. But there's been an incorrect representation given of
the appeal board's decision. They made five points: I agree with your
telling of the first four of the five: there were about the procedure of
Queen's. Crucially they did agree with Queen's on the fifth point --- that
the SCR had the right to stop him from being JCR president, which of course
I disagree with. It's incorrect to say the tribunal didn't say that.
MP: People have asked how badly he's doing. Stephen and Marine made points on other activities. This is not relevant. We're not a disciplinary committee.
We're asking if the student union should support him against disciplinary measures, which the union should do anyway. And we are saying that the union agrees with college not interfering with the JCR, which I agree with. It's not our concern how bad this student is.
MS: Opposition: If someone is on course to get a 2:2 before their extra commitment, college can legitimately act against him getting worse if he takes on that commitment. We should support him as a student. When it comes down to him vs. a college, we should support him as a student, but not support him as a
JCR President. It's not OUSU's concern about procedure. The procedure is correct, they did act wrongly, but if it was a random Queen's guy, if we'd never heard of him, with no JCR position, we wouldn't be discussing this motion about committing OUSU's support to them because procedures were not properly covered. We're only discussing this because he has an elected role.
College shouldn't be able to intentionally target anyone. But we shouldn't get worked up about procedure. Queen's are quite entitled to elect someone who holds the same attitudes to represent the JCR to college. The point I'm trying to make is: we shouldn't allow holding a position in JCR to be a get out of jail free card; this is getting close to that. We're privileging him for having a senior committee position. He was recommended not to do it. They wouldn't kick him out [for getting a 2:2] but they might very well take out other commitments.
// SS reads out the amendment from DT:
- Adds to Resolves 2: ``... except in exceptional circumstances.'' //
DT: We don't want to get into a position where we will defend any committee member's position in any circumstance.
MS: This is a question for committee: does this motion relate to the wording of the OUSU motion? Can we make this sort of alteration and not mess up OUSU motion?
AT: The OUSU motion has not been drafted yet; this is all rather recent.
CG: Can you name one exceptional circumstance when you wouldn't support them?
DT: Someone is dreadful at their degree, they too much time on JCR stuff --- we shouldn't be backing them.
MP: A better example than David's --- if for example John de Balliol printed something really nasty, racist and defamatory, college would be within their rights to take disciplinary action. This caveat is probably reasonable.
Jonathan Jones (JJ): In those cases, // we // would stop JdeB, and this
motion is about college attempts.
DH: Dave's amendment has raised [the issue of] Resolves 2 being very close to
`get out of jail free'. It's rather close to ``if you're on committee you're safe.''
AC: This amendment means that, for instance, in this case we could not support them entirely but in the same way for instance, Dr WHO for example, if they published people's confidential problems in a student magazine, there is no way the JCR would try and support them then. So we don't want to be mandated to do this. Without the amendment we'd have to.
CG: For both of these examples, the JCR would also want to remove them. If we no-con them for example, that's not forcibly removing. The assumption here is that [the] JCR supports [the] individual. [But] if John de Bulletin did something terrible and the JCR supports them, I think they should stay.
Aime Williams (AW): We're going off-topic here. It strikes me that at
the heart of this debate [we're asking], can college say to someone
``you're failing so you have to stop your extracurricular activities''? It's more about that than about someone doing something terrible.
// Move to vote. //
DT: Summary: We should avoid giving a free ride out to committee members. It makes them immune to things that apply to everyone else.
CG: There are no such circumstances. It's not about college going against a committee member, it's about them going against the JCR. There are no circumstances where College [should be] able to say that the JCR can't have elected representatives.
// Amendment passes. //
// SS reads the amendment from MS:
- Adds Resolves 4: Attempt to ensure any OUSU motion reflects Resolves
2 as far as is possible. //
MS: This is quite simple. We probably don't need to spend too much time on this. This mandates [our] representatives to vote for the motion, and to propose language that fits, at any opportunity.
DH: What does this do to our mandate if we can't get our amendment to pass?
Do we vote for it as a whole?
MS: It doesn't change that. If my amendment passes and the motion passes, the JCR has expressed a belief. ``As far as is possible'' suggests this shouldn't be an absolute requirement.
// Move to vote. //
// The amendment automatically passes with no opposition. //
SB: I'd like to propose a procedural motion to split voting on this motion into two halves. I agree with the idea that we shouldn't allow SCRs to affect student representation. If we add that to standing policy we're still voting for that. But we don't have enough information to support this individual person. In the two times this has come up in the [OxStu] office when I've been there, the college's story has changed and [Nathan's] story has changed. I don't feel comfortable voting in support of this guy when we don't have all the facts. But I don't want to vote against idea about college removing JCR committee members at will.
AT: SFQs on the procedural? This will get it done quicker than an amendment.
SB: It's quicker this way.
Mike Howarth (MH): ``Without knowing all the facts'' --- how can you
talk in those terms at all?!
SB: The sports is always good; as Tom about news.
SS: Don't ask him, please. We'll vote on this.
// Procedural motion passes. //
SB: Resolves 2 does student representation anyway. Vote on Resolves 1 fist.
This splits the general point in 2 from the specific in 1.
DH: This doesn't work. If we split 1 and 2, it doesn't talk about which JCR so it mandates us to support him anyway.
SB: No. One says the JCR [should not be] interfered with, the other is about that JCR President.
DH: But 2 mandates us to support...
SS: If we do Resolves 1, we are saying the Queen's President is not an exceptional circumstance.
SB: Yes. Let affiliations officers use their discretion.
Ronan McDonald (RM): 1 is active, 2 is ``does not condone.''
RGJ: I'm not sure how right Stephen is about not knowing all the facts. If the
Appendix facts that have been added are correct, we should look at Believes 2: this issue as a dangerous precedent. Queen's being able to do this with no concerns [raised] about it suggests other college can do the same. It's an exceptional way to behave. We should pay more attention to that, if the information is accurate.
CG: I support Resolves 1, for a slightly different reason --- whether or not the regulations say [Queen's SCR] can do [what they did], the regulations may well be wrong.
ITEM:[Hannah O'Rourke (HO):] A response to Michael earlier: you said ``if
they're not on a JCR committee then OUSU wouldn't care'' --- if you brought
a motion to OUSU Council, OUSU would support it whatever they're doing.
The fact that OUSU wouldn't care is simply not true.
MS: But Balliol JCR wouldn't.
// Move to vote. //
MD: Opposition: there are still hands in the air, so we shouldn't vote. We've heard no opposition to Resolves 1.
DT: It'll almost certainly be a repetition of what's been said.
// Move to vote passes. //
MS: I oppose this motion because we don't know all the facts. A motion can be brought to OUSU for any student, but we wouldn't bring this to Balliol JCR.
It'd be left up to the Affiliations Officer and President. I'm not saying we should vote against this --- it should be up to their discretion. We've heard a very skewed account from the OxStu and the Cherwell. OUSU represents all equally, but Balliol JCR wouldn't commit.
MP: We're not only getting this from the OxStu and the Cherwell. Queen's JCR support him to the extent that they voted in a teddy bear. We should vote in solidarity with them as members of the same students' union.
// Resolves 1 passes. //
CG: I think we should vote against [Resolves 2, 3 and 4] because I think it's too weak and it says there are circumstances when JCR decisions don't matter, and that is not the case. This is about student representation, not who college want to head the student body.
MH: Yeah. The ``get out of jail free'' point is ridiculous. If college went through the correct procedure with tutorial board --- someone would be completely within their rights to stay in their position if they so chose.
MD: College are not an evil-minded institution that wish to remove JCR
Presidents who disagree with them. If someone is not doing their work they are wasting themselves. College are able to make decisions on all other stuff, so they have the right to ask someone to improve.
SGA: Based on past examples. If a student really bombing in their degress, and college goes through correct procedure, they can go to JCR President to advocate on their behalf, may go to other welfare people. This is putting in stanidn gpolicy what we already do for non-comm.
AC: With the amendment to accept in exceptional circumstances we're not making a hardline statement.
MS: There are cases where we would not want to support an individual. Cases of gross misconduct. This would not be about failing their degree, but gross misconduct in office. If a lower level position, such as Lord Lindsay or the
Foodies, if they were in trouble and failing they should get support [with this motion]. To take it to the most ridiculous level, if Comrade Tortoise...
SS: Not on Committee.
MS: Okay fine, D&M is committee isn't he? Let's take a hypothetical D&M. If
D&M is in danger of doing badly in his degree, the fact he is D&M shouldn't be defence.
RGJ: For some people, university is not just about getting a first. It's not purely academic. Some people may disagree with me here. There are some people who come here for the life experience. Social interaction, networking opportunities --- real experience of life on committee.
MD: So no-one should ever be rusticated?
RGJ: [College should] respect people's choice to place a level of involvement on things outside of [their] academic work.
SB: In exceptional circumstances we would get rid of them ourselves. A better situation is that we don't have to vote on college's right in every
[individual's] circumstance. I don't want to vote against Hannah since she is my friend. In terms of the health of us as a community that doesn't swear at each other in streets, we don't want to put committee people on trial.
DH: We're protecting any member of the JCR from college? No. We're just protecting them from being removed from committee positions. College is not allowed to get involved in Committee.
// SS reads the amendment from JJ:
- Changes Resolves 2: Balliol JCR opposes attempts to punish (e.g. by rustication or expulsion) a member of the JCR Committee differently than those in similar circumstances who are not members of the
Committee. //
JJ: This more accurately represents what we're trying to say. It's not a ``get out of jail free card'' for Committee. We don't mind them being rusticated if they would have been anyway.
Felix Faber (FF): Is there any way of telling what [College] would have
done if [the student was] not on Committee?
JJ: It'd be obvious --- take the 2:2 example.
MD: What if someone working really hard who is taking all their time [just] to get a 2:2, compared with someone working limited time and getting a 2:2 due to other activities?
// Move to vote. //
// Amendment passes. //
// Move to vote. //
// Resolves 2, 3 and 4 automatically pass with no opposition. //
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-04-25
Ali Travis (AT): Sean, you ready? Okay guys we have quorum so let’s get started. Any objections to the minutes? Okay, the minutes are signed off. Let’s have the missing Officers’ reports.
Chris Gross (CG): We made about £800 last term.
Ian Jones (IJ): We submitted a report to Sean.
IJ reads out the submitted report. The Secretary recognised it and apologised for not including it.
Motion (f ) automatically passes with no objections.
—
Simon Stewart (SS) takes the chair.
AT: I have a procedural motion to table the Sun motion. Before this GM a few people asked me to table this motion to the next GM because they [felt they] hadn’t had sufficient time to make an informed decision about it. Lots of people who would like to vote on it hadn’t had enough notice.
So I think we should table it.
SS: Into debate.
The procedural motion passes with no objections.
AT retakes the chair.
—
SS: I propose a procedural motion to table Reach Oxford. There are not enough people to decide something so expensive and it was a late motion.
CG: When is the next GM?
19
AT: 4th week.
CG: When do they need to know?
AT: PoI: they could wait if necessary. It won’t interfere with it.
CG: Will there be levies, will we exchange the constitution?
AT: No.
The procedural motion automatically passes with no objections. —
Motion: Balliol Ball Cancellation by Simon Stewart
This JCR notes:
1) The attached report from the Ball Committee.
2) The recommendation to hold a small summer garden party event next year.
3) That some of the cost of contract cancellation may fall on the JCR.
This JCR believes:
1) That it would be very difficult to run a successful ball next year.
2) That not holding a summer event would be a Bad Thing.
3) That a 'Summer Event' Committee should be elected instead of a Ball Committee this year.
4) That the fairest way to spread the cost of contract cancellation fees is to create a debit account, which an amount of money (to be determined once the final cost falling on the JCR has been established) must be paid by each Summer Event committee until the debt to College has been repaid.
This JCR resolves:
1) To Amend Standing Order 4.6-4.6.13 to reflect the change from "Ball" to "Summer Event"
2) To mandate future Summer Event Committees to consider the recommendations of the report.
3) To mandate the President to aim to reduce the impact of cancellation fees to the JCR.
Minutes: AT: Okay guys! Quiet please! We now consider the motion about the Balliol Ball.
Sunil Suri (SunS) There is a pack circulating around the room. We’ve got to consider what we’re going to do. Potentially there are three contracts, a level of debt — we’d incur a lot of debt. This is essentially a motion to work out what to do about it. To give a brief background if you don’t have a pack, the biggest one was DJ Loda — the cancellation fee was half of the contract price, which we paid in advance — that’s £2500 + VAT. We tried to get him to go to St Hugh’s, [and failed,] so there’s no way of getting that money back.
The other two bits are food and production ([the latter being] marquees and lighting). Fortunately, this GM will decide stuff. The food company reduced £1500 to £200–400. The production company are waiting to hear what we say at this GM. The motion came in late, we do apologise. Our decision, effectively — we’re advocating not having a ball in its current form. Go for a summer event-style, like the MCR thing. This year we only [planned for] about 650 people and we struggled to get anywhere near that; we were on 380.
What happened, effectively — demand — people out of college didn’t buy tickets. There is scope for some sort of event, to show Balliol off a little. The summer event is not aimed primarily outside of college. Numbers are in the region of 300–400 based on what Committee decides.
As for actual financial implications — we had a £5k loan from college, and we used that on DJ
Loda. They’re helping us pay the debt off now and we’re deciding what to do with it in the end.
Future Summer Event Committees will have to pay off that money slowly over the next few years with a special account for this purpose — that’s one way of doing it.
13
DT: This seems a disingenuous stating of the figures. Is it £2500 + VAT or what?
SunS gives the precise figure.
AW: Was it not a bit of a mistake to agree to a contract that required you to agree to that [cancellation fee] or is that normal?
Dougie Pontin (DP): It was quite early in the planning that we did the DJ. With that publicity we
[thought we’d sell] up so easily. [We planned] publicity of a better standard this year, we didn’t think it’d be a problem, we never thought this would happen. It is to some extent the norm that that is the kind of contract. We wanted someone who lots of people like, we wanted someone who was a poster to encourage people to go.
SunS: Our thinking is what mistakes we made, detailed here. . .
AW: No no no, I’ve read that — it seems quite crippling that we now have to pay all the money back. DH: Forgive me for not reading the report entirely, I read it quickly, I didn’t see anything where you commented on the publicity you did this year? I noted tonnes for LMH and Exeter and all the others, and none for Balliol, out in town. Was this the problem? Are you going to recommend
[about] that in the future?
DP: I’m disappointed you didn’t see that: we put posters up in libraries and other colleges. We’ll highly recommend it to future balls. You’ll have to really step up publicity outside of college. As soon as you broach the subject of Balliol ball in bars, they’re immediately not interested, just due to the stupid Cherwell article that spiralled out of control. They’ve heard of it and they don’t know anything about it. Whatever publicity we could have done couldn’t have overridden that.
JD: Before we had a ball we used to have summer events. From what I know they always lost a lot of money, which is why we moved to having balls. The last one we had was pretty catastrophic. Do you know this, and what are you going to do differently?
SunS: I don’t know the minute detail of what went wrong with previous summer events, but the main thing is that we locked a lot of our finances up in contracts, like DJ Loda — if anyone does choose to run, they can talk to us and we’ll tell them what to not do. We’ll be here to help. It failed, we’ve learnt from it, and we can offer advice.
DP: If you’re having a summer event, you’re locked into a certain amount of money being spent and a number of tickets being sold. On production and marquees, spending is about £11k immediately.
You need to sell about 650 tickets to make that work. I spoke to someone once who was summer event president ten years ago; his was the first not to lose money. In the future, I say we have it outside the site; we have space but we can’t do anything new as everything is locked into place.
Ask College this, especially concerning the upcoming commemoration ball.
SunS: Also, Jack, on the Summer Event, “will it be catastrophic failure” — whoever gets elected: go to the MCR event, see how it works. Doug wants to do it, they get subsidised a little, we can mirror the model there. Maybe the JCR is crap at it and the MCR has got it down to a tee, so learn from them.
CG: PoI: Last night the MCR guy [running the] garden party asked us for speakers. We can negotiate the use of each other’s stuff.
SunS: When we’re getting rid of contracts, [it’s good] having the MCR as a safety valve, taking off things we’re not gonna use. Greater co-operation will help in any event.
SD: At what point did you find about other balls on the same night in our programme?
DP: The leading question from this is: why didn’t we choose a different night? You find out kinda early. Ours is always second week Saturday, we found out mostly at the end of Michaelmas when we decided the debate. It’s not too late in the term for finalists, we have two weeks to prepare, and the end of term is always occupied by commemoration balls. If we’d changed the date we wouldn’t have picked any more ticket sales — if you went to a ball in 1st week you wouldn’t go to one in
2nd .
14
PA: Some contracts have [only] asked for £100-200? How come? Can we get them to go further?
SunS: One is going down to £400 because he says that “Balliol has helped my company in the past when it was getting established.” He offered to do it; I didn’t give him the sob story. There’s no point bartering further. When I was speaking to him he said “if you can get a summer event we’d love to still work with you guys.” The food and production companies were the two things that we have to have at any kind of event; they are the mainstays of support.
DP: They gave us lots of help.
SunS: The production company made, for free, record special decks for DJ Loda which he said he needed. They’ve been too nice already, so let’s not push further.
MS: Production does what?
SunS: Nitty gritty ball stuff — electricity, structures — boring stuff.
DP: Most of the money goes on the marquee. When they separated it last time they spent a lot.
SunS: Every ball will have these costs. They are so nice. When Mark, James and Sacha were doing it, they rang up and said that they didn’t have enough chairs — they sent more and didn’t press for the £400 extra.
CG: I’m confused about the situation with college. Are they willing to waive [the loan] or not? The assumption is that they are going to but we have a plan to pay them back. . . ?
SunS: This is our opinion-gaining forum. We need to know what we’re going to do. We’re gonna have to pay it, they’re delaying it but we will have to pay it back.
AT: When we were in this committee cancelling the Ball, college gave us £5k on top of the £900 in the ball account, we booked Loda etc. When we announced that we had to cancel the Ball, college said they would help us in the meantime pay the contracts, and absorb the loan. It’s passing through exec on Wednesday.
DP: Oh the £5k, no no we’ll not pay that back.
CG: Believes 4 is talking about over that.
AT: If we say to the production companies, “we’re walking away, we’ll never see you again,” they may want 25%. Then the JCR will be liable.
CG: College would pay that and then we’d have to pay college back?
AT: Yes.
GL: There’s only three copies of this report going around. Can you give us a best-off figure for finances
— how much we’ll be in deficit, best off and worst off — no-one knows properly — I know but others don’t.
SunS: If we want a summer event, and we say to the two companies “we’ll work with you again,” potentially our debt could be around £3137.50. If we want a new committee with a clean break. . .
AT: That doesn’t take into account the loan. The best case is getting off scot free due to the loan.
SunS: If we clean break everything, bearing in mind the £5k, it’ll be around 4k. Two costs in here are variable. . .
MxD: What’s the worst case scenario?
SunS: College ask for the £5k back (which they won’t, hopefully). . . AT: The worst case is £1100. That’s very unlikely. The domestic bursar said she would absorb it so I have no reason to say they will go against that.
15
AW: Will College impose weird restrictions on events, such as limiting alcohol, if they’re absorbing this money? We have no way to resist alcohol bans if they are controlling the finances.
DP: I raised issue of alcohol and argued with them for quite a long time. We got them to the point where they’d exchange the license to spread out the drinking — we got there in the end but they were really difficult about it. They might do that, hopefully they won’t. The new Domestic Bursar is really nice.
SunS: We don’t want college meddling in our events and they recognise that. You build a relationship with them. Much better. There was rashness with Howard last year. When we were cancelling, we were in their office using their phone, and they were giving us loads of support. College can be malevolent but they can also be nice.
AT: The tone when we brought this to them was very sympathetic. Like the MCR garden party, they could say “no we don’t want a stage” — but they wouldn’t restrict something akin to the summer events of three or four years ago.
EL: Isn’t it not happening for another three years anyway?
SunS: Is it ever going to happen in the foreseeable future as a ball? Probably not due to the bad publicity. In 2013 we will have a mass commemoration ball. After that. . . Simon has changed the name of the event, so it’s ambiguous — future people can decide.
CG: Are we still paying back for the disastrous event ten years ago?
AT: A few years ago a summer event went terribly financially wrong, and the JCR did very very badly.
There’s still a charge on compulsory levies to recoup that.
GL: Nothing to do with. . .
AT: Sorry I’m getting confused. That’s the VAT thing. No, there hasn’t been anything.
CG: We’re still paying back money for that but we’re ruling out having a similar thing for this? This puts it on the profits of events in the future which may or may not happen.
AT: We’re not still paying for the old ball, just the VAT thing.
CG: Just asking.
GL: [There’s] no recovery levy for [a] ball. There is one at the moment.
GH: By renaming the committee, aren’t college going to [not] have confirmation as to if/when we’ll ever pay it back? Are college going to be happy with that?
SunS: When we were discussing this, legging it creates resentment. They are nice, so long as they get it back at some point.
PA: What does the standing order 4.6 to 4.6.13 actually say?
AT: It dictates what they do and when they are elected.
AT: We’ll keep the electoral system and change everything to “summer event.”
CG: Are we going to have elections next week?
SunS: Are we having a summer event? Look at Resolves. . .
DP: They’ll be new elections this term. It’ll be the same schedule as if it’d had gone ahead.
CG: That Committee will be for next Trinity?
DP: Nothing is happening this Trinity aside from the June Jamboree.
MxD: College are organising the commemoration ball; the rumour is that college are organising that.
How does this affect that ball?
16
DP: This motion won’t affect that ball, really. I spoke with College briefly and they haven’t thought much about it at all; they’ve not even decided the venue. The limit [of hosting it here] seems ridiculous; they’re thinking of using multiple balliol sites, such as the quad here and the MCR. But that just won’t work, they can’t do that. I said to the Domestic Bursar use the Master’s Field, and she considered that, and that’s all that’s been said about it. I think there will be a ball committee for the 2013 ball as well.
JD: In the worse case scenario, will college pay it and we’ll pay them back?
AT: Yeah. We won’t see a sudden hit. IJ: Why “five years” in Resolves 4?
SunS: That’s the time it’ll take to pay it back.
IJ: Will they write it off if we don’t get it in five years?
SunS: “What happens if we can’t make the money in five years” — it’s just a framework, it’s flexible.
It’s not cast in iron.
SS: It’s our timeline rather than College’s.
AT introduces the ‘amendment’ from Minoo Dinshaw. It is a letter; it says that if the next ball is named after him he’ll pay off all the problems.
Michael Skelly (MSk): It’s not phrased as an amendment, let it drop. It’s just a letter.
CG: Some people on Committee — entz — try and organise something. College want us to have something this summer. Not a ball, but make the June Jamboree huge.
IT: Let’s not have a GM afterwards to bring us all down.
JD: If we want to use these people next year for a summer event — does it tie us into a shape it’ll have to take? [Is there] scope for something happening to enjoy — people pay £50–60 for just drinks
— we don’t want to have to do a hard sell, if we have to agree to use the production company and caterers, do we have to have marquees, cocktails etc.?
DP: If we want professional caterers — the committee independently chose these people anyway. They’re good, and they have a long history at Balliol. They’re the only health and safety approved supplier in the area. And they do all of the balls. They’d probably be used anyway. We used them last year, we owe them money anyway — [we can] scale down production to cover that cost. We’d suggest using them anyway. We’ll require marquees anywhere anyway.
JD: [There are] quite different ideas about what a summer event is. Alcohol plus the June Jamboree, or a ball with dodgems and whatever old summer events used to have?
SunS: When I was talking to them, it’s still the idea of me and Dougie locking the committee into an event that is not their ambition. By establishing that we want a summer event, we can hand over as a committee a fresh [start], with no obligation. It makes sense because they’re good, they’ve helped us out, and we’re gonna have to use these things anyway.
Matt Parsfield (MP): We could phrase it weaker. Differently. You’ve mandated them to look into it.
Just say “hey, use these guys.”
AT: It mandates the president to aim to reduce costs.
SunS: If it changes, next GM we’ll tell you what’s been changed. This is pretty much how it is.
Ben Spencer (BS): Do you know how much summer events used to cost and roughly what the MCR equivalent costs?
SunS: We want to see the MCR accounts.
17
AT: It’s £45 for dining ticket, and unlimited champagne and no food for £20. They have high capacity but they run at a slight loss.
MH: We want a summer event of some kind. It seems we either lock into these contracts or don’t lock in and accept a loss. That’s what we’re debating.
Move to vote.
AT: Objections?
SunS: In summary: Our decision here, if we pass the motion, is that next year we’ll have as summer event. It’ll be smaller scale, and with it we will encourage two companies and reduce the debt.
We’d also have new debt account.
CG: Objection: We have Resolves 4 to pay back college, and we haven’t really debated that; that’s the biggest past of this motion. We should discuss how we’re going to pay the money, not just say “oh summer event” — we should discuss it.
SS: Proposing MTV: This is the easiest way, the best possible way. They’ve spent ages thinking about it, and we’ve been here ages.
Move to vote fails.
CG: An amendment. I wanted to have some debate. We have this account, but the motion doesn’t say how this will work. AT: Short factual questions?
JD: Withdraw the amendment.
SPW: You’ve gotta ask for opposition first.
MxD: Explain Resolves 4 in more detail please, Sunil and Dougie.
SunS: We have spent hours trying to find an alternative way, but this is the best way of doing it. We could go with levies and hit everyone, but that’s not nice given that a lot of people didn’t want to go in the first place. It’s not a nice thing to consider for a future committee but it is a considered recommendation, it’s not just been thought up.
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Removes ‘over a period of 5 years’ from Resolves 4.
CG: This removes the arbitrary time frame; we need to have this discussion with college. It ties us to having profit-making summer events for the first five years. It might make a huge loss, so it’s a bad idea to put five years on it.
MS: Have college said that five years is critical? Have they said “five or we won’t help”?
AT: No. It’s arbitrary.
MH: It’s it negated since the rest of motion supports us not getting any charges?
GL: Chris, if we’re not going to tie ourselves for a period of time because we don’t know how much it’ll cost, if it’s not going to cost anything don’t you just want to just scrap the account altogether?
Jim Ormiston (JO): What happens if all the summer events make losses; how do we pay back the debt then?
SS: It starts as a cost.
The amendment automatically passes with no objections.
AT: Into debate on the entire motion.
18
JD: We haven’t talked about this summer event. The impression I am getting is basically, it’s a ball but you’re not going to call it a ball. It seems wrong to tie people into using the caterers, the marquee people, setting them up for an even bigger loss next year.
SS: If we have elections for summer event people, different people will come forward with different views.
Following this motion, the President [will work] to reduce the impact of the cancellation fees to the
JCR. Nearly all but the worst-case scenario suggests we get college to take up the worse cost.
Michael Marks (MM): From the motion that I read, the problem with the ball last year was to do with the incompetence of the committee. That’s not quite the reason — college we unnegotiable with. In terms of drinks, Carl Woodall wanted a bracelet with four chips — one glass of wine, one spirit, one shot at the end. We said that that was completely ridiculous considering all the other balls in Oxford. We had to make special negotiations. Howard and Carl were not very helpful on the whole issue anyway. Unless we have some kind of proper mandate to have negotiations with college to look at drinks in a non-ridiculous way, there’s no point in having a summer event.
Drunkenness is a problem as far as they’re concerned. They’re not going to encourage it.
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 4.
GL: Why create a debit account if we don’t know what’s happening? We don’t know if it’s going to cost anything yet. The worst-off case is a debt of £4237. If College decide to subsume the £5k loan, then we won’t need to pay anything. Resolves 4 is pointless. If we have to discuss how were going to do it then discuss that at a later time. This is going on for ages.
SS: Objection. We’ve just been discussing the best way to do ball stuff. Whatever the outcome of exec is, we’ll still think the debit account is the fairest way of doing it. We’ve debated it for ages. If we don’t have to pay anything back, don’t set up the account — there’s no need to remove from the motion.
Move to vote.
The amendment passes.
Move to vote.
SunS: The thing we want to say here, this is a GM, we’re gauging your opinion. A lot of this is arbitrary, for example the time frame. We’ve decided this is the best way to do it; we can change what we decide here. Having thought [about] what we need to do, this is the best and fairest way of doing it.
JD: Opposition: There are two separate issues: dealing with the financial liability from this year — it seems very likely not to affect us at all; chances are it will be subsumed. And then what do we want to do in future events. We haven’t really talked about this, and it seems a pressing issue, there’s a big question mark, will people pay for similarly-priced reduced-intensity events? In the daytime or the nighttime?
We can’t talk about this at almost 10pm, we don’t want to lock our successor committee even on an understanding. I suggest we don’t pass the motion, college will absorb the cost anyway. If something lingers, we bring a second motion. The ball committee can bring a motion and we can vote on that. I’m sorry that in the meantime we can’t give the events company a definite answer.
Given that college have expressed that they want to pay the £5k, and in the worst case it’s not above £5k, we make a clean break.
The motion fails with 17 votes to 18.
There is still applause.
Result: Failed
Motion: Dr WHO elections and peer support training by Rhiannon Garth Jones, Isabel Thompson, Simon Stewart & Sean Whitton
This JCR notes
1) Constitution 6.3.1 - Elections for Committee posts shall, unless stated elsewhere in this constitution, take place on the 6th Saturday of Michaelmas Full Term.
2) Peer Support training is not readily available in Michaelmas. 3) Ongoing concerns from some JCR members regarding the male/female balance of welfare representation.
This JCR believes
1) Dr WHOs should be trained as peer supporters.
2) It is desirable for the Dr WHOs to be made up of one female and one male where possible.
This JCR resolves
1) To add clause 4.22.1 to the Constitution: "Elections for Dr WHO will be undertaken in Trinity Full Term but they will not take office until Saturday of 8th week in the following Michaelmas term along with the rest of the new Committee. The entirety of Michaelmas will be considered a handover period."
Minutes: NULL
Result: See minutes
Motion: Expanding Affiliations Officer Role in relation to the MCR by Ash Thomas
This JCR notes
1. Members of the Balliol MCR make up approximately half of the Balliol student community
2. MCR-JCR relations tend to be occasional, subdued and are often non-existent.
3. Balliol MCR has a committee position of ‘OUSU/JCR Representative’ and, at present, there is no counterpart in the JCR.
This JCR believes
1. A good relationship between Balliols undergraduate and postgraduate communities is essential for a harmonious and happy college.
2. By expanding the role of Affiliations Officer to cover liaising with the MCR, constructive contact with the MCR can be increased and a positive JCR-MCR relationship can be developed.
This JCR resolves
1. To amend Section 4.20 of the JCR Constitution, changing ‘The Affiliations Officer shall be respon- sible to the Committee for the representation of the JCR to OUSU, the NUS and the management
of OUSUJCR and NUS-JCR relations, and shall inform JCR members of the agenda for OUSU
Council.’ to read ‘The Affiliations Officer shall be responsible to the Committee for the represen- tation of the JCR to OUSU, the NUS, the MCR and the management of OUSUJCR, NUS-JCR and MCR-JCR relations, and shall inform JCR members of the agenda for OUSU Council.’
Minutes: Ash Thomas (AsT): This is a slight change to the role. We’re one half of college and the grads will out-number us pretty soon. It doesn’t add any specific duties, but it’d just be nice to have a connection there at a time when the MCR is feeling more and more separate from the rest of
Balliol.
AT: Short factual questions?
Mike Howarth (MH): There is a JCR representative that the MCR elect. He’s meant to come to
Committee Lunch. Has he been invited, or does he just not show up? AT: He’s invited. It’s been a while since one’s shown up.
Isabel Thompson (IT): What actual change will this make to your role? Will you go to their [meet- ings]?
1
AsT: When I was talking to the guy at the MCR he suggested we’d be invited along to their committee.
But it’s not very concrete. It’s a start to build upon.
Edlyn Livesey (EL): Would it be an addition to your role or a new committee position?
AsT: It’d just be an extra task for affiliations.
MH: What would the job involve doing?
AsT: It’s not a specific list of tasks. We’ll keep track of events and go along to Committee Meetings.
AT: Into debate.
There are no objections and so the motion automatically passes.
Result: Passed
Motion: Dr WHO elections and peer support training - FIRST READING by Rhiannon Garth Jones, Isabel Thompson, Simon Stewart & Sean Whitton
This JCR notes
1. Constitution 6.3.1 - ‘Elections for Committee posts shall, unless stated elsewhere in this constitu- tion, take place on the 6th Saturday of Michaelmas Full Term.’
2. The selection process for peer support training in Michaelmas takes place in 7th week Trinity Term
3. Ongoing concerns from some JCR members regarding the male/female balance of welfare repre- sentation.
4. The potential difficulties with sending angry administrative emails, and friendly supportive welfare emails, during the housing process.
5. The VP Handover pack — “after Fresher’s Week Michaelmas is essentially dead for the VP.”
This JCR believes
1. Dr WHOs should be trained as peer supporters.
This JCR resolves
1. To add clause 4.22.1 to the Constitution: ‘Elections for Dr WHO will be undertaken in Trinity
Full Term but they will not take office until Saturday of 8th week in the following Michaelmas term along with the rest of the new Committee. The entirety of Michaelmas will be considered a handover period.’
2. To mandate future Dr WHOs to apply for peer support training.
3. To transfer the responsibility for the administrative side of the housing process to the VP.
Minutes: AT: Guys, please, quiet in Pantry! Rhiannon and Isabel. Rhiannon Garth Jones (RGJ): Simon’s amendment is really important here. You mandated us to look into our role. We spoke to other college welfare officers. The key thing suggested is that welfare reps should be peer support trained. As it turns out I am, but it’d be better if we mandate that it happens to all in the future. It’s been very successful in other colleges.
In order to be trained in time for the Dr WHOs taking over officially on their own, they need training in Michaelmas. They can’t be trained if elections are in Michaelmas. If elections are in
Trinity term as well as the other Trinity elections, we could have Michaelmas as a handover period;
[they’d help with] Freshers’ week and the housing ballot. They’d be trained well. They’d start in
Hilary. They’d have a lot more experience and peer support training. It’d be much better and
[they’d be] more efficient [in] their role.
The other thing is that a lot of other colleges have male and female representatives. People have asked consistently about this; concern has been shown. There are problems with making it mandatory, but it’s a good idea so we want to strongly encourage it. That’s the motion. To encourage male/female pairs.
Dawn Hollis (DH): So future Dr WHOs will have a four term period [of office]?
IT: Yes.
Someone in a green shirt: How long will the training take?
IT: It’s three to four hours a week for the entirety of Michaelmas. After that there are supervisions etc.
SS: The supervisions are quite important. It means welfare officers have somewhere they can go to talk about problems outside of college. Who do welfare reps talk to if can’t deal with someone’s issue?
There are problems with confidentiality within college. This benefits the Dr WHO role.
Michael Slater (MS): Do people who run for Dr WHO — have they normally done training? How many untrained people have been in the role?
IT: I’m not sure. It varies a lot. I don’t think Max and Kirsty did it. Essentially, they haven’t had training. IF they’ve already done it then that’s great.
SS: Supervisions [are] the key thing, not the training, which we can get from OUSU. The Welfare Subcommittee got [it from them]. That doesn’t have the thing of going back to be supervised.
Signy Gutnick-Allen (SGA): If we end up next year with another double female or male pair of Dr
WHOs. Is there some kind of system to ensure someone of the opposite sex has some involvement?
2
IT: Yeah. We thought hard about what to mandate or recommend. We don’t want to enforce it because if you have two fantastic girls or guys that want to do it, then they should. The peer supporters already have a gender balance. They have still got a point of contact and welfare support from all the peer supporters. It doesn’t matter that much though but it’s good if they’ve not got representation on Committee.
Eleanor Connolly (EC): Don’t most applicants want to be Dr WHO from Christmas of their second year to Christmas of their third — but now they’d have to apply in Trinity of their first year.
There are exams to consider.
SS: Anyone who wants to apply for their second year has to apply this Trinity anyway.
IT: There are problems with having elections this term — [such as] low turn out — but we have plans for that.
Leila Molana-Allen (LMA): You can only run for Dr WHO in one year of your time here. You would never be able to be Dr WHO if you were a foreign language student. Would you make special rules or something?
IT: We had that with Max. It’ll still be the same period; we’re not changing that. It’s the same problem we have with all committee positions unless we move the entire committee to Trinity. They’re still able to do the main helping out part with the housing ballot and they can learn it.
Aime Williams (AW): Wouldn’t it be easier to keep the election where it is, but make it clear that if you want to be Dr WHO you have to peer support trained?
IT: We thought about that but I wasn’t here in Trinity so I wouldn’t have been able to apply for peer support training, and I didn’t think I was going to be Dr WHO at the time. We decided the week before the election. If that happens again. . . it feels a bit of a shame. AW: You’re putting the idea of running in their heads by requiring it.
IT: Yeah we thought about that. But it’d be unfair to potentially rule out an amazing candidate who just hasn’t yet considered it.
Hannah O’Rourke (HO): If they are peer support trained, do we still keep the JCR Committee position of Dr WHO and the peer supporters separate?
IT: Yeah. There’s a little overlap so that we know what’s going on, but the peer supporters won’t come to Welfare Subcommittee.
SS: They are separate systems, just linked up. Ideally peer supporters match the friendships groups in college; putting them on Committee is not a good idea.
Simon Wood (SMW): We’d potentially have some people doing two roles at the same time, if, say, I ran for Dr WHO. We’d both have two roles for Michaelmas, Admissions + Dr WHO. We’d have a lot of work. It could cause problems.
SS: You’d not actually be on Committee. . .
IT: Not especially. They’d be there to help out with the admin part of the housing ballot. But it’s not a dangerous time commitment for people doing both. It’d be good for freshers to know that these are your Dr WHOs for next year. It won’t be too overpowering. It’s a good role anyway.
SMW: Finalists who are leaving — should they be voting? The role won’t affect them. It’s like the way in which only women vote for our womens’ officers.
IT: A lot of finalists will choose not to exercise their vote butwe shouldn’t ban them as they know the people and may think they are amazing, have a lot of experience etc.
Greig Lamont (GL): A general question: what’s the constitution on running for another committee position?
3
AT: It won’t be in constitution as you can’t do it at the moment.
GL: Isn’t there something about holding two committee positions at the same time?
Not that is relevant here. Alex Curran (AC): Will there be safeguards in place to avoid too many people applying for peer support, so that the Dr WHOs don’t get in?
IT: Dr WHOs would be guaranteed a place.
Max Deacon (MxD): No, that should be up to College.
SS: Everyone has to submit an application. They’re chosen by the previous peer supporters along with the counselling service lady. Lots of other colleges have it mandated that their welfare officers are peer support trained, so it’s not problematic.
IT: The only situation is that their application is so shit they’d be rubbish at it. They’re very likely to be chosen — “all these reasons plus they were elected.”
IJ: Future freshers can’t be Dr WHO because they wouldn’t be here.
IT: It’s almost always a second year role so that’s not a big deal. They’d never get it. Freshers can run in Trinity term. Once it’s settled in it’ll just be the norm.
MH: Are there a set number of peer support training places?
IT: There are four to five.
SS: It’s split with the MCR. There are up to seven positions in Balliol per year for the training. We’re gonna speak to Doug and try to get him to train more peer supporteres. We train one less than most colleges anyway. We’re compiling that [information] at the moment.
MH: There are then potentially [just] two pairs who can run for Dr WHO due to the MCR.
SS: We’ll bring it up with College to get six people.
MH: Would this motion change if we didn’t get that?
SS: No, it’s important that the Dr WHOs have that sort of training. They’d be applying for the training after being voted in.
MS: Is it essential that, if there are two Dr WHOs, that they are both trained? [We could] have the requirement that [just] one be trained, since there is an issue with a lack of training places.
SS: We’re talking about having one male and one female anyway, so it’d be a good idea if they’re both trained. Both of you have been approached before. IT: We’re trying to represent as many people as possible.
DH: Can individuals run and then be elected into a pair? Individual girls and individual guys run?
IT: We thought about that. But you have to work very well together to be Dr WHOs. That could create two candidates who can’t get on which would be a disaster, so, no.
Polly Ashmore (PA): I’m not quite clear on what the problems are with making it mandatory that there be one male and one female. What do you think might be the problems with that?
IT: The point of having a male/female pair is that anyone can talk about a gender specific problem; there should be someone to talk to. We’ve found the role to be more of an organisational and administrative role due to Welfare Week and the housing ballot. We want the best two people to run for it. If it happens that — basically, sorry — we want there to be men and women who people in the JCR can talk to.
4
We’ll have a split [gender] balance for peer supporters. It’s very likely that most pairs will be male/female. Even if two girls, plus a male/female pair [run, the] latter pair are more likely to succeed. We’ll see what people want between pairs. With peer supporting there will always be men and women to talk about problems to.
LMA: In terms of what you just said, why is it necessary to have both, when there are male and female peer supporters? Also, a recommendation from JCR is dangerous; it influences people’s view on choosing between pairings.
SS: My amendment changes this to ......
Simon summarises his amendment (later in minutes).
LMA: Hrm.
IT: We can get rid of that entirely; we should discuss it. There should be a man and a woman, people say.
Stephen Bush (SB): How much does it cost to train a peer supporter. How much are we asking college to fork out to add more places? SS: Max might know. . .
MxD: £200-400.
SS: Look — all other colleges do this; they’ll do it.
MxD: Doug is quite liberal with welfare support money.
RGJ: He thinks peer support is a very good thing.
The amendment from SS is considered:
• Replaces Notes 2 with: The selection process for peer support training in Michaelmas takes place in 7th week Trinity Term
• Adds Notes 4: The potential difficulties with sending angry administrative emails, and friendly supportive welfare emails, during the housing process.
• Adds Notes 5: The VP Handover pack — “after Fresher’s Week Michaelmas is essentially dead for the VP.”
• Replace Believes 2: That people should bear in mind the advantages of having one male and one female Dr WHO when running and voting for the position.
• Adds Resolves 2: To mandate future Dr WHOs to apply for peer support training.
• Adds Resolves 3: To transfer the responsibility for the administrative side of the housing process to the VP.
SS: My amendment has got a few things in it. If we’re moving elections around we should do this so that people considering running understand the role better — basically, Rhiannon and Isabel find it difficult to send angry admin e-mails and friendly supportive welfare ones — it’s hard to send both from the same e-mail account — “send in, you have to decide” and “it’s okay take your time.”
The VP, who has a dead Michaelmas, would have to do housing ballot administration stuff so these guys could concentrate on the welfare side of the housing process; it’s stressful and difficult. It also changes Believes as mine makes it less like a recommendation; noting the advantages. That comes from all the things I have got from welfare reps at other colleges. It’s good to have one male and one female. As we’ve been saying, [they’ll] still be male and female peer supporters. It’s not the be all and end all, so we’ll not mandate anyone to do it. It also changes the thing on Notes that is incorrect, that’s fine.
AT: Short factual questions?
5
Anna Slater (AS): Wouldn’t it become Dr Wo(e)?
Laughter.
SS: No, I don’t want to do that stuff. They’d still be doing that stuff about evil landlords etc. For a college that forces people to live out due to limited space in Jowett, it’s important we have it prominent in our welfare stuff, so no rename.
IT: The more people helping out with admin the better; we’ll still be doing out fair share (twice!) of the housing ballot, but [we want a] nominal angry person who can say “hurry the fuck up.” There’s the welfare side of housing — huge huge huge amounts [of it].
MH: Can you go into more detail about the welfare side of housing?
RGJ: The whole housing process is already quite stressful as most freshers found this year. It’s very good for welfare to be involved in supporting people through that stressful process. We’d talk to them if they’re feeling really stressed out or got massive concerns. A lot of people had welfare-related concerns; we want to be there in a supportive role.
It’s much harder for us to do that if we’re ones sending MAKE YOUR MIND UP NOW via e-mail.
If the Drs WHO do the supporting and the VP just takes on the administrative role, sorting out the ballots, it makes it more welfarey and easier to have a difference.
IT: It involves “have you found someone to live with yet?”
RGJ: “Have you considered this?”
SS: And finance.
IT: “The showers broken”; issues.
SB: If I’m a fresher and I’m e-mailing about housing, what does this change look like for me in the position of an inbox?
SS: I’ll send you to sign up for Jowett by this time, send replies to me by whenever as I have no replies. I get stressed and panicking, others panicking, the Dr WHOs tell people that Simon is mad etc.
SPW: It’s good cop bad cop.
SB: If I can’t get into Jowett, I then e-mail the Dr WHOs?
SS: They can work out who is being lazy and who is worrying. I assume everyone is useless and lazy; they work it out and tell me to back off.
IT: You e-mail Simon with where you want to live, and we help “I don’t know where to live.”
DH: Where are the housing ballots going to be moved to; put it in the motion?
RGJ: We’re consulting with Katie about that. It needs to work with her as well. We have to work quite closely with College. It will probably be in Michaelams but it’s not finalised yet; [we’ll] bring this in at the next GM.
SS: We’re bringing this in now for the elections. It’ll come in at the next GM.
DH: So. . .
IT: Yes, Michaelmas — we’re the deciding exact time frame.
SS: Even in early Hilary I still have nothing to do.
MH: I don’t want to oopose this but you were saying before you had a few questions about welfare stuff, about housing — do you think most of them would have come if you weren’t in charge of housing as well? Do you see a danger of you saying — either talk to the housing person to sort things out or talk to the peer supporters if you’re worried at the moment — would this be duplicating that?
6
SS: If I got that stuff, I’d say speak to Dr Whos; I’m just trying to fill in a table on my computer. I’d encourage them to speak to the Dr WHOs.
RGJ: They’d be more comfortable talking to us if they haven’t received a three weeks late e-mail from me.
MxD: I wouldn’t have been happy going to last year’s Dr WHOs; my first contact was them filling my inbox with mean e-mails. I wouldn’t be happy to go to them for welfare support had I needed it.
Sorry about that Kirsty. GL: Here’s a different side. Believes 2 in the original motion. I don’t like number four in the amendment.
You shouldn’t be told relevant and irrelevant considerations when using a vote. Tell people in an office, but you shouldn’t tell them when they’re voting. For example, I couldn’t add presidential stuff that chemistry students have labs — not a dig at Ali there. It’s small in the grand scheme of things, but “desirable” is better than saying “bear it in mind”; Leila brought up a good point.
SS: Yeah okay. I don’t think it’s exactly the same sort of recommendation of excluding types of students
— it’s talking about what is useful to the role. I’m taking out all references to male/female advantages thing as people can make up their own minds. I suggest we vote through this amendment and then take it out?
Jack Hobbs (JH): If no-one objects.
AT: New amendment?
LMA: A lot of people blamed you for their position on the ballot and not getting into Jowett. If they don’t see the decision coming from the Dr WHOs, they’re more likely to go to them. Generally, the motion is rather vague. That doesn’t really matter, [as you] said three times, but it might in your role, so we need to tighten it up.
I feel strongly that finalists shouldn’t have a vote and you don’t seem to care — they couldn’t vote for these Dr WHOs normally, so it’s being moved into when they are here; they’re never been in a position to vote for them.
SS: They vote for Ball Presidents and new JdeBs and everything.
LMA: Those positions start straight away.
PA: I suppose this relates to the main motion as well as the amendment: I’m not quite clear what the problem is with mandating it to be a male/female pair; the peer support team is not voted, so it might still lack gender balance. No-one had a male/female [choice] at your election. If you want to get condoms or a pregnancy test for your girlfriend from outside of college, it’s important to have a male/female team. Why such a big problem? SS: I wouldn’t put it forward because — [there are] peer supporters and other welfare subcommittee positions like LGBT and SWD who can be male, it works as a whole group as welfare people
— I don’t want to belittle their roles. Male peer supporters and welfare subcommittee do their respective work. I don’t want to restrict the pool. It’s up to people to decide. We shouldn’t exclude people from elections before they start and stop people from voting who they want to vote for.
Keep elections open to as many people as possible.
RGJ: I’m uncomfortable with making it mandatory. There are people who think so. So bring it as an amendment. A proper opinion from the GM.
MxD is passed an agenda to do this.
IT: Last year we had Max and Kirsty but before that it’s been two girls for as long as I can remember.
The most important thing is [having] two approachable people who are capable of doing the job as well as possible. You don’t want to potentially exclude two people. They might be more interested, do the admin better, etc.
MH said some stuff the secretary didn’t catch.
7
MxD: That’s what people should do; male/female [split is] good.
IT: It’s not a big deal. . .
IT said something else the Secretary didn’t catch.
JH: A male/female split — I talked to the incumbents, if there are plenty of boys and girls [who want to run], then the Dr WHOs can encourage [the formation of] male/female pairs. If you do have people who want to run together you don’t have to instantly strike them off.
IT: I agree with that. I thought that there’s an advantage — I spoke to a few guys, those who I thought of said “I can’t do it” for this or that reason. Maybe I would then have had no-one to run with. I have a bad gut feeling against making it mandatory.
SGA: There have been difficulties getting male peer supporters in the past. Will not making it manda- tory create a perfect split? Are you sure you’ll have enough men? SS: We trained two male peer supporters in our year, there’s been at least two trained in the year before, so as long as it’s advertised well enough there are people willing to pick it up if we textitasise [that] we need male peer supporters. Anyone thinking about [running for] Dr WHO or peer support — the decision happens at the same time. There may be a problem so [let’s] not make it mandatory
— if a good pair of girls want to do it. We can’t stop the deficiency of people willing to do male welfare roles.
AT: Greig?
GL: I was itching my head.
DH: With “advise,” I’m worried — [in a] male/female situation, they have an advantage due to “advise.”
Either mandate, or drop it.
Move to vote.
SS reads out his amendment again.
PA: I’m in opposition to number four. Either mandate or scrap it. People won’t read the minutes of this GM when they’re running for VP.
DH: We have to pass this before we amend it.
SS: Take it out?
The amendment passes.
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 1.
• Adds Believes 1 into Standing Policy.
• Adds Resolves 4: To advertise Believes 1 by e-mail when peer support application time comes around.
CG: If we vote them in and then they apply for peer support — choose Dr Who when we know they are peer support trained, but this is “hope.” [I want to] textitasise [that] you need training.
MxD: Point of information: If we talk to the counselling service, [and say] “these people will be welfare officers,” they will almost certainly accept them. CG: Surely the peer support people choose who is best for the job?
AT: Into debate.
IT: Firstly, we run into the problem that Rhiannon and I couldn’t get it. People might not think about it until it is too late. When it comes to choosing things like that they are pretty sure to choose welfare officers and they are likely to be good anyway.
8
CG: I would say that we should advertise it if you want. It’s worse to have elected Dr WHOs who it turns out aren’t acceptable to peer support — [it’s] worse than other people. If we believe you should be a peer supporter, it makes sense to know who they are.
SS: That would mean you’d have choice of six people who could run for Dr WHO; if no one ran for it, then no-one would be able to run for Dr WHO. Also, the fact that the JCR has voted in favour of them supporting us — that will carry a lot of weight on a peer support application form.
MxD: It limits the number of people who can apply for Drs WHO. I am peer support trained but I wouldn’t apply for Dr WHO.
CG: I’ll change my amendment? Wouldn’t be mandated, just encouraged. I dunno.
LMA: I agree with Chris. There’s a danger of two places being taken up by people who would be great peer supporters, but they are doing it because they have to, not because they want to be peer supporters. If we think it’s important that Dr WHOs should be peer supporters, pick them from the people who wanted to do that anyway.
MxD: I think that that’s true but the fact that it limits number of people who can apply vastly outweighs that fact. At the moment, the third years are leaving, so the only people who can run for welfare are Simon and Max. Simon is the VP and I don’t want to be, but suddenly that would be a problem.
HO: What we seem to be doing is peer supporters and Dr WHO — do the Dr WHOs have to be peer support trained? They could have a different kind of training. If we peer support train Dr WHO, we’re changing the nature of the role; it’ll no longer be directional, they’d have to see one on one — that is a peer support role. I’m getting really confused about the training. Change it slightly.
Solve some of these problems.
SS: The reason we want to train our Dr WHOs are the peer support supervisions, to discuss things that’ve been going on. [This is] the only way to do that. It’s the only thing that I can think of where that is that confidential discussion group on that kind of thing. 80% of colleges do this and they all recommend it. No-one has said it’s bad. They’ve all said it’s really good. Welfare officers say that they are really glad they did the training.
SB: I agree with Chris. A third of people who have left choose the Dr WHOs for the third of people who have yet to arrive, and also don’t require male/female in there. College might say “I’m not training that person” and the JCR shouldn’t know that. That becomes public domain due to the election. I agree with Hannah — Dr WHO is not a welfare advice point, but is directional — to peer supporters and Doug. This takes away two peer support roles. [There is also the] argument about losing people who run in Michaelmas — we are doing that anyway since they’d be running in Trinity.
MxD: Point of information: College have nothing to do with the picking of peer supporters. It’s the existing peer supporters plus the counselling service.
CG: Do they have this information, then?
SB: The information could come out.
MxD: They only choose it based on the application form and what the current peer supporters say.
PA: I have two points. 1) Third years seem best placed — you vote for Dr WHO based on the kind of person they are. You’re not voting on a manifesto. Saying third years can’t vote then seems silly.
2) This amendment says that the peer support committee know more about who would be good than we all do in voting.
CG: The point about limiting the people who can apply — it doesn’t do that at all, as it mandates the
Dr WHOs to apply; it doesn’t mandate them to do it. We’re saying we think that they should be — we’re not mandating anyone to actually do it. They’d be the same problem with limiting
[whenever elections are held]. There are only so many peer support roles. Just because it’s in Trinity, we’d not have loads more.
9
SS: Point of information: We’ve only had two people apply for the five positions in the rounds we’ve had [so far] this year.
CG: We’re not mandating people to be [peer supporters], only to apply — so it doesn’t limit the places.
That argument fails against this amendment.
IT: Against Leila — if we elect better people this way round to stop Dr WHO taking up two [of the peer support slots] — well they will be doing so anyway because we’ll be electing them from the peer supporters, so the peer suporters will have two Dr Whos in either way around. If the Dr
WHOs don’t want to be peer supporters they won’t run for it; they would apply in the same term just a few weeks apart — the sort of people who apply — a serial sex offender won’t run for these positions. The people running for it know they are running for peer support too [and so] they won’t run if they don’t want to be a peer supporter. It makes sense to have people applying for both if we’re having an overlap. I agree with Polly; the third years have known people for just as long as anyone else.
Move to vote.
CG: This removes Resolves 1. We will advertise in Trinity that if you wanna be Dr WHO in Michaelmas, you have to sign up. The arguments for that are that if we are saying that all Dr WHOs should be peer supported, um . . . okay — we should know who are peer supporters before we elect them.
MxD: In opposition: This amendment reduces the number of people who can apply for the Dr WHO position. Like Polly said, the current peer supporters and the counselling service choose the next peer supporters, which suggests that if you’re a peer supporter, you’ve got a more lielky chance of becoming Dr WHO, so we’re choosing your Dr WHO for you! It doesn’t work.
The amendment fails.
The amendment from DH is considered:
• Strikes Believes 2. DH: A couple of amendments because they sound like things that people are concerned about in the debate, so we should vote on them. Firstly, to remove Believes 2. “Desirable.” It could unfairly influence the votes. Even if people are running as an male/female pair — if people are aware of the effect.
GL: Changed to “bear in mind” when running and voting
DH: If they want a male Dr WHO they will vote for a male Dr WHO anyway. It’s not necessary to record it. Make it down to individual choice, rather than recommend people vote a certain way.
Stephen Dempsey (SD): Do we have it in LGBT that you elect someone who is gay/whatever?
Ronan McDonald (RM): I don’t think that’s in there.
LMA: I don’t know if this is a problem with confidentiality, but can you give us figures for how many people use the peer supporters; is it a different number between the peer supporters and the Dr
WHOs?
SS: I can’t give you the numbers, but peer supporters do stuff informally — it’s unusual for us to be approached directly; the Dr WHOs are approached in an official capacity.
IT: We’re a figurehead — come to us if peole don’t know who to approach.
MS: This is a good amendment — while it might be desirable, it’s not essential. It’s certainly possible to have a team where two girls are better than a mixed team. People could become aware of this and feel that they are supposed to work in a certain way. We don’t mandate the Treasurer be good at maths. It’s a good thing that they are but we don’t require it. People will consider it anyway.
Raise it in hustings.
SS: I’m gonna shout “move to vote” if there’s no opposition.
10
GL: If people dislike the amendment: we shouldn’t be told what to bear in mind when voting.
Move to vote.
AT: I’ve heard a move to a vote.
CG: Ali, I’m trying to oppose. . .
CG: All it does is that it just says we believe this, it’s not standing policy, this won’t be written anywhere outside the website and the archives. It doesn’t matter whether it is there or not.
Move to vote.
DH: Summary: It’s a matter of personal opinion, and we should not dictate it as a JCR.
CG: It doesn’t matter which way you vote because it doesn’t matter.
The amendment passes.
The second amendment from DH is considered:
• Adds Notes 6: If elections take place in Trinity, a third of students voting (finalists) will not be ‘affected’ by the results of the election.
• Adds Believes 2: Notes 6 above could be seen as undemocratic.
• Adds Resolves 4: To only allow non-finalists to vote for Dr WHOs.
DH: This came out in debate. It add a Notes regarding finalists.
AT: Short factual questions?
Alice Lighton (AL): What about those on four years courses. . .
DH: Sorry, I forgot as I don’t do a four year course. I’ll change it here.
IT: I wanted to say that what we need to think about it is that it’s “who should be my Dr WHO next year” or “who’s best for the role” — it shouldn’t be latter.
MH: “Ah this’ll fuck everyone over.” The third years won’t do that. What’s undemocratic is the lack of freshers, not the finalist problem.
SS: Finalists won’t vote malevolently. They have less of a vested interest, but they know people, so it’s less likely to be a second year popularity contest.
GL: First years should have a vote — people not affected [should have] no choice. Only people who are going to be affected should be taking these into consideration. I wouldn’t elect Ali for another year group. Only people affected by it should have the vote.
CG: The Dr WHOs are not a representative role on Committee. Their primary role is to provide welfare to people. When most people elect the Dr WHOs, they don’t do it because they are worried about who they personally like? No, they vote on behalf of everyone. You think about others when voting.
IT: The majority of colleges have all their elections in Trinity, they have this problem, and they allow all years to vote.
SD: Two points. 1) It’s better to have third years involved than first years: I had no idea who Isabel and Rhiannon were when I voted for them. And they don’t have to vote if they don’t think they should.
SB: People aren’t given a vote whether or not we think they’re well informed, as anyone who has read a general election poll will know. Candidates never win by less than a margin of a third of a year group. The whole outcome of the election potentially changes. They have different views about
Jowett etc. It’s wrong that people who are not here choose for people who are yet to arrive. It’s undemocratic.
Move to vote.
11
DH: As Stephen said, you get a vote whoever you are and where it’s going to affect you most. It’s not going to affect you if you’re about to leave. It will affect current students a great deal, or who will be current when they come in, who should vote. In Michaelmas, finalists are not able to vote anyway, so it doesn’t really make a difference.
MH: If by taking the whole vote back to Trinity from Michaelmas, we essentially say that we’ll do whatever we want to get the best Dr WHOs, and the disenfranchisement is not a big problem,
[then] either we don’t move stuff or we let finalists vote.
MS: I have an amendment to scrap the election movement.
MH: As things stand at the moment, it’s undemocratic if they can pay fees to the JCR for the term but they can’t vote, it’s their mates — no-one would elect someone who they thought would be bad.
The amendment fails.
The amendment from MS is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 1. MS: Thanks to Simon’s amendment, stuff is different. At end of Trinity, only JdeB and [a few other positions have elections]. Only JdeB is committee, and they are all the least important. Dr WHO is an important position so while freshers not voting on Scrawl [is okay], saying they can’t choose
[their] Dr WHOs until they’ve been in college for a year, it’s anti-democratic. Keep them in
Michaelmas as they currently are.
AT: No short factual questions? Into debate.
SS: The advantages of peer support training and having a term to prepare for the role and having a handover period, all outweigh the potentially anti-democraticness of electing a Dr WHO [in
Trinity]. Freshers have six weeks to get to know the people. It happens in all other elections too but it’s too imporatnt that we get well-trained Dr WHOs [as compared with the way] that people get to vote on who they are.
They will have votes for the majority of time they are here. The other way around, Michaelmas is kept by Dr WHOs you didn’t vote for. It’s not that much of a problem. It’s the JCR as a body; year distinctions are not that important.
Move to vote.
MS: Summary: There’s a risk of disenfranchising people, it’s a whole year after that, not just Michael- mas. You have no choice until Hilary of your second year. It might be good for Greig — sorry — for the treasurer to be shown how to use acounting software, for the foodies to take food hygeine training, [we’re setting a] precedent here. It’s always advantageous, but we can’t do that.
SS: There will b e supervisions from day one when they become point of contact for all the students
[for] welfare. It’s the follow on and supervisions and regimented programme which is happily done by the vast majority of other colleges. It’s the best way to do it.
The amendment fails.
MxD reads out his amendment:
• Adds Believes 2: That people should bear in mind the advantages of having one male & one female Dr WHO.
MxD: I haven’t said to mandate the JCR to have one male one female. That doesn’t stop a fnatastic pair. It just says that right now we think this, and that doesn’t affect voting. There’s a bunch of male welfare stuff that has not in the past been represented much because there’s not a male Dr
WHO.
AT: Short factual questions?
Medical Dave (DT): Have we already discussed this, and is this a waste of time?
12
MxD: You might think this is a waste of time — I’ve taken out the voting bit, so it’s differnet — it’s just what we think right now.
MS: What’s the point of saying what we think right now if it’s not going into standing [policy]? It’s not the view of Balliol JCR in the future?
SB: What are these specific male issues that the current Dr WHOs, in their female state, are failing to address? Please actually articulate this.
MxD: There is a bunch of stuff that only affects men: prostrate cancer — all kinds of male issues.
Compare the advertisments for pregnancy [tests] — they’re aimed at women not men.
MH: Given that throughout your first year there was a male female pair, did you feel better then?
MxD: No.
Jack Devlin (JD): Can we even discuss this? We just went down it. Strike it straight away.
AT: I accepted because I thought it was different.
JD: It changes nothing. If we think it then we want it to be considered [during elections].
MS: We’ve discussed this earlier. . .
GL: In that case, move to a vote.
MxD: Recording what the JCR thinks on this is important.
MS: What’s important is that the JCR thought the same thing twenty minutes ago.
Amendment fails.
Move to vote.
Concerns were raised about there having been no opposition to the overall motion heard, but. . .
MS: Amendments count as opposition! The motion automatically passes with no opposition.
Result: Passed
Motion: Reach Oxford by Paul Gerstmayr & Daniel Alphonsus
This JCR notes
1. That a promising student applying to Balliol College has been awarded the Reach Oxford Schol- arship.
2. That the Reach Oxford Scholarship is a scholarship for students from developing countries who, for political or financial reasons, or because equivalent educational facilities do not exist, cannot study for a degree in their own countries. The details of the bursary are:
(a) 60% fees waived by the University;
(b) 40% fees paid by the College;
(c) 50% maintenance grant paid by College;
(d) 50% maintenance grant paid by the JCR on battels.
3. The maintenance grant is about £10k for the year, which means that the JCR has to pay £5k for this student.
4. Each member of the Balliol JCR has to pay about £13.74 per year or £4.58 per term for this student.
5. Unless this JCR agrees to pay the maintenance grant, the University will not waive the fees.
This JCR notes further
1. That only two of this scholarships are made available in the University this year (St Johns, St
Catz).
2. That the College has agreed to foot the bill for this student.
3. That this is on the basis that this JCR agrees to pay the maintenance grant for a future student who has been awarded this scholarship.
4. That at the moment, there are three candidates who are really outstanding, one of them applied to Balliol.
5. That of Balliol do not take part it is likely that this promising student will not be chosen because one of the top three actually applied to John’s and the other is quite in a league of her own.
This JCR believes
1. The Reach Oxford Scholarship encourages capable students from developing countries, who other- wise might not be able to afford the cost, to study at the University of Oxford.
2. The Reach Oxford Scholarship promotes both Access and Equal Opportunities of Balliol College
3. Access and Equal Opportunities are areas that this JCR has constantly been working on and striving to improve
4. This JCR has the responsibility to support prospective students who have received this scholarship, as long as its fiscal status allows.
This JCR resolves
1. To agree to pay the maintenance grant for a promising future student who has been awarded this scholarship, on the terms and conditions that:
(a) To the President and the Access and Equal Opportunities Officer have the responsibility to inform the JCR, so that there is no ambiguity, confusion and resentment amongst the students towards the payment.
2. To mandate the President and the Access and Equal Opportunities Officer(s) to submit in written form to Balliol College and the University Student Funding and International Office our agreement to be a partner in the Reach Oxford Scholarship.
Minutes: Tabled until the next GM.
Result: See minutes
Motion: Ruskin School Art Project by Priyesh Mistry
This JCR notes
1. The Ruskin School needs to raise money to put on it’s degree show which is produced completely by the student body.
2. Funding is scarce due to the recession.
3. This annual event has been helped before by the JCR.
4. Balliol usually admits at least one fine art student per year.
5. As the students are taught out of college they have fewer opportunities to involve
Balliol in their degree.
6. The arts association fund exists for such costs.
This JCR believes
1. Putting on the Ruskin Degree Show is a worthwile but costly exercise.
2. With your help we can produce a brilliant show and that giving to and promoting the arts is a worthwhile cause.
This JCR resolves
1. Pass 450 from the Arts Association Fund
2. To accept a piece of artwork by this year’s Balliol fine art finalist for the finance and to strengthen and promote links between Balliol and its fine art students.
3. To organise a day on which all Balliol students will be formally invited and encouraged to attend the show as a group.
Minutes: Priyesh Mistry (PM): Every year the Ruskin art faculty holds a final year show for third years. The finalists this year — as part of the events we raise funds to make the show as good as possible. I’m putting forward this motion for £450 from the arts fund.
Georgina Sturge (GS): How much money is in the fund at the moment?
AT: £713.
IT: What other things might this fund be used for?
AT: Almost exclusively art week.
IT: Does it get filled up by levies?
AT: I have no idea how it grows. There’s been no money for several years and no levies have gone into it.
MH: We pass money into it.
GL: How much was spent on Arts Week?
AT: I think £250.
GS: Did we pass that in a GM?
CG: Yes.
MH: What is this fund used for, if we don’t use it for arts. . .
AT: Denise wasn’t sure. . .
SPW: What the heck.
MxD: Will the event be free? Can we go?
PM: Yes, it’s open to the public. We have a famous philosopher speaking, a film night — it’s five days long and there is lots of stuff going on. TN: Do we get anything special aside from a nice feeling?
PM: I would donate an item of work to the JCR.
PA: Where is the show?
PM: The same place as it was last year, Osney Mead, an old warehouse, it’s quite exciting. It’s not in a stuffy high street space, it’s gonna be really good.
GS: I was gonna ask the same question, but when I went there last time I got lost on this industrial estate, it was really scary, I walked past a weir in the pitch black, can you take me there this time?
20
PM: Last year publicity failed in terms of signposting the event. This year we’ll make it better. We do a degree show each year to learn from it. I’ll get a Balliol group together.
MxD: How much will it cost? Are you asking other JCRs?
PM: £6–7k. We have £4k so far from other JCRs etc. We have £1k from Teddy Hall; we’re asking each college for £450.
CG: What does the money go on?
PM: The money goes towards materials for building walls, the transportation of works and publicity.
The whole event is student run. Everything is organised by the student body. The opening event
— everyone invited to it. They’ll be beer and stuff, lighting costs, scaffold hire, things to make the show happen.
MP: If this is mandatory for your degree, why don’t the university pay for it?
PM: We can get away with having less but we want a really big event to show off Oxford compared to other arts schools. We want to make it a really good show.
MP: So artistic purposes, which I’m for — that was not an attack.
PM: It will show the good art coming out of Oxford. The Ruskin is really small compared to other arts schools across the country — we’ll make it a more personalised event.
PA: When is it and how long is it going to be?
PM: June 18th is the opening event. It goes on until Goes on until the 23rd , that’s Wednesday of 9th . People have finished their exams and are hanging around.
BS: Last year we got a piece of art in exchange. We passed a lot less than was asked, is that still useful?
PM: Every little helps. We asked for more and amended it down but that was because we were not sure about the fund to use.
DH: Going on the fact we’re not putting more money in [the account], should you take less so that it lasts longer? So you can put on future shows?
GL: PoI: We can still donate. We can give from the normal JCR funds.
PA: An annoying question, but can you give an outline of what the events will be?
PM: We haven’t confirmed these events yet, the only thing confirmed is the Simon Critchley talk. I’m gonna try and organise tours, a music event for one of the evenings, certainly a film event — we’ll get other artist’s films in. They’ll be tea, picnics and things like that. It’s a nice place, I know you got scared. . .
GS: It was terrifying!
PM: Once I know mroe I’ll say.
CG: This is basically a part of the main account. Can we lose that amount every year? Is it sustainable?
GL: If we want to give it, it’s a lot of money, but it is sustainable. This year it’s fine.
PM: We don’t always have a Balliol fine arts student. There is no fresher fine art student, there’s not going to be one next year either, so there’s a bit of a break.
The amendment from LMA is considered:
• Adds Notes 4: Balliol usually admits at least one fine art student per year.
• Adds Notes 5: As the students are taught out of college they have fewer opportunities to involve
Balliol in their degree.
• Adds Notes 6: The arts association fund exists for such costs.
21
• Adds Resolves 3: To accept a piece of artwork by this year’s Balliol fine art finalist for the finance and to strengthen and promote links between Balliol and its fine art students. • Adds Resolves 4: To organise a day on which all Balliol students will be formally invited and encouraged to attend the show as a group.
LMA: I got very passionate about this last year. The reasons why we want it should be in the motion.
So they can look at it next year. It’ll not get exposure. Last year went down very well last year, we got a piece of artwork [that was appreciated]. We should organise group trip — a lot of people like the idea of going. Formally invite people in the future. Round off the motion a bit.
IJ: Can you confirm your last two points? There were bits missing I couldn’t read it.
LMA does so.
EL: Is the art donated ever put on display?
LMA: Last year it was for the first time, I assume it goes in the picture fund, but we could have it on display in the JCR if we wanted to.
PA: What was the piece of art last year?
PM: Andrew was a painter, so I’m pretty sure it went into the picture fund.
LMA: This is really important, this is how they start their career, it’s not just for jokes, and experience of how to put on show.
PM: Andrew will do well in the next ten years, so it’s an investment [for the JCR].
PA: Will the JCR be able to choose the piece of art?
PM: You can choose if you want to. You can even commission a piece.
MS: I don’t think any of us are that well-placed to judge which people will do well. We’re not excellent stockbrokers so we shouldn’t pick stocks that will do best, we shouldn’t use this as an investment.
It’s good to support [though].
PM: The investment is a bonus.
AT: Into debate.
DH: If we do get a painting or something, it would be nicer if it is somewhere we can see it. The picture fund means an individual gets it. It promotes links if everyone sees it.
Move to vote. The amendment automatically passes with no objections.
Move to vote.
AT: Oooh I’ve heard a move to a vote. . . is there opposition?
MS: We can’t move to a vote without opposition. . .
AT: We had the amendment.
MS: Why of course! But it was friendly so nothing was removed.
AT: Speeches in favour of the move to a vote.
MS: The amendment shouldn’t count as opposition, every part is reasons to support it — we should at least hear Jim in opposition before we vote.
MH: Suppose: we’ve been here two and a half hours.
The move to vote fails.
The Secretary gets worried about his laptop battery and sends SS for the charger.
The amendment from CG is considered:
22
• Amends £450 to £250.
CG: I want the extra things to be good. It’s a separate fund but it’s basically the main fund. I’m not sure if it’s sensible to give this amount, as we’ll not have enough money this year. The extra money goes on extra nice things. It does not go on your chances of a good career.
AT: Short factual questions on this amendment?
IJ: It doesn’t say it will be repeated.
SB: It’s incredibly mean spirited. You wouldn’t be able to get [the art] on the open market for this price. Everyone would like to go home. Vote down the amendment, vote the thing through and go home.
Move to vote.
The amendment fails.
DT: If we spend £250 on Arts Week and this almost double on something that benefits one member of the JCR, bearing in mind the arts related things in the rest of the calendar. . .
LMA: It’s not about the scale of the money
Quorum lost.
Quorum is re-established.
Move to vote.
PA: I just want to know, does anyone know where this money has come from?
IT: No.
Move to vote passes.
AT: Summary speeches.
PM: It’s a good idea, it’s a great cultural event in Oxford every year. In the past events have not done anything to such an extent, it makes me really happy.
DT: It’s a fine cause but it’s too much money.
The motion passes.
Result: Passed
Motion: Oxford Homeless Pathways clothes donation box by Scott Carless
This JCR notes
1. That homelessness is an important issue in Oxford.
This JCR believes
1. That it can play a role in supporting such organisations and contributing to the local community.
This JCR resolves
1. To register itself as a collection point for Homeless Pathways.
2. To provide a box in a suitable and convenient location, in which second hand clothes and other items can be left by students or staff for collection by O’Hanlon House.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-11-01
Ali Travis (AT): Okay guys, quieten down. We’ve exceeded quorum. EGM, one motion and amend- ments, so we will discuss it.
Chris Gross (CG): I won’t say that much as there are lots of clever people here and they have good points so we’ll have debate. Notes 1 self-explanatory. Notes 2 — no funding for non-strat sig subjects. Things that will help business. Creating economic growth. Osbourne said that it would happen. Grants for research into sciences protected but he didn’t say anything else. Recommends removal of hard cap on tuition fees. Can’t charge more than £3250 or whatever it is this year.
Some newspapers predicted cap of £12k in Browne Review [hereafter BR]. There isn’t — when it comes to working out how much goes to gov and university over £7k — no cap he just did his calculations wrong. Didn’t bother to work out how this would affect acess to higher education.
National protest, I have a signup sheet for this. Buses are free. No-one has any reason not to go.
If this goes through I will send committee emails to tell everyone. OUSU have £1300 in pol cam fund. They have a few hundred as of last Wednesday. This motion does not oppose raising of tuition fees by any amount and does not oppose any cuts to higher education. It opposes direction of travel of BR towards a market in higher education. This is bad and so cost of course will decide what course you go to. That’s not consequence but point of BR. I’ll go cos better prospects and that course will charge more money. Good article on Facebook. 17 yr olds are good at rational market choice.
Believes 2, higher educaiton good for social mobility. Fund things that aren’t just business, they help people get on. Pass £150 from pol cam, amendment to get rid of that and get it from somewhere else. Opposing extent of cuts as package doesn’t mean we oppose all cuts or all of BR.
Patrick Garvey (PG): Any universities indicated raising fees a lot?
CG: Our VC of Oxford has made it clear he’ll be raising them. Russell Group oppose cap, they are 20 top research universities. Some Oxford Colleges who want a cap but Oxford doesn’t.
Hannah O’Rourke (HO): Where is sign up sheet so people can sign up afterwards?
CG: In my bag, I will go get it. Tom Heaten (TH): Any idea why protest at 9am on a Wednesday?
CG: No, starts at 12.
SPW: 11:30.
CG: Buses at 9am from St. Giles because you have to get to London and that takes time. On Wednesday because that’s PMQ. We walk past Houses of Parliament and shout and if Ed Miliband not complete idiot he will ask questions.
Woeley: Protest about?
1
CG: Protest is about cuts, not Review, related. Protest called by NUS and lecturer’s union.
AT: Cuts in general?
CG: No, higher education.
Marine Debray (MD): How do we oppose package as a whole while not opposing certain things in the package?
CG: Hopefully my wording allows us to do that. I’ve stolen wording from OUSU. Allows if Vince calls up Ali about BR, he can say we oppose the package. We oppose the review being implemented in full force. Just proposals to make lecturers have teaching qualifications or to raise level of income
— we can suppose that as a JCR while opposing the package in general. Clear or confusing?
MD: Really confusing.
CG: We don’t have to oppose everything just because we oppose the package as a whole?
MD: Easier to say we oppose some elements of BR which are these?
CG: We oppose as a package, if presented with package would we accept it yes or not, answer is no. We can do what you say; we can say we like bits of it.
Susie Deedigan (SDe): Who’s the over-arching organiser of protest?
CG: NUS and UCU. UCU started it, and said cos they are a good union NUS why don’t you join us as well. On that point, encourage your tutors to come.
Simon Stewart (SS): PoI: I was speaking to a guy at OUSU today, VP welfare, he was saying it’s completely fine to rearrange tutes, most tutors have given indication they are fine with that and will rearrange, e-mail your tutors now.
CG: Even better bring them along with you.
Jan Indracek (JI): How do you make sure that you send clear signal which parts of the review we oppose and which parts we accept and external parts?
CG: We don’t. Point of this is to allow JCR Committee to promote events that oppose Browne Review.
This isn’t to give JCR’s position on every paragraph of Browne Review. Don’t like direction of travel towards marketisation. No point and we’d be here for ages and take all in parts and be terrible.
Ben Marshall (BM): If gvmt pull out will they implement it as a whole?
CG: They may not implement as a whole. Other ministers want to pass it as it is with only minor tweaks. We’re showing how many people oppose it while they are making their decision.
JI: Do you think it is good for Balliol JCR to make statements on Browne Review package?
CG: Good for us to have a policy of number one issue affecting students as students at the moment.
Believes 1 makes it pretty clear what we’re opposing without going into individual elements. Could bring an amendment saying which bits liked and not liked.
Sean Wiles (SWi): PoI: We’d be hear all night if we go through each section. Pragmatic decision to oppose as a whole. If implemented tomorrow would we accept it yes/no. Historically precedent that it’s positive for student groups to collectively oppose certain policies.
MD: If we pass motion and the JCR Believes, if one person in JCR [doesn’t believe] does that mean that they believe?
SPW: That’s why we have a democracy.
2
CG: Hopefully there is a consensus on this. We have lots of political stuff on this JCR. If you read standing policy we have lots of politics even if not 100% of everyone agrees on. We thinks it’s important and vote on it.
Tom Rowley (TR): Just to clarify again: protest not about review but about cuts? What in your opinion is the conflation between these two?
CG: BR is based on assumptions of cuts that Lord Browne thought would be made. CSR based on assumption Lord Browne was going to make — feeding off each other. 40% of teaching budgets. If
BR and CSR go through, cap of £7k, students will be paying more for less. Just to show I’m not a crazy lefty, right wing, not pay more for less. Oxford West MP Tory opposing for this reason.
You can tease them apart as separate issues but they do kind of come as a package. BR published,
CSR published, white paper on high education reform feed off both those things.
Alice Buchanan (AB): If this all goes through then I’ll be reapplying. Will I get caught in that will
I be okay? I’m not sure what’s going to happen about that? Medical students reapply at end of first half in 2013. Will I pay fees for second half?
SS: No indication of any kind of protection.
CG: What year reapply?
AB: End of third year.
CG: Won’t make cut off. Ask department/tutors.
Alex Crutchett (ACr): If motion passes, will people who go to the protest be planning on taking the big Balliol JCR banner with them?
CG: Yes. We’ve said as a JCR that we support protest. Didn’t take it on protest before because we didn’t have a mandate to do so. If people feel strongly we can have an amendment against it.
Matt Barber (MB): Say if we were asked as a JCR what our view was on a certain part of it, would you bring it back to JCR and ask again for certain elements of this review as it goes through as policy?
CG: This says what we feel at this stage. JCR not constrained in any way. Whether I would being another motion depends how stressful however many minutes is for me. I imagine someone would if a fundamental difference. E.g. if secret clause to make everyone get all money for free, lecturers work for free but still have enough food to live on.
Laurie Stephenson (LS): Will payments take form of low-interest loans rather than cash up front?
CG: Yes, same system as at the moment. It still matters if there is a market because people will ask how much debt do I get this, how much debt do I get for this? Told we get x amount of income over life and people ask how much worth?
LS: [Repayments start at salaries of] £21k rather than £15k though.
CG: Yes.
MD: Pay same amount if you did a degree that earnt you less?
CG: Same degree and cost same amount and different earning potentials, rate at which you pay is different.
MD: Suppose I do English and do teaching and get £21k pay same amount as medicine student.
Different degrees, that costs less and get less money back.
CG: At any point in time, the rate you are paying is lower as lower income. Over the course of your career you may well end up paying the same amount. Depends on the rate at which you are paying it back. Written off after 30 years.
3
BM: Resolves 3, mandates comm to promote protest, what is mandating this mean?
CG: In practice, we can put posters up. [But this] means we have to put posters up and send e-mails.
Reason why this motion is tonight and not on Sunday because deadline for signing up for buses is on Friday and I want to be able to promote this twenty minutes after this meeting ends.
JI: In terms of Notes 2, where exactly does the BR recommend that 100% slash for non-strat sig subjetcs?
CG: I’m pretty sure that it says “strat sig” — all subjects that aren’t that shouldn’t be funded.
SB: PoI: It doesn’t say that anyway. Talks about variables fees — science subjects cost more, levelling out mechanism so £10k differential between engineering degree and English degree. Does not endorse or recommend coalition’s cutting of arts funding — that is the CSR.
Anna Comboni (ACo): On Resolves 3 — if a particular JCR comm member felt strongly against actively promoting the protest, do they have to?
CG: It says as a whole, not every comm member personally has to do it. Anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to good conscience.
MD: Does it prevent comm members from openly opposing it? CG: They can walk about it but they can’t use JCR e-mails to oppose it, JCR printers and photocopying.
JI: In terms of Notes 4, are you sure BR makes no attempt to assess the impact of changes on students?
Expanding of availability of HE is main principle of BR?
DB: Didn’t, it wasn’t in their terms of reference.
CG: Access wrong word. Does look at how many more people can we get into university. Doesn’t say how many more poor people can we get into university. Just how many more people. No remit.
JI: Does it consider people form lower socio-economic groups? In terms of grants. It does.
AT: Save that for debate.
ACo: If this motion doesn’t pass can comm members still send out e-mails as long as people against also allowed to send out e-mails?
CG: No, no-one could send out e-mails about BR.
GL: Except on. . .
Max Deacon (MxD): £150, cap of twenty people who can go?
CG: No, if they gut your name by Friday 5pm you can guaranteed go.
SDe: £150 just to help OUSU out if buses free?
CG: Someone is putting on buses, they are not charging per person.
JI: Have you read the whole review?
CG: No.
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Adds Notes 9: The balance of the Political Campaigning Fund is currently £0.
• Amends Resolves 4: In these exceptional circumstances to debit the Political Campaigning
Fund the sum of £150 by way of payment from the main JCR funds and to have this sum repaid to the JCR by future funds collected from optional levy instalments for the Political
Campaigning Fund.
4
GL: Amendment adds to Notes no money in Pol Cam, decision made a couple of GMs to exhaust all our funds. Amends Resolves 4 to pass money loan from main fund and get it back from optional levies. Money goes into pol cam and that eats away at money we pass out of it. Reason why we should pass it out and repay it back because we should treat this pol motion the same as other pol motions, not just give money from main JCR funds. At next GM I’m going to bring a motion that means JCR pol cam fund won’t be able to used very much in line with our legal obligations as a charity. Not great demand for it so if it has a debt over two or three terms that won’t be a big problem.
The amendment is taken as friendly
SB: How much goes into pol cam every term? Many opt out.
GL: £50–60 pounds. You can increase it.
The amendment from SS is considered:
• Amends Resolve 4: To pass £200 to donate to OUSU towards the cost of the buses.
SS: I went on an unrelated issue to speak to OUSU. Asking JCRs for between £2 and £300 pounds for this sort of stuff. We are one of the richest JCRs so we should donate £300 becuase we can kind of afford it.
CG wishes to accept the amendment as friendly but there are objections
AT: SFQs then.
MD: I thought we had no money in pol cam as shown by Amendment 1.
SS: I want this out of general funds but I quite like the idea of Greig’s. Pass this and up pol cam levy next term in idea of changing levies to reflect what’s going on. I’ll bring this to the next GM.
Another thing I’ve found out, OUSU is a reg charity and they do pol cam all the time so we’re fine to do it.
GL: This is an example of something we can do somethig on. We can’t do things like LWC and helping ethnic minorities being stoned to death in Uganda.
GL: Educational charity.
ACo: What kind of stuff is the fund normally spend on?
AT: Last few things: lobbying group for new legislation in Uganda to criminalise homosexuality. Student pol cams such as LWC in the past. Operates as a lower balance to main charities account. 1/5 of amount of money.
DB: What does current pol levy have and what will it go up to if we need to find £300?
GL: It’s about 20p. It’s an optional levy. We shouldn’t increase optional too much because it catches out people who don’t bother. It’s a sneaky way to get money. If we bring an increase it would be proportionate. We might suggest in Notes that people give more and raise awareness of it. You can amend it up or down; not compulsory.
LS: How do we opt out of optional levies?
AT: On Friday you’ll get a slip in your pidge of things you can opt out of. If you don’t want to give money to entz, pol cam, charities — you just cross them off and give to Lodge.
GL: But you shouldn’t do that.
AT: It’ll be clear when you get the list.
Sally Murray (SM): OUSU has committed to putting money for 400. Will it still do that if not enough money?
5
SS: They want to get anyone who wants to go down there. They’ll fund it and pay for it and come back to JCRs for more money after. OUSU will have less money to spend on statues of themselves or whatever they do.
Will Smith (WS): What is the nature of ask from OUSU?
SS: They’re just asking. “We’re doing this we’d like you to donate to this.”
AT: Several other JCRs have done it. Trying to get a big pot to take x number of people.
TR: Presumably you agree with OUSU’s policy of paying collectively for these buses rather than every- one paying £6.90. Why? People wouldn’t pay and therefore wouldn’t go?
SS: People should be able to protest and it is something the students care about, something we should be supporting. If someone has run out of money because they got too pissed yesterday they should still be allowed their view. Not based on ability to pay whether you go or not. BM: If we give loads of money to OUSU and no-one wants to go, will we get the money back?
AT: To repeat: if we give too much money and they didn’t book all buses do we get our money back?
SS: No. They probably would keep all of our money. They’re spending about £1k themselves. The more JCRs pay OUSU pays more and OUSU does valuable things and is skint so help them out.
AT: Debate.
SB: This would put pol cam fund in deficit for best part of the freshers’ degrees. We shouldn’t do that.
There will be other things to spend the money on. Not a responsible use of pol cam fund. Costs about a pound if you have your freshers fair stub to get on Oxford Tube to get down there?
CaG: That’s expired.
SB: Argument for paying £300 is not there. Not spend so much out of fund.
SS: At moment this says we spend £300. If we decide not to spend out of pol cam you’d have to bring another amendment.
AT: This would go on top of Greig’s amendment.
GL: Yours amends Reoslves 4. I aree with Stephen, it would be good to give £300 to this, and we should facilitate people’s right to protest. We shouldn’t pass £300. It should come out of that fund because we should treat pol cam equally in sense that we shouldn’t just pass £300 out of all of our money. Then you open up precedent for people to pass stuff out of main fund and not use account specifically there for it. Not just pass £300 from accounts. Not pass £300 as debt because that’s a very unsustainable debt.
SMW: Had deficit argument last year. Dangerous thing to do — something comes along we want to campaign about, if on -£90 or -£250 next term we don’t want to be in that place. However this is the only palce we can take it from.
SS: We have loads of savings. £300 is not a substantial chunk of savings. If JCR feels really strongly about, if people at this EGM wants to spend JCR money on these buses, just because last load of people spent all our money on something else doesn’t mean JCR shouldn’t should spend money on whatever the hell we want. Let’s not debt pol cam fund but spend money if we want to support this thing. We are rich and our accounts don’t reflect our priorities if an unfortunate fact. One we can just decide to spend £300 out of savings. No reason to worry. Precedent weak — this is an emergency GM. Biggest issue to affect students since OUSU started. Impression they were giving today. This is what OUSU was set up to do. If this is all the students rallying together behind something that’s pretty fucking cool so let’s give them some money.
6
HMc: If it did come from pol cam, I can imagine people who go on buses will probably add a quid or two on the levy form out of guilt.
SS: This isn’t going to come out of pol cam fund. Force behind amendment is that we pay this out of savings now.
AT: For clarification, you want to eliminate Resolves 4, no mention of pol cam, out of savings and get rid of Greig’s amendment.
ACo: I’m not convinced about case for OUSU putting on free buses. If someone gets really drunk and not have money to spend on bus — if they care that enough about protest they should just save a little bit more money.
SS: That was said in jest. If someone doesn’t have money cos spent all money on eating. Not all colleges have as much money as we Doug has go give out. Collective action. Fairer. People didn’t know about protest when they made budgets at the start of the year.
HO: Sorry I’m wearing am moustache. Basically, is there any possiblity we can introduce some other levy, so people who went on the buses can tick this. Then we avoid savings, everyone is against that, but then not draining pol cam fund. Mass referendum via levies.
SS: That just seems complicated. Doesn’t seem that everyone is against spending it from general funds.
HO: That was possible compromise.
SS: Don’t need compromise yet.
SB: I have to leave the room. I don’t see how it’s right that people, some of whom have gone, under certain pretences, music room levies for something else.
SS: Pantry and Bar earn money. General JCR money not levied for any particular reason.
SB: Money from bar and pantry money earned by services which people think goes back into services, not paid into pol cam they might not have consented to, not presume [view of] people who aren’t here anymore.
GL: Point of precedent weak. A lot of the time people say “motion sets a dangerous precedent” — when people pass £500 for a charity. Passes huge proportion of money. But it does — we have a period where charities come in at 300, 400, 500. Then we pass charities motions at 50, 60 70.
Things like this do set precedents. Take example of tsunami. Huge crises, big emergency, we don’t have £1000 in account, really important issue so spend £100 out of savings. That’s bad. Stephen maeks a good point that we specifically collect money for pol cam and charities. People who want to spend money on those things can. JCR not just bankroll things. One of the only reasons we give money to charity is that we collect money for charitable purposes. Same for pol cam — legitimises spending money on it.
Move to vote
SS: We’re just hearing the same arguments and I’m happy to summarise position. No new information coming to light.
SM: We don’t know much about general savings that the JCR has and what we have in there.
The MTV passes
SS: This would pass £300 from the JCR to OUSU to spend on these coaches. We’re a big JCR. We have a lot of money. Been asking JCRs for between £2 and £300. If we do support it we should give it our full support. Precedent we’re setting is in emergency situations when we’ve run accounts we give money out of savings that we’re planning to invest to earn more moeny. That’s an okay precedent to set. About something that happens in exceptional circumstances. People will have these debates all the time and people on both sides, if GM believes we should do that at the moment we should do it. People who aren’t here aren’t here. We should do what we want. 7
SB: This is a motion which would take money from funds that haven’t been levied for that purpose.
When I pay to entz I assume someone wants a karoke machine. Majority of people in this JCR won’t be able to attend. If we don’t have enough not spend so much last time.
The amendment passes
MxD: How much money do we have in savings to the nearest £2k?
AT: Quick rundown. . .
GL: Or just — around about £55k.
AT: We can spend about £25k without going bankrupt.
GL: That’s not that much for an organisation of this size.
SM: What is that money for?
AT: For an org this sound, annual turnover of £250k, that’s not very much. Our savings in 5th will be about upwards of £65k. Towards end of this week they’ll be nearer £25k. Large tidal flow. Series of years that made losses from JCR and bar, of £5k, not unheard of, not many of those before we hit bedrock and end up in a lot of money. If we hit 0 college will take over our bar.
TR: Savings are operational buffer to let cheques cleared?
AT: Hoping to change this next GM but at the moment nothing saved, all in big operational pool.
Sam Ellis (SE): Based on what Stpehen said limited places? Guaranteed that everyone who signs up?
CG: Everyone who signs up by Friday is going.
The amendment from SS is considered:
• Adds to Resolves: To go the protest on the 10th November.
SS: Quick one. Resolves to go. We’ve say we supported. We say that we turn up if [we] can as well as support it.
CG wishes to take the amendment as friendly but there are objection
DB: Does this force everyone to go?
CG: No we resolve to go — CG makes an arm gesture
SS: It means we resolve to go in same way I resolve to go to loads of birthday parties and turn up to 20% of them. Some of us will do our best to go.
CG: Like “constitutional crisis” at last GM, no-one will do it.
ACr: All JCR Committee have to go?
SS: No. It’d be nice if Committee all went.
MD: We’re resolving to go to a protest that doesn’t oppose what we’re opposing in the motion. We’ve made it clear that we’re against BR.
SS: Against both.
LS: We’re agreeing it’s bad. What’s the point?
SS: Making it explicit.
SM: You just said this doesn’t mean we’re going to go.
MxD: Understanding of resolving to do something is that you then do it.
Move to vote
8
SS: This isn’t a very complicated thing.
HO: I think we haven’t disucssed it and we need to dicuss it. People need to know resolving and giving a mandate is quite important. Resolving to do something, can take this lighly but it still does need something.
The MTV passes
SS: I’m not not taking it seriously. It is important that we resolve to do things so let’s do it, let’s go.
DB: If motion is genuinely resolving something and binding on JCR to go to protest, there’s something very wrong about that. I certainly have no intention of going because I have studies on Monday and I don’t support the protest. If however motion is meaningless then not worth [something].
The amendment passes
The amendment from Peter Edwards (PE) is considered:
• Strikes Believes 1, as marketisation does not necessarily lead to high costs but often reduces costs. PE: My amendment is that Believes 1, clear direction of travel which is a bad thing cos leads to higher costs. All education involves costs so I assume you meant higher costs. Mainly, market doesn’t lead to higher costs necessarily, often it leads to lower costs.
AT: SFQs.
NiS: I had a procedural that would have saved about an hour but I can’t do it [now].
SWi: Costs are benefit of government. Students still have higher costs. Cost savings only go to gvmt.
AT: SFQs about nature of amendment please.
MxD: Did you actually mean higher costs Chris?
CG: Beliefs says costs become a factor in choices. Up for some courses, some rise higher than others, point of BR, lead to market.
MB: Can you briefly explain why you think market will lead to lower costs, just to clarify that costs?
PE: Add compettion and costs go down, basic economics.
Shreya Sinha (SSi): Is this just the wording of the motion not what it does?
AT: Doesn’t change Resolves, just Believes.
JI: It’s really important to consider what Believes are. It sets out how things should and shouldn’t be.
Not as simple as Resolves. Even more important.
SM: I read Believes as costs becoming a factor. Even if costs going down on all courses, this Believes is about differential of costs. If top rate still 4k 500 on other courses, interpreting that correctly.
PE: My point is that it says market is a bad thing.
CG: It doesn’t say that. It says that market leads to costs becoming a factor. Unis can charge less than
£3k if they want but they can’t afford to. If they suddenly lose all their funding there’s a market they’ll suddenly charge less? I don’t understand it.
Ben Waltman (BW): Doesn’t the BR make a point out of the fact that they want to hold cost of courses constant? English degree cost same as Science degree precisely because Science strat sig they want to support it. To point as a whole, to Believes 1, I thought BR actually says that they want to have costs of courses constant. Being actually they want to support science. Because otherwise sciences cost more than say English.
AT: Take that as a sign that we’re in debate. Other speeches in debate following on from that.
9
SS: Okay well Chris’ wording of this says market will make costs a factor as that’s how markets work, prices signal to consumers and producers alike. Cost is an important factor in markets. At the moment price is not a factor. If things get expensive people will choose not to do a course they want to do. We are aginst market in HE not markets as a whole.
Move to vote
HMc: I think that the wording of Believes 1 has been misunderstood with this amendment and that most people have figured that out.
CG: This is pretty fundamental. We’re having the debate on the motion so we might as well just do it.
The move to vote passes
PE: Market does not necessarily lead to costs . . . well, cost is always factor in education even if students haven’t had to take it up themselves in the past. Science and things are very expensive things to run. We have to think about international students, many of them have to pay for their tuition.
This entire Believes says that Balliol does not believe in market full stop.
CG reads out the Believes in question
CG: It does say market of HE not just market. Oppose amendment because you’re saying that costs could go down. While it’s true that in markets some costs go down, what we have at moment is
[a] cap of £3k, not set fees of £3k. One university charged less for a year but then it stopped as not enough funding. With CSR all universities are going to lose all teaching for humanities. After losing all their teaching — 40% cut in teaching budgets. Idea that they will lower fees after this won’t happen costs go up, market, which I think is a bad thing.
The amendment fails
The amendment from ACr is considered:
• Adds to Believes: The misc list is adequate to advertise the protest. • Strikes Resolves 3.
ACr reads Believes 3
ACr: The misc list has been used to promote such things in the past such as other protests. Don’t see why that can’t be used again. Don’t see what else needs to be done.
SDe: Point of this is because misc list, you can’t send any e-mails out to all students unless it’s been passed. I thought you can’t send any emails to everyone about protest unless this is passed.
AT: Current situation is that we can’t send out politically biased information. I can’t say as JCR Pres,
“Labour rally we all go.” We can misc list. Main mailing list — Committee and societies, SWD event from Mike. Also misc list which is odds and ends, once a day and no more, groups individual requests, lose your pen etc. No real moderation of misc list at the moment. Great demo doesn’t reflect opinions. That’ll go on misc list.
MD: Would that stop JCR Committee from having to say that they approve of this motion as a whole?
Send it through misc list, take away resp, of JCR Committee as a whole to be against BR?
CG: Comm members without amendment not mandated to send e-mails supporting protest. Comm as a whole send e-mail on main committee list. Indiv. members wouldn’t have to say how much they love the protest if they don’t. Without this we can’t send anything. No mention on comm e-mails at all if Crutch amendment goes through.
AT: Debate. No SFQs.
CG: Misc list which lots of people don’t read and apparently people don’t know it about big thing support students since ages. If we support it Committee should be allowed and forced to send e-mails.
Move to vote
10
ACr: I disagree with what Chris says. Plenty of incidences of protests or political marches been adver- tised on misc list. Those who want to go on them can and those who don’t want to haven’t. Not have precedence over other matters. Move to vote
ACr: I’ve alreayd done [a summary speech]
SS: This is differ net to other events as it’s a campaign done by JCR not external stuff to send to our misc list. Different channel, campaign JCR is doing, not some club.
AT: Hands in favour of banishing all this to the misc list, essentially.
The amendment fails
The amendment from JI is considered:
• Deletes Notes 4.
JI: This amendment strikes down Notes 4 wich says BR makes no attempts to assess impact of blah.
If you look at conc. of BR, it considers this. Recommends increase of 10% in number of places.
Increase in support for living costs of students from low income backgrounds. Recognises role of institutions in promoting access for all. Earlier in review it says try to target people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Notes 4 which says that BR makes no attempt to look at changes is absolutely not true.
CG: PoI: Notes 4 is about [who] these changes will impact — i.e. changes in Notes 1–3.
NiS: Withdraw some of [Jan’s] amendments bearing in mind Stephen will take out Notes 1–4 and take up BR stuff which is slowing up the meeting.
JI: Sure after we consider this one. Stephen can go before me.
SS: Would Stephen be willing to take Stephen out if Jan going through all these in parts? Take it one by one.
SB: None of 1–4 are factually true.
JI: Want to make one large amendment. Because people get dodgy over single parts, I split it, take each issue on its own.
HMc: What happens to all of this Notes stuff after we’ve voted: does it go anywhere?
SPW: Only my folder [in the office].
AT: Standing policy?
SPW: No, not unless [the motion] says to do that. JI: I’m looking at Believes and Resolves but need to consider Notes first.
CG: Jan is right that parts of BR do consider access but in Notes I am talking about hard cap and non strat sig issue. I have heard that is CSR not BR. Mistake. Basically even if that gets taken out later, BR doesn’t make any attempt of [assessing the] impact of having a market so as I have it it is fine.
JI: Tuition fees, BR moves hard cap upwards. Also moves upwards repayment level of income before you repay. This makes it easier for you to repay. While doing so there is no barrier for students to go study if they pay fees after degree with substantial income. Another amendment later. Thing about fees is barrier not the real cost. Notes 4 factually not true.
Move to vote
JI: Not factually true.
11
CG: Jan has mischaracterised what Notes 4 says. I’m saying Browne didn’t look into whether these things that I’ve talked about specifically he did not look at. In your debate you didn’t address them. You said other things he looked at. Point of motion is to be broad and not get into this.
Bits I’ve taken out that we should oppose — Browne did not look at these.
The amendment fails
DB: How many votes chairman?
AT: Recount asked for, okay. 16/22.
The amendment from SB is considered:
• Strikes all Notes except 1, 5, 6, 7, 8.
SB: This strikes all of Notes other than 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 because 2–4 aren’t true. I have had the misfortune to read entire of BR and none of these points are accurate. Doesn’t recommend removing
100% of non strat sig. Recommends tapering so not priced out of engineering but able to afford
Enlgish. After £12k it becomes ridiculous. Charging more in order to give money straight to gvmt. No benefit to higher education institution. Does make attempt to look at higher education
— recommends propaganda to tell people bottom 30% will pay less. JCR should not note things that aren’t true as a point of principle.
Applause
MH: Three is not correct, you said, because it becomes uneconomical to charge above. . .
SB: If you charge £13k I will blow up Thomas Hull House it doesn’t really matter.
MB: If you oppose Notes 1–4, do you in addition propose to replace those notes with a factual replace- ments rather than striking them off rather than what you consider to be untrue representations of the actual review?
SB: Not sure [there is a] true version of 2.
CG: I got confused between CSR and BR. You could have amended it to say CSR and whole [jist] of article is fine.
AT: Creeping into debate.
HMc: Does BR recommend removal of hard cap or not? Notes 3.
SB: Yes. Doesn’t mean universities have ability to charge. . .
HMc: Does it say no hard cap?
SB: They can’t charge unlimited fees.
HMc: Your interpretation.
SB: Keep 3 then but drop others which aren’t true.
SS: What do you understand is going on in Notes 1?
SB: Sorry I want to keep that.
HO: Just asking — how would it be uneconomical for univeristies to charge over £12k?
SB: Browne proposes system where you charge certain amount so you have to pay bursary back so people who can’t afford to pay do not have to. Not rolling lottery of bursaries across university.
After £12k you’re not getting any of that money. Chris Patten won’t say that sounds like a great idea.
HO: If charging £10k any of that go back into bursaries?
SB: Taper kicks in from £7k.
12 CG: Notes 4 doesn’t say BR makes no assessment on any of changes to HE — speciflcally says. Did
BR assess removal of hard cap on access to education?
SB: Raising fees so yes.
JI reads from the BR
JI: Considered proposals of private finance — not available on same terms to everyone. Basically what x is talking about.
HO: Sorry if I sound like a geek who’s really interested in figures but — say I went to a university that charged £7k, none of that forced into bursaries, thinking wider than just Oxford, none into bursaries, quite an expensive university to go to, places who charge 7k won’t have alumni funding so can’t fund bursaries. Most universities will land in that mark.
SMW: Not done by particular university. Pay back to a company. Gvmt tax it. They’re getting money for bursary subsidised by place charging £12k.
HO: £12k places won’t have as much for bursaries.
SB: Browne’s problem is saying if you come to Oxford with not that much money Oxford can say have a bursary and you’re fine. In Warwick in bottom decile you’re going to have a pretty awful time.
Central busrary scheme drawn upon. Doesn’t make Notes 4 true. We’re saying “BR says Stephen is great.” It would be nice if it did but it doesn’t.
Stephen Boyd (SBo): Over £12k they will recieve none but majority to gvmt — that not true?
SB: Taper is a rising levy. Once you get to £12k it becomes unprofitable and uncompetitive.
CG: You’re implyuing that at £12k 100% of money goes to bursaries. Is that the case or is it not the case?
SB: Charge more not make more money.
SMW: Not 100% but not charge £1000 more to get £100. Not 100% but they might as well be.
CG: Stephen’s argument is based on ignoring there aren’t a few universities that people want to pay more money for. They would keep charging. If Oxford charged £1000 more, might only get £100 but still £100 more and people would still pay so they probably would do that. NiS: As I understand motion it’s based on demonstration next week. We want to donate money so that everyone who wants to go can go. Notes 1 5, 7, 8 are sufficient for that. BR is what we’re debating now but that’s not relevant to motion. Take out controversial stuff and see if we are going to give the money.
Applause
Move to vote
PG: All points of fact and debating won’t change it. If you believe Stephen you vote in favour you vote for him and if not not. Debate will not help.
JI: This is fundamentally important amendment. Whether JCR should make decisions in notes that are not factually correct. We should still discuss that, 2/3 more minutes; can’t skip to vote.
The move to fails
DB: Count?
AT: 24 for and I stopped counting after 10 cos not two thirds.
SS: General feeling we want to get to the end of this — these are Notes not Believes. If these facts are disputed we can cut them out of our Notes and discuss what we believe twhich is coming up in a bit. Makes more sense just to take these out, if we believe stuff that’s not true that’s a shame.
Note stuff that’s not true we’re not getting our facts straight. Get onto voting on this now. Taking out Notes which are not controversial isn’t enough. Believes is enough to Resolve, we don’t resolve based on what we Note. Just take them out.
13
Sam Ellis (SE): Same thing that Simon said — if Notes are supposed to be facts, we’ve spend 1/2 an hour discussing whether true or false. Are they actually facts? Take them out.
SS: Answer is we don’t know.
SB: I agree with Nicola. £15678 sufficient to pass money for protest. Not strengthened as it means us not checking. Wrong impression . . .
Move to vote SS: I think the mood of room is to take these out and Resolve on what we Believe. We don’t have enough time for each one of us to research this, we’re just listening to — dunno what we’re listening to really.
ACr: Quite happy to move to vote but want to hear end of what Stephen says before we MTV. ijSums up before vote anyway.
The move to vote passes
SB: I hate to be a broken record but I’ve read BR and these things aren’t in it. Let’s not have such things. Simple.
CG: 2 was an error, in CSR not BR. 3 is true.
SB: What page? What page?
CG: You said yourself that it tapers off! Removal of hard cap, you accepted. I will accept that these go out if non-controverisal but I’m not trying to deceive anyone.
The amendment passes
The ninth amendment from JI is considered:
• Amends Believes 1: That Balliol JCR should oppose the cuts to further education as this is a bad thing. It however should never make any general or even dogmatic statements as it is also a bad thing.
JI reads his amendment
SS: Procedural motion not to hear this. All it adds is that we should not make general and dogmatic statements. Nothign to do with this motion. General common sense. Debate Believes 1. Not discuss this.
JI: We should talk about this. Make sure that we don’t sent signals that we based on false assumptions.
First get our facts straight and then oppose the cuts.
The procedural motion passes
The tenth amendment from JI is considered:
• Adds to Believes: University fees are not paid up front, and thus do not disadvantage stu- dents from low income backgrounds. The only way fees bar students from entering university is through a mental barrier of fear. The government, NUS and OUSU should try and run a campaign promoting the university education and explaining that these in fact do not finan- cially prevent any single high school student from studying at university.
JI: Because the BR doesn’t make it more difficult for students to go to schools because of higher fees
. . . fees make mental barrier. Make a campaign to explain to all students that they only pay when have money and not pay up front. Most important thing. Not rational just fair.
CG does not wish to take the amendment as friendly
MB: In what way is a fear of debt an irrational fear?
Applause
14
JI: Irrational if you perceive debt in an unrealistic view. If you take mortgage you pay every month, if they don’t they take your property. This doesn’t happen with tuition fee loan. Pay from income.
Almost a graduate tax. Only different between this and graduate tax is that this is limited. If you’ve paid either £9k or £21k, then you finish paying. Working like a tax, not a typical commercial debt. Irrational to think of [as a] debt that stops you from doing things.
HMc: If this motion is generally us saying that — if we pass this then it’s about not wanting higher fees. How does this fit in?
JI: This is splitting the whole motion into two parts. One is BR which allows universities to charge higher fees. CSR cuts financing. Balliol should stand against cuts to university funding but BR worse. It’s acknowledging that even if you increase the fees the real threat of debt is not changing.
Still working on same basis. Looking at real issue behind this we should run a campaign to explain to high school studnets what fees do to them.
HMc: Are you breaking down motion or slipping this in?
JI: Slipping it in, then break up motion, get rid of tuition fees thing, we vote purely on matter of slashing university funding. NiS: This amendment doesn’t change any Resolves. One more thing wasting our time whether we send people on protest. If we pass this — coherent amendment in or none at all, this is clogging up the
GM.
JI: It’s difficult to put all these things together. When you make some large amendment. Some people in JCR pick on one single word or stupid thing and bring it down. Single amendment to discuss all these.
Move to vote
SWi: We’re going to be hear all nigh otherwise.
MH: Not heard any speech against this, one in favour one say not talk about it. Ridiculous to MTV now.
The move to vote fails
ACr: The thing that Jan is saying about fear — no good picking up on this based on what he says — this debt is a finite debt. It’s not something that will gather up. Finite debt for student loan, debt you will gain on, pay fees forever, good education therefore better prospects afterwards. People shouldn’t be afraid to go to university and have to pay fees because of it. When you come out the other side you shouldn’t not go to university because you can’t afford it. Not about being afraid of paying money. Point is not going to university because you can’t afford it, that’s okay because you pay afterwards when you can not upfront.
SS: I kind of agree with some of this stuff. Way fees work at the moment is good, and people who earn money should pay loads of tax for getting PPE from Oxford. Thing is this does do something —
Resolves thing. Come and look at later, pursue later not by this particular motion. Quite a lot to say and do in the middle of this motion. With this market stuff that’s going on, yeah debt shouldn’t be a real fear but it will make a point in someone’s choice whether they want to do medicine or surf studies or English or media studies. Amount of debt variable so amount of debt be a factor in your choice of course which is what we’re opposing before and which we should still oppose. If still true oppose amendment. MH: I disagree that the mental barrier is the only way that students are barred by fees. Cost benefit thing. If rising to £12k after a 4 year degree you’re looking at paying back £50k. It’s quite easy to say I don’t know if I’ll earn that much, I won’t, I won’t go to university for that. At the same time someone from an extremely rich background who can write that off over a couple of years for his parents, no reason for them to not go there.
15
TH: Every single 17 year old who’s thinking about future isn’t a financially independent individual. I’ve lived off parents for 18 years as have most people here and therefore they have quite an influence over whether I apply to university or not. If I told them that I’d have that much debt when I
[applied] I woudn’t be here. Not just a mental factor. Nonsense. Idea of income — other things to consider. Too narrow.
Move to vote
SS: Vibe in room is that this is a complex issue we shouldn’t just put in as amendment. Vote down contentious additional beliefs.
SB: Other issues that should be discussed around this, many hands up, not MTV.
The MTV fails
SDe: Build on what Tom said — amendment adds nothing to motion. Quite irrelevent, patronising and generally incorrect. Adds nothing to motion to. Only way bars as a mental barrier is in my opinion ridiculous.
JI: It is a mental barrier of fear. £25k of debt or £10k of debt — if you don’t make £15k you don’t pay anything in both of these situations. If you make £16k, whatever your debt is, you pay just £90 from your income over £15k. Doesn’t change anything.
SMW: There is a very relevant debate here but not part of this motion. All we’re going to end up doing is sitting around playing “my dad’s poorer than yours” and swapping anecdotes. Vote it down and bring up at a later GM.
MD: PoI: It costs about [something] to sustain tute system at Oxford and Cambridge. If fees are not raised we’re not going to get this. At Harvard for glorified lectures they pay £50k. We get this
— only place in the world. Costs a certain amount of money. We’re very sought after grads, get higher standard of living for that. Pay back people who have given us this education. Gotten this much, pay this much back, not ridiculous or incorrect at all to suggest only two universities in this world that give out for fifth of what international students pay to get here.
SB: Whatever you feel abour BR, unless more than 40 Lib Dems discover there is a manifesto promise they don’t want to tear up it will pass so as a JCR we should oppose this stuff. Vote for amendment after arithmetic.
Edlyn Livesey (EL): Peer pressure because of fees in Oxford from a low income background not to come — people laughing at me at school. Massive peer pressure from parents and friends stop you applying if fees higher.
HO: There is something in what Stephen said. If this is going to happen which is probbaly is we should have some strategy for coping with it. Jan could be talking about current system. Education always better. My parents were nervous but someone came to assembly and talked about it. More education is always a good thing. Just talking about fees not variables fees. In some ways not relevant to motion but in other ways it’s good to Believe.
Move to vote
SMW: Going in circles and anecdotes are nice but it’s twenty past nine.
CG: I don’t think so. We haven’t got into nitty gritty of what this does about our beliefs about the market. Haven’t talked abot that yet. Quite like to do that please.
The move to vote fails
RGJ: For the most part I agree with Jan. A lot of people clearly don’t. Sentiment is whether or not people agree with you but not entirely relevant. Discuss separately. Not immediately relevant to what we’re talking about, protest next week — talk about it at next GM, think about it more thoroughly. Better worded motion so people can really talk about it, not just going round in circles as we are not. 16
CG: Very relevant. Whole motion is about changing of fees structure. Jan talking about fees structure.
Jan’s description is partially correct. There is a real problem, may be irrational, better education
— market means game changes. Variable fees. Choose to go to this university rather than this, more like a commercial loan. Main point here.
JI: The idea of creating a market is going to fail. If you know you don’t pay anything upfront, variable size of fees only determines period of which you repay it under very favourable circumstances, it won’t put you off. Very relevant because if we believe in this then we are going to oppose only cut to university funding, not oppose any reforms around student fees what so ever.
WS: Amendment true on simple financial grounds. People leaving high school aren’t financially stupid,
Weighing up going into career or university. As it is fine balance between the two. Going to university and paying £20–30k, then job, compared with going into employment and climbing the ladder, it’s a fine balance.
MH: This campaign that NUS, OUSU — sounds a lot like access campaign which Balliol already does support so redundant in that sort of sense.
Scott Carless (SC): All this costs about paying up front. Every single high school student is a very general statement which disagrees with access policy of this college. I wasn’t a high school student
— real independent financial pressure of being an independent adult in this world. I don’t agree with this.
Move to vote
SS: Scott’s made a very good point that this is a weird general amendment that is really patronising and odd and vote against it and vote now.
ACr: I’ve had my hand up for 15 minutes.
AT: Awwww you were next.
ACr: Thanks Ali. I have a point to make that will clear up mess of amendment.
AT: Vote on MTV or whether we want to hear Crutchett. The move to vote passes
JI: Alex sum up?
AT: Not for new material.
ACr: I can sum up.
AT: Go for it.
ACr: Although this is worded oddly, how many people gvmt NUS and OUSU promote university edu- cation would really disagree? Explaining not that bad etc. People afraid with education cuts and costs going up so why not, who would disagree. Only opposition is that it’s the only way fees hit students. It’s a major way fees bar students.
SS: It does say only say is mental barrier of fear which isn’t true. We’re not talking about fees dis- advantaging people from low incomes, we’re talking variables fees will cause people to choose cos cheap not because they want to do it — we should not add this to our Believes, like Mike has said they already run an access campaign, go spend more time lobbying but it’s not what we’re talking about.
The amendment fails
Nick Spanier (NS): Procedural motion to introduce an intermission.
AT: Quick break of say 10 minutes,
A vote is taken
17
AT: Two thirds. Back in 10 minutes.
—
AT: Everyone in their seats!
The amendment from SB is considered:
• Resolves not to take the banner.
SS: Procedural. It’ll be clear what the arguments are on each side. If we say we want to support a cause explicitly we should take the flag.
SB: There are arguments about the role of the JCR. The procedural motion fails
SB: Outside of my life as a journalist, I’m a Labour hack. As a Blairite I’ve found it miserable to unify behind a banner I don’t agree with. Even if one solitary person who doesn’t want Balliol JCR banner there. It’s utter hell. We shouldn’t do that to people.
AT: Straight into debate. No SFQs.
SS: I’m in favour of Balliol JCR being more politically active [than] the past few years. We should.
People are free to dissent within the JCR. People are free to leave the JCR if they are really opposed to political stuff. I’m not forcing anyone to leave, a shame if they disagree with what rest of students are doing. If Balliol JCR passes something saying they believe it, then we should be allowed to take our banner to do it, that’s why we’ve got a banner.
SDe: This is a cause that will affect everyone in this room as a student. When we were on the Oxford protest because we hadn’t agreed we weren’t allowed to take banner. Other colleges had their own banners, and everyone ended up with socialist worker placards. I disagreed with that. People just wanted something to carry. If we had Balliol banner we would have something to unite under to show we agree with cause as College rather than being coerced into carrying other people’s banners.
Vote as a democratic majority — why should we not be alloweed to take the banner.
Move to vote
CG: I don’t think this is a particularly complex issue. Either you disagree with the majority decision to take the banner or you think any dissenters don’t take the banner.
ACr: We’ve heard a couple of points against. Hardly heard anything for it. It won’t take 5/10 minutes.
Don’t MTV, we had that at beginning, we’ve only heard two points since that vote. Fairest way of doing things to hear a couple of points in the other direction.
The move to vote fails
AT: We carry on discussing the motion and it’s Crutchett.
ACr: This has a lot to do with the motion. Balliol open to all genders, religious and political viewpoints
— everyone can believe what they want to believe. Balliol JCR at a protest that will be covered by mass media it implies that everyone at Balliol believes this. Deciding to back this motion is very different to deciding to protest take banner. Different to oppose something and actively protest.
Point is that there will be plenty of people, not just a minority, not because they disagree with
BR they don’t want to actively protest. Minority of JCR who will protest. Silent majority who don’t want to get involved or bullied politically who won’t protest. Ridiculous to suggest that just beacuse you oppose something you want to go against it. Taking banner will offend a lot more people. People are already being passionate. Being helped to protest for what they believe in by money passed by the JCR. Offend a lot of people who aren’t.
MD: I would like to point out that College and JCR is not a political party. You don’t have to believe everything majority of JCR Believes. By taking a banner and waving it in front of cameras I don’t want it on my CV and be associated with that. If one person dissents then don’t have banner at the protest.
18
Alex Hassilo (AH): I haven’t seen the Balliol JCR banner, I assume it just says “Balliol JCR” — I think Stephen has a good point, Labour banner says “forward socialism”. If Balliol JCR banner said “forward socialism” or “fascism forever” or any variant — then we shouldn’t make people be represented by this. But isn’t the point of JCR votes that we vote and then majority decision is taken to represent JCR?
TR: It’s a little bit more subtle than that. I disagree with point that one person disagrees then don’t have banner — this is rather a crude majoritarian line you’re taking on this. There clearly is a vocal minority that doesn’t entirely agree with this protest. Wouldn’t be represented if banner were to be taken as taking overall view of the college. Representative of majority of people at one particular meeting. Bear that in mind.
HMc: If we pass this motion the idea is that it passes by Balliol JCR and aim is to enable Balliol JCR to protest. Quite difficult at last protest, couldn’t use JCR paper to make signs, not take banner
— if we pass motion that enables us to protest — it’s just a banner, doesn’t mean entire JCR is there, contingent majority of people here who are there. Just a banner guys let’s take it. Robbie Smith (RS): Tied up with whether we pass motion or not — if people don’t want to be part of decision to say let’s go, they vote against it here. If we say let’s go don’t be too scared to say
“we’re Balliol”. If we’re going let’s be proud of it.
SB: I think that the people who want to vote against should ask what they will accomplish by taking the banner. Someone who BR — will see “Balliol” and get worried — all that will happen is that people will feel alienated and that’s just wrong. Every time LWC comes to JCR it has got verbal endorsement without opposition and we haven’t taken banner. JCR exists primarily to reflect their interests. If we’re saying “fuck you 10% who disagree” then that says bad things about us as an institution.
Move to vote
SE: We’ve heard both sides now and people can make their minds up.
MD: Point at end of motion missed I want to bring up in relevance to opposition we’ve heard to the amendment.
The move to vote passes
SB: People shouldn’t feel alienated by a banner of their own JCR. Not watch on TV something they didn’t agree with. Adds nothing to protest. Worst kind of Oxford arrogance. All they accomplish is to upset people. Upset minority or accomplish nothing.
SS: Nothing to do with Oxford arrogance. All other students unions will take their banners. JCR is set up to represent students on things they care about or in their interests. It will fuck over Balliol
JCR’s next lot of students, we should say we think this is shit and shouldn’t happen and in our intersts to oppose this. Very very sensitive minority to get upset. I don’t think they exist. It’s not that they don’t matter but. . . don’t think they exist. People will get angry but (MD: So do they not matter?) Majorityarian institution has its faults, this is in Constitution, GM decides what
JCR believes, that’s what it’s for and that’s how it works. If support protest take banner.
Absolute silence while AT counts
The amendment fails
The twelfth amendment from JI is considered: • Strikes Resolves 1.
JI: Comes from argument about paying for education after university — if I had to pay upfront I wouldn’t be sitting here. Don’t need to oppose package. Proposal to — doesn’t matter. Strike
Resolves 1.
AT: SFQs.
19
PG: You’re saying it doesn’t matter?
JI: If I had to pay today £40k per year it wouldn’t matter if I don’t have £15k salary I wouldn’t pay a single pound. I honestly wouldn’t care.
SDe: Is this not the same as when we talking about taxation and debt before?
JI: Yes it is.
SDe: [We voted] it down so do the same thing
AT: Does something quite different. ijHow what you said relevant to Resolves 1? Why is how much you pay back relevant?
JI: BR: the only bad thing it does is increase student fees and allowing them to vary over various courses.
Otherwise it doesn’t do anything like we would in Believes that we’re against.
SSi: In Resolves 1 you’re written to avoid review as package you mean as it is now?
CG: This means if we take all of it if asked all or not.
SB: People opposed sum up what the package says? Proposer of motion define what they think BR says.
CG: Look at Believes 1. The BR does have a clear direction of travel towards market. It does.
SB: What page?
CG: It does call for removal of hard cap. You said it tapers off. It does remove hard cap. Clear direction of travel towards market. Doesn’t indicate hard travel, purpose of report is to create market in
HE. Completely disingenuous to suggest that that isn’t the case. This motion opposes that general direction of travel. That’s what I think BR says. AT: Into debate.
SS: Opposition. Chris is right. If we believe it causes travel to marketisation, which it was set up to do, we should oppose that if it’s a bad thing. In a free market decreasing percentages of stuff might make things uneconomical, but oligopy of universities say all Russell charge £15k then they will. Contentious point there but even without that point it still makes sense not to accept this amendment.
MB: To strike Resolves 1 is to destroy the motion in total. The Resolves is to formally oppose BR as a package. If JCR votes that through how can we as a majority go to House of Commons say we disagree as a JCR with the BR. How can we say that when Resolves don’t say BR?
JI: This is the point. We want to go protesting against the cuts to university teaching budgets. We don’t care about BR.
Hear hear
JI: We should go and protest but about no cuts to spending, not BR. That’s the whole trouble with the motion.
John Scott (JSc): Fair enough. We had a motion just about education cuts. We have a motion substantially about Browne Review. Resolves 1 in there bcause we think market is bad. If we think market is not bad, vote down motion cos that’s what’s it about. We are no longer resolving to have a view on what the motion is about.
JI: When we asked at the very beginning Chris what demonstration about, Chris said it’s about funding cuts. Get BR out of motion. Vote for demonstrating against spening cuts to univeristies.
TH: We’ve had enough discussion but as a group we’re conflating cuts and BR. I think that generally
BR will have a negative effect. In removing 1 we’re donating money towards protest that we don’t actually support.
20
SSi: We’re opposing what the BR says as a whole because it’s harming us more than it is benefiting us.
As it is now we’re opposing it and if you take it out it doesn’t makes sense anymore. SS: POI: Protest about cuts, motion has stuff about cuts. We’re saying we oppose cuts and want to protest, it also says we don’t like BR because it’ll put forward market. That’s not going to change what the protest in London is about becuase we didn’t call the protest. We’re going to protest about cuts regardless of our view of BR. We’re having EGM on issues together because they’ve come up at the same point and this is the motion Chris wanted to have heard. We could take it in parts if someone has a real problem. But we think both and should pass whole motion.
Brook Hewitt (BH): Split those two things. Big division. This is what Jan is tyring to get at.
Division against cuts and against BR. Lumping two together is distorting the overall voting on the motion. It’ll alter the way I vote; not clear pictiure of what this JCR thinks of the two things.
Although Chris is saying this is about both of those things, it’s saying should we go to protest, but protest is about cuts. Address that motion separately. If people want to vote about BR review.
AT: Is this taking in parts JCR Resolves?
SS: I’m gonna do it in parts.
HO: This might just make things clearer — it’s not debate it’s more clarification — BR and CSR are two separate issues but gvmt have conflated them. BR relies on CSR being enacted and CSR relies on BR being enacted. So it’s gvmt that have conflated.
DB: POI: On that point — BR assumed cuts much worse than what came in CSR.
HO: But CSR relies on BR.
Alex Haslam (AH): My perception of this is that the BR and CSR are really inextricably linked.
Problem is pulling them apart. Part of BR is to reduce costs in HE — wasn’t just done otherwise.
Wouldn’t have happened if gvmt want to reduce deficit. Public perception is that they’re linked based on similar necessity to reduce gvmt spending. What’s important is that we go and protest against cuts. Entails BR inevitably.
Richard D. (RD): On that point about public perception of this, going back to what Chris and Holly said, they are moral conscious of JCR. Point of meeting is is to weigh up various elements within that conscious, we can degree, that’s what conscious about. Clear cut decision. Remove this is to not make a clear cut decision. If we’re going to make a decision on BR, it’s not just precise content. Nits have been picked over what’s in what and what’s the exact effect of each component.
That’s where disagreements are ocming from. We’re voting against public’s perception of what’s going on.
JI: Balliol JCR should be to clarify things rather than to go along with some public perception. Resolves
1 is against BR. Resolves 2 against cuts to HE in general. Cutting Resolves 1 then we still say we oppose cuts to HE in general. Not connected with another issue.
SSi: Removal of hard cap isn’t just a cut.
Move to vote
CG: We should vote on whether we believe in Resolves 1 based on Believes 1 which we have debated a couple of times. Have this vote now.
MD: We’re missing point of motion. Same thing I wanted to say last time that we’ve been avoiding as a meeting altogether.
The move to vote passes
JI: Important that Balliol JCR don’t conflate two unrelated issues together. Make straight forward motion in which we oppose cuts to HE in general. Don’t try to link it in any way to BR which isn’t part of it.
21
SS: You shouldn’t vote to strikes Resolves 1 because I’m splitting it in half with a procedural motion to do cuts and BR separately. Don’t strike this cos then I’ll bring it back in. Not support amendment and take it in parts.
JI: PoI: If we strike it out we can bring it back.
SS: Can get in trouble for bring up stuff already disucssed.
The amendment fails
The procedural motion from SS is considered:
• Take the motion in two parts; split the motion: Part 1: CSR — Notes 1, 6, 7, 8; Believes 2, 3; Resolves 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
Part 2: Browne Review — Notes 5; Believes 1, 2, 3; Resolves 1, 5.
SS: Take in parts and then vote on it. Split it up, Notes and Believes cross over a bit — outlines the split.
There is some confusion over taking the motion in parts
SPW: We immediately vote on the motion.
AT: No we discuss them in turn.
JI: Simon, could you also clarify which Notes and Believes this is?
SS explains the two parts
SDe: Can we amend the two parts?
AT: No.
JI: Can we amend both parts?
SS: Yes.
JI: If some amendments discuss one of the parts. . . ?
AT: No you can’t amend motion A while it’s in discussion. We can amend it once we pass this.
MH: If we vote for this now, do we go back into amendment discussion and then vote or are we forcing it forwards?
AT: We split it into two motions. Vote on whether we keep parts 1 and 2 in motion. Then we continue having amendments. Then you can amend what’s left. Does that make sense?
SWi: Does Resolves 5 go into either one?
SS: Resolves 5 is in both because it’s ascertain college’s position.
AT: Objections to procedural?
DB: Procedural for 5 minutes recess so we can redraft motions?
BS: To take it into parts?
AT: Yes okay. Any objections?
There are objections DB: Thank you Mr President. 5 mins necessary greatly aid considerations of this house to see the motion laid out clearly in traditional form of Notes, Believes, Resolves. Will certaintly help me,
I’m a bit thick. I’d greatly appreciate motion set out clearly rather than hotpotch.
22
SS: I wanna get this done. If we give you a copy you are not as thick as you pretend to be. You’ll be able to work it out and follow it. Just fucking get on with it. Discussed what they think about cuts and BR. Getting into a fight cos confused. Now they aren’t. If you oppose cuts/BR you can vote for those parts. Nice and simple.
AT: If we did do this recess then secretaries would draw it up.
DB’s procedural motion fails
Move to vote
SS’s procedural motion passes unopposed
AT: Now consider as two motions. Chris will advocate two sides of motion in turn and vote on them seperately.
JI: What about amendments?
AT: They are applied.
ACr: If it will take 5 mins, please do it anyway?
BS: I’ll have a go.
CG: Are we voting on motion now?
CG: Cuts are heinous. Don’t need to be ideologically driven to [see] that. Teaching money cut is really bad. General consensus on that from all parts of the room.
AT: Any SFQs on this part of the motion? No. Into debate.
Amendments first
TR: This is right.
The amendment from JI is considered:
• In Believes 2, strikes “even those subject . . . ” til the end and substitutes by “there should be absolutely no cuts to the higher education funding.” • In Resolves 2 stries “and the complete withdrawal . . . ”
JI: Amendment clarifies Believes that HE is important for social mobility. Cuts rest and changes to there should be asbolutely no cuts. And fixes Resolves to match. In same spirit cuts everything some stuff.
SS: Procedural. Can we take this amendment in parts? Complete withdrawal thing fair enough but this introduces we should have no cuts and these are very different.
No opposition to procedural. Splitting motion
JI explains what is being done
CG accepts the changes to Believes as friendly
HO: Isn’t this just removing all mention of BR therefore converting motion. . .
JI: This is just about the cuts.
HO: Isn’t that comeing from BR but it isn’t cos it’s not in BR.
AT: Please guys keep the ambient noise down.
HMc: Why are we saying absolutely no cuts rather than some cuts?
JI: That’s just the wording. I’m okay with someone amending it later on. Primary thing is to cut strat-sig subjects thing. Stress we are protesting against cuts.
AT: Debate.
23
SS: Opposition: oppose Believes 2, we shouldn’t say no cuts to HE. Just opposing cuts in CSR. Oppose trhis bit. Accept the next part because it’s the case that they’re not going for complete withdrawal. ijDisagree as no cuts at all is unreasonable.
Move to vote
JI: Really important that we strike the stuff about subjects. Absolutely fine to strike [something].
SS reads Believes 2
SS: Because we’ve taken Notes out it doesn’t conflate. We can still agree that nonstratsig should be funded by the state. Not insert extra thing about absolutely no cuts.
AT: Now vote on this part of the amendment. Part fails
Move to vote
AT: Explanation first.
JI: I’ve explained it already. Cutting out so really clear motion.
CG does not accept as friendly
CG: Should formally oppose extends of cuts. We believe it, don’t take it out.
SS: I agree with Chris there. Withdrawal of funding came from CSR. That’s what we oppose. With- drawal is in CSR, this part of motion is CSR, so vote against it.
JI: Unless we read CSR we shouldn’t keep it in the motion. Goes against principle we shouldn’t vote for things that aren’t true as it bring shame on all of us.
CG: We think it might be so we might as well oppose it. If not great keep it in.
Move to vote
Voting on second part of amendment
JI: Gets rid of part that we formally oppose complete withdrawal of funding that are nonstratsig. It’s not happening, it remains in Believes, we think it shouldn’t happen.
SS: We don’t know whether it’s happening or not, floating around, some people think it’s going to happen. We should be saying if this is your proposal we don’t like it so we should keep it in.
Part of amendment fails
AT: Cuts part of original motion — debate on this.
Move to vote
CG: If it’s on your sheet and it’s about cuts then we’re voting on it now.
SS: This is the one with money for buses.
CG: We are now voting on everything except Resolves 1 in Resolves. We’re opposing extent of cuts, not all cuts. Particularly in funding for nonstratsig should that be mooted. Mandating Committee to promote protest and giving money and mandating Ali to talk to Master and see what he thinks.
SS: And resolving to go protest.
Seb Fassam (SF): If one day you are going to be rich, you should pay for your education. Even though there are cuts you’ll still have paid for it by increase in tuition fees.
ACr: It’s pretty clear what one side feels and what one side doesn’t. I’m opposed to Balliol with their banner waving actively protest against it in London and College will pass £300 towards it for whoever wants to go. Down as a thing for what Balliol JCR thinks which is why I am opposed.
24
SS: I agree that tuition fees should go up — cutting everything so people get less in future is bad, that’s why I go to this march. Good for JCR to be politically active on things that effect all of its members. Meant to represent its students to other bodies. Gvmt another body. Go and shout at the tops of our voices that this is fucking over students, esp. medics.
The ‘motion’ passes
‘Motion’ (b) — Browne Review
CG: What’s left is clear direction of travel in Browne Review towards marketisation of HE. Market is bad, not increase in fees being bad. Market implies choice in terms of pricing and cost shouldn’t impact on anyone’s decision to go to university. 17 yr olds not capable of market rational choice in way Browne envisages. People should be able to go and do their courses and have a great time without having to pay fifteen million thousand pounds.
CG reads the motion
Someone: What do you mean deatils not a problem?
CG: We’re opposing the package. Not each individual bit. Reason why we oppose package as a whole is marketisation. Quite a few good things in BR.
PE: In summary you said that you don’t believe 17yos capable of making decisions. Do you think that is included in this motion?
CG: It’s not included. If you vote for this you’re not voting for this. I just said that because I happen to think it. Not intrinsic to this.
ACo: What exactly does BR say about block teaching grant? That’s relevant to whether or not I think
I should oppose BR.
JI: Just looking at it. It says current system has hidden block subsidy to all institutions. Some subjects, if you remove hard cap, some institutions will charge a lot for subjects like medicine or Science beacuse much more expensive to teach. Students should not be discouraged from taking up these subjetcs (it says). Important for the state and society because we need doctors. Courses in Science fall into this category. Health degrees and strat important language courses.
JI reads more blah from the review
CG: Problem with huge cuts to humanities, CSR cuts will mean less to keep costs down to Science so disproportionate underfunding to Humanities. If you support BR but don’t support cuts then you’re saying moneys till there [something].
The amendment from DB to ‘motion’ (b) is considered:
• Adds to Notes: Increasing suggestions from the government that a hard cap will be imposed.
• Adds to Believes: That the problem of higher education funding needs to be addressed.
• Adds to Believes: That Lord Browne’s review was primarily focused on addressing this problem, while not considering other important factors, such as social mobility.
• Adds to Resolves: To applaud the government’s efforts to balance social and financial issues.
AT: Never thought I’d say “amendment 15”.
DB: Force of this motion is to acknowledge that BR is not gvmt policy and to encourage gvmt to moderate some of the excesses of the BR. Instead of more flexible cap. Nick Clegg has said they will move cap and have a hard cap at £7k. Acknowledges there is a problem in HE that universities do not have enough money compared to universities in Scandinavia or America. Browne Review attempts to address that but given poor terms of reference. Led to non-consideration of important factors such as social mobility. Encourage and applaud government in balncing social and financial issues. Instead of going “ra ra ra you’re wrong” we have to show consensus building. Encourage people not shout at them.
25
MB: In terms of Resolves, in what way will applauding gvmt go with either of the motions, how relevant?
If I vote against BR it will say at the top I oppose BR and at end it will applaud writing document.
SS: BR is not gvmt thing, it’s parlimentary review body. Could applaud gvmt efforts to take advice. Gvmt looking at this review and looking like they’re going to look at ways of keeping social mobility more of a focus than Lord Browne did.
MH tables a procedural motion to take Notes and Believes separately from Resolves
MH: I think that first part is absolutely fine but second part there will be a lot of controversy over it.
DB: Resolves follows from Notes and Believes so distancing it is counter-productive.
21/13 so not two thirds
SS: Procedural to hear Notes and Believes and Resolves all separately. Should split into parts. Being a bit of a twat by doing this but applauding gvmt is a very different thing — oppose thing completley if we vote in one bit, wouldn’t oppose part 2. Might oppose part 1 because no suggestions. I think we should hear this separately because so many of us who will change our opinions based on this.
Oh fuck it. Believes good rest bullshit.
SMW: Pretty much the same. If people voted last one down they will vote this down.
The procedural motion fails
DB: As I remarked in my introduction, this delineates between gvmt policy and what Browne Review recommends. In responding to BR we can encourage gvmt to look at it critically and look at factors BR didn’t consider. Propose motion, Notes, can refer you to Nick Clegg on Andrew Marr’s
Sunday morning program if not heard that suggestion. Problem with HE funding, on Resolves point, sticking point, right to applaud gvmts who have to take tough decisions in tough times for trying to get the right answer. We won’t get “right answer” with which everyone is happy but gvmt is trying. We can’t just say we reject this utterly. Got to acknowledge they are trying to govern in interests.
Jonathan Scott (JS): Unless we have a split personality we cannot resolve that. We’ve said we don’t like cuts agenda — integral to attempt to balance social/financial so unless retarded.
CaG: Other way to do it is to go through point by point — Believes more plausible but pointless. First one, it’s not gvmt, it’s a few ministers, appeal to certain people who voted for them because they’re totally ashemed of what they’re doing. Wrong to say gvmt changing any policies — some liberals are. Third one nonsense. Previous gvmt instigated Browne Review. Gvmt doing appalling things and we know that and we’ve voted.
Move to vote
SMW: [Something.]
PE: Again I don’t think everyone’s been heard yet so don’t MTV until everyone has been heard.
The move to vote passes
DB: I think this motion doesn’t leave us in a contradiction. The gvmt has a difficult job, landed with monstrous review in monstrous financial situations [sic]. Believes important and should be in motion anyway. Confused why people think Nick Clegg not a part of gvmt, certainly is from where
Conservative Party is sitting. In my experience of pol campaigning, I’m sure trumped by every member of this JCR, but you do need to encourage and acknowledge.
CaG: As Simon said, gvmt is totally at odds with what we believe in in terms of political funding.
Crediting gvmt. Not making any statement. Pointless, worthless.
The amendment fails
Vote vote vote
CG: Let me summarise.
26
AT: Can’t MTV not in opposition.
TR: Three ways to fund HE — general taxation, under privileged person on a very low salary pays for us to go to Oxford in part, or we fund it out of graduate tax whereby if you take a short degree which isn’t contributing to what you go on to do you end up paying disproportionate and far more than actual value of degree, to fund me to do History for two years and do two hours a week. Or most fair you pay according to what you most benefit from your own degree which is what Lord
Browne is proposing. You have a choice. If you want to take a very short degree and go straight into market you’re not going to be paying that for a three/four year long course. If you want 7 years, hugely expensive, and go on to learn an awful lot. Not subsidised by someone earning 20k.
Seems to be perfectly fair and in accordance with the left wing view of this JCR as a whole.
SB: I agree with everything Tom said. We are opposing a review. Most people in my school go to University of East London. Same number of contact [as I’d had] by the third week of my first
MT. Progressive, Aldi and Waitrose, charge different to what they buy. Nothing left wing about opposition to the BR, middle class like to protest.
Applause
HMc: We should oppose BR as a package which is what this does is that according to a journal on Facebook by academic by colinni — stronger correlation between reputation of university and social class of its students. At universities like this one, even bigger majority from more advantaged backgrounds. Hard enough as it is for people from disadvatnaged backaground to get into Oxford, why would we want to make it worse?
Applause
CG: Clearly the case that grads pay more. This doesn’t say we want grads to pay more. This says general trend, direction of travel, towards marketisation. Markets — max charged cost of my degree. As
Marine said earlier, she put the best for case, Harvard charge £50k for glorified lectures. There is a direction of travel towards market of HE. Difference with system you pay afterwrads. But if you are looking at which university and you see Oxford more expensive it’s going to influence your choice. No. These are real concerns that people have about how much to spend on one’s education.
Will have an impact on people’s choice. Fees at the moment is they’re good it’s a flat rate. People pay and it puts some poeople off. If not flat rate gargrghrhrrh.
SMW: I was going to argue against something Holly said. No harder to get into Oxford from a low income background than to any other university — in fact it’s easier. If Oxford charging £12 vs
£10k it may disincentiveise it a little. Oxford is aware it is perceived as elitist and hard to get into from a comprehensive school. They’re not going to exarcebate all the terrible statistics that are dredged up every year. As someone coming from a very low income background, being in debt
£4k vs. £8k vs. £12k — doesn’t make a difference to me. Up for debate though.
Second point — BR — it suggests that the living costs grant, separate to fee loan, not be means tested any longer. Benefits a lot of people in the lower-middle class boundary. A lot of friends who have had problems where I’ve ended up with more money because I got more loan or more grant whereas they’ve been got less cos parents earn more and no extra money. Not everyone gets the maximum. Maybe not very lowest but slightly above most disadvantaged. They’re suddenly massively incentivised. They are being put off at the moment. We’re righting that wrong. Hidden agenda in BR.
Applause
AT: Yu — ah sorry: Hannah.
HO: It’s been playing over in my mind — I’ve find it hard to get to grips with BR, what is means and everything else. Variable fees will mean that universities have different amounts of funding. How are we ever going to get other places more equal and better if Oxford has more. Best universities will get better and rest of them will get worse and worse. Do we want to be doing that. Great we go to Oxford but in the long term we want the whole of our country to get good education from good universities across the board.
27
Applause
MxD: Why should grads be expected to pay more for education than undergrads?
CG: No I meant people who have a degree.
SF: I was going to echo what Simon said — we have this sytem at the moment which is hugely unfair.
If you father is retired investment banker and has no income you get a full gvmt grant, and others who scrape by with three siblings get nothing. BR will at least give everyone a similar amount of grant. Will only pay back when actually earning money. If one day you are rich you pay for the education that helped you be rich, if you don’t get rich you don’t. How can it be fairer than that?
I have a completely different political view than Stephen but how can it be any fairer?
Applause
MD: As I pointed out earlier about Harvard pointing out £50k for glorified lectures. Oxford has teaching system that costs a lot more than we pay at the moemnt to sustain. I’m not saying
Oxford becoming like Harvard. To stop us becoming like Leeds, keep tutorial system, you have to pay more. I was making that point in support of BR not in opposition to it. ACr: That was my point as well.
CaG: Want to make a wider point about BR. We’ve acknowledged that it has some things that are good for some students. At the moment people are making huge cuts right across the board. BR being used as an excuse, consensus, academics. Being used as a tool alongside CSR to justify cuts and put in idological agenda — marketisation. If you oppose motion you are opposing direction of gvmt.
Applause
MH: People are saying you should pay for what you receive and anyone opposing BR is opposing that
— we want grads to pay more. Whole argument about BR is about marketisation.
Applause
HMc: I completley disagree with idea that it’s just as easy for low income background to get in as it is for higher income. Lots of schools where kids aren’t encouraged to go, like in your school Simon. In those schools there is a perception that Oxford costs more money than other universities. People told us when we’re going it’ll cost a lot. Imagine if it becomes true, it’s just a perception now!
More people put off.
SMW offers some clarification
MB: Paying same amount as less reputable — can’t see any better way of equally resolving problem.
People who have more money will have more incentives to go to better universities. Sink univer- sities. Make sink universities. Like marketising schools. Money for people who don’t understand value of education. Massive £12k. Whole principle behind making level of fees totally wrong
Applause
SB: Bottom 30% will pay less. Me and Simon will pay nothing under BR. NUS scaring poor to avoid middle class paying more. Graduate tax Maths just doesn’t add up. Let’s hope money will come out of the sky is equivalent. Student politics at its worst. Tax on the poor by the middle class. As a progressive JCR we should support the BR.
Move to vote
SPW: This is all nice and romantic but we’re genuinely repeating ourselves. We’ve had all the stories — let’s vote on it.
Minor applause
MxD: Look at what education is for. Is it for the sake of it or for more money? But whatever.
The MTV passes
28
CG: Lots of good things in the Browne Review. Lots of good things. Disagree with marketisation.
People who oppose BR are not stupid, not arrogant middle class fuck assholes. Stephen is out of order in putting those things across.
SB: People who are against it, bizarre emotional spasm, haven’t read it and admit they haven’t read it. IFS thinks it’s same as grad tax. If you support grad tax you support BR. Vote against this bedcause it’s ridiculous.
‘Motion’ (b) passes, 32 votes to 18.
Motion: The Browne Review by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1. OUSU has formally opposed the Browne Review as a package, as have many JCRs
This JCR believes:
1. That while the Browne Review contains some proposals that could be beneficial to students, the package as a whole has a clear direction of travel towards the marketisation of higher education, which is a Bad Thing because it would inevitably lead to cost becoming a factor in students choice of which course or university to apply to.
2. Higher education is important as a tool for social mobility (which is a Good Thing) and therefore even those subjects not “strategically significant'' to business should be part funded by the state.
3. It is important to provide the JCR Committee with a mandate to oppose the Browne review and the extent of the cuts to higher education as soon as possible so that JCR resources can be spent on the campaign against it (for example through official JCR committee emails).
This JCR resolves:
1. To formally oppose the Browne Review as a package, and the proposal for the removal of a
'hard cap' in particular.
2. To mandate the JCR President to ascertain the college's position on the Browne Review and spending cuts.
Minutes: See general meeting minutes.
Result: Passed
Motion: CSR & Spending Cuts by Chris Gross
This JCR notes:
1. The cuts to higher education funding outlined in the Comprehensive Spending Review of 40% to university teaching budgets.
2. The NUS and the UCU are holding a national protest march against the higher education cuts on Wednesday 10th November.
3. OUSU are putting on free buses to and from that protest march for everyone who signs up by the end of Friday 5th November, leaving St. Giles at 9am on the day.
4. The cost to OUSU of putting on buses for 400 students is $2760.
This JCR believes:
1. Higher education is important as a tool for social mobility (which is a Good Thing) and therefore even those subjects not “strategically significant'' to business should be part funded by the state.
2. It is important to provide the JCR Committee with a mandate to oppose the Browne review and the extent of the cuts to higher education as soon as possible so that JCR resources can be spent on the campaign against it (for example through official JCR committee emails).
This JCR resolves:
1. To formally oppose the extent of the cuts to higher education in general, and the complete withdrawal of funding for non “strategically significant'' subjects in particular.
2. To mandate JCR Committee to promote the 10th November protest and the OUSU campaign surrounding it, including the provision of free buses.
3. To pass £150 from the political campaigning fund to donate to OUSU towards the cost of the buses.
4. To mandate the JCR President to ascertain the college's position on the Browne Review and spending cuts.
5. To go to the protest on 10th November.
Minutes: See general meeting minutes.
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-05-16
Ali Travis (AT): I think we’ve got quorum so let’s get started.
Sean Whitton (SPW): Sorry, I haven’t done the minutes [of the last meeting] yet.
AT: Hang on to that item then. No officers’ reports so straight onto motions.
Rhiannon Painter (RP): Can I remove my motion? I’ve not got the figures. I’ve had Internet prob- lems so I’ve not got the figures. I’ll do it next term.
There are no objections and the motion is withdrawn
—
DH: Procedural. Move my motion to before other charities. There’s a very strong chance we’re going to lose quorum and not be able to do motions towards the end of this. My charities motion, if the money is passed — it’s the only time I can take the money — is this summer, so it has to be passed in this GM if it’s ever going to be passed. So I want to make mine first of the charities motions.
Not making any judgement on those but they can get money to them after this term and this one won’t.
Yuan Yang (YY): That’s true of my motion as well, when I go to China I will take the money for you when I visit my parents.
The procedural motion passes
—
GL takes the chair
AT: Procedural. You’ll see in the order of business there is a short film entitled “Move to a Vote”. The person who this video is concerned with has to leave at some point so I propose we see it now rather than at end of the GM.
GL: Okay.
AT: It is of course Michael Slater’s very last GM. I took the liberty of collecting [some of his] best moments.
SPW: No, Hannah collected the pictures!
“Move to a Vote” is enjoyed by all. A personal copy of the JCR Constitution and Standing Orders is presented to Michael Slater in a nice folder
Motion: Donation to FELLOW by Sophie Hill
This JCR notes
1. FELLOW is a student-run organisation which provides free, informal English lessons to low-paid migrant workers in Oxford.
2. There are currently 12 two-hour weekly classes, serving over 80 members of the local community.
3. FELLOW needs more language textbooks.
This JCR believes
1. That developing their language skills will allow migrant workers to thrive in their careers and integrate more fully into the community.
2. FELLOW has strong ties to Balliol as it was formed in parallel with the Oxford Living Wage
Campaign, and two JCR members are on the committee.
3. FELLOW provides an important service to many people in Oxford who cannot afford to pay for
English lessons.
This JCR resolves
1. To donate £200 to FELLOW.
Minutes: Sophie Hill (SH): I don’t know if you know what Fellow is but it’s student run, it provides free informal practical english lessons for low paid english workers migrant in Oxford. It’s expanded quite quickly, we’ve not got enough books, a lot more people coming.
SH takes her own amendment as friendly:
• Replaces ‘XX’ with ‘200’ throughout. MS: I’ve no objection, just a question. From the charities fund?
SH: Yes.
The motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to The Oxford Left Review by Cailean Gallagher
This JCR notes
1. That Balliol has a proud and vibrant history of political activism and left-wing thought.
2. That the Oxford Left Review is a Balliol-based termly journal of left-wing political and cultural essays.
3. That the Oxford Left Review has had two issues, each with a circulation of over 100.
4. That the Oxford Left Review publishes articles from contributors from across the university community, including some from Balliol.
5. That the Oxford Left Review is free, but requires funding to continue to be so.
This JCR believes
1. That encouraging political debate across the university, and between undergraduates, graduates, academics and journalists is a worthwhile cause, and that the Oxford Left Review facilitates such debate.
2. That it is good for the Oxford Left Review to remain free.
This JCR resolves
1. To pass £50 from the Political Campaigning budget to the Oxford Left Review.
Minutes: CiG: Hi. Oxford Left Review is a new journal in Oxford. It’s trying to bring together different branches of the left movement in Oxford; they’re quite isolated at the moment. It’s not a partisan journal.
You’re not endorsing any party. It’s loosely affiliated to Compass which is affiliated to Labour.
Editorially it’s completely independent. Lib Dems, Labour, John Cruddas, fellows, Ben Jackson,
Stewart White, grads, undergrads. We’re bringing together voices from across the left. Green campaigner, journalist. Not endording any party, [you’re] supporting the journal trying to give it
18 more of an intellectual voice instead of just campaigns. We have no money, it’s free at moment, we have a small amount of money from Compass. It will shut down in the future. Sixty years ago this year three ex Balliol people got Universities and Left Review, [it was the] culmination of leftist stuff in Balliol. It will happen again — it failed in four months due to lack of funding. They cost about £1 each, and £50 is a nominal sum. I’d much rather give 10 issues and £90 to other things if that’s what we feel. It’s read by a few on the left. It’s not outward looking. The idea is not an internal journal; it’s the ideas of the left so others in the univeristy can read it. Those on the right can read and respond, a proper debate, not just shouting in parties.
MP: How is the journal distributed? JCRs, pidged, subscribers?
CiG: We print about £100, we have a launch event, posters across university, at the launch event we get one free. Get the message out on Facebook. You can get them pidged. If we only have 20 it won’t go far.
CG: If you charge subscription fee we could subscribe and this could not come out of charities. Can you change that in the future?
CiG: That’s my hope. I don’t want individuals to have to pay. I’d love to see colleges subscribing. It’s logsitics; it’s hard to get contacts in certain colleges.
CG: If you wanted £10 for issues, could you dleiver them here, then it could not come out of political campaigning, kind of like subscribing.
CiG: Pass £10 and get 10 Balliol issues? CG: Or more and say we’re paying 5 per issue.
CiG: That would be wonderful. We need money to keep going.
TN: I might come across as a bit of a dick, but couldn’t you just PDF it and make it available on the internet?
CiG: If we can submit articles between small people who want to read. There’s a big difference between a journal in your hand vs. a website. This makes all the difference. Otherwise we’ll have to do that.
MS: Do you have any idea how many people who came to the launch event are not known to contribu- tors? People are genuinely curious?
CiG: There were some, I do not know the numbers. . . ?
MS: 10%, 50%, any idea at all?
CiG: I knew 15–20% of the people there.
AW: It makes more sense to subscribe to it. It’s how the Oxymoron in theory works. If you charge the
JCR £30 in return and give them 15 copies, a motion like that makes more sense. More circulation.
Bring amendments about that now, think about in the future. I’d like to look into it. You have to take it, you won’t just read it with a cup of tea. If you get 20 people 20 issues, it’s not really college at this stage. Also I don’t want it to be just a Balliol journal. [But] great to get some support at this stage.
DH: Are you willing to do PDFs as well as printed things?
CiG: It’s available online at the moment. We don’t get many hits. People like having a copy.
TP: What’s your role?
CiG: I’m one of the three editors. There’s another at Worcester, another at another place.
Minoo Dinshaw (MinD): Are some of the editors more equal than others?
19
CiG: No, all are equal and free at the point of delivery.
MS: My objection is not that this is a waste of JCR money, but that it’s better spent on WikiLeaks. Just to reiterate. This has exposed war crimes. It takes on the most powerful organisations in the world. This is not pointless but WikiLeaks is such a good cuase. What we do there can have so much more impact. If they are then able to put up this video these things should be exposed.
These are almost certainly warcrimes. Exposing and making global populus aware of the crimes.
I’m not sure the journal will be read by people not on the left.
CiG: I can give you people not on the Left who will do that. I accept the website will change more people lives. We’ve just siphned £160 off to a oranisation with a huge amounts of donations. It’s all about delineating this. Not just saying — it can do different things. Amend it lower if you want to, fine.
MS: We passed £160 to an organisation that has a close link to Balliol, we’ve put it to a library campaign in the past. Do a mixture. The group passed money will work with a Balliol member. It’s a smaller sum of money to WikiLeaks. We’ve two causes directly in conflict.
RC: It’s really important to support this in some way or another. I’m very intransigently on the right;
I think that Balliol has a prooud tradition of supporting so-called progressive causes. If it can’t survive here, the chances of any such publication intellectually meritorious, if it can’t survive here it won’t survive anywhere. If Balliol wants to be true in leading the way on these sort of thing.
AW: I agree with Ronnie. On Slater’s arguments, WikiLeaks is big and great so it is going to get donations from other sources. It will now. It’s not upon our shoulders to keep it going as it is to keep the magazine going. Support a Balliol student on an ambitious venture. Both are good.
Donate to both. Don’t reduce the amount we’re giving to Cailean due to WikiLeaks.
DH: I’m going to say the same thing as Amy. I contest Michael’s argument. We’re not taking away
Wikileaks by giving to this. We’re still going to give a certain amount to WikiLeaks. It’s better we give to two really good causes rather than one.
Move to vote
CiG: It’s a worthwhile cause, it’s got a future, I hope more people become a part of it. We’re drawing on our tradition in Balliol; it’s known for being a college of the left. At the same time it’s about getting the adademic message of the left into the wider community. MS: This motion is in conflict. Dawn brought a procedural to hear this first. If this motion passes my amendement will have to fail. WikiLeaks have HUGE running costs. They shut down for three months this year. It could stop it putting out time-critical stuff if it goes again. WikiLeaks is a much better thing. We’ve already given £160 to help a Balliol member in campaigning, then we’ll pass £109 to an international campaign.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Help for Heroes by Ant Butler
This JCR notes
1. That British Service men and women have been serving their country in war zones in Iraq and
Afghanistan over the last eight years, and thousands have been seriously injured.
2. That the Government does not provide sufficient support for the men and women injured in the line of duty, meaning that a great deal of vital assistance has to be funded by private contributions
3. That Help for Heroes has done amazing work in the last 3 years in supporting charities dependent on individual donations
This JCR believes
1. That regardless of personal views as to the legitimacy of the wars in which they have been injured, the personal sacrifices made are deserving of this JCR’s respect and support.
2. That despite the great number of other worthy charities, local, national and international, a small but meaningful donation would demonstrate this JCR’s compassion for those injured in the service of their country. This JCR resolves
1. To pass £250 to Help for Heroes.
Minutes: Ant Butler (AnB): Most of you know what this thing is. It’s been estbalished for three years. It’s done some fantastic work. It’s opened a gymnasium at a rehailitation centre for £7m. Before soldiers were having to go to a public swimming pool; parents were complaining about kids having to see limbless soldiers. The work they are doing is absolutely fantastic. Whether or not you agree with the wars, soldiers have been serving our country for us. Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice, others have had their lives ruined. I’m hoping the JCR will pass £100.
The amendment from MS is considered:
• Replaces the sum in Resolves 1 with £250.
SPW: I object to it being taken as friendly.
MS: This is a truly brilliant charity. Whatever you think of the war in Iraq, they didn’t choose to take
British forces into war. Because there is so much money, because very little has been spent. Even if this goes up they’ll be £700 left. We have the resources to upgrade this. There’s no conflict.
Just pass more money.
The amendment passes with no opposition
The motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to WikiLeaks by Tom Nickson
This JCR notes
1. Whistleblowing is often considered A Good Thing.
2. Speaking out against unethical/illegal practices can lead to loss of life/liberty/limb.
3. Wikileaks allows anonymous whistleblowing.
4. Wikileaks costs money. They refuse to accept corporate sponsorship.
5. For more information, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks.
This JCR believes
1. We should support mechanisms of freedom.
2. The ability to speak out, without fear of reprisal is one such mechanism.
3. We should support Wikileaks.
This JCR notes
1. To donate £59.98 to Wikileaks either from charities/political campaigning.
Minutes: TN: Much like Wikipedia but less boring, website. Anonymously publishes information about corporate malpractice.
TN reads out a list of previous WikiLeaks leaks
TN: Quite a really good thing. It’s a mechanism of freedom we shoulds support. £50 is useful to them and pass quite well. They do need money. They ran out in December, didn’t have enough until
February, site not online until March. If you want put more money in.
MxD: Is there enough money to raise the amount in political campaigning fund?
AT: Get Greig to come back on that?
Eddie: Is the content verified?
TN: The admin vets stuff, never posts the person but makes sure they’re not spouting bullshit. They put effort in. And if they are proven wrong they take it down and put a note up. It’s not happened very often or at all. ijAmendment. This will affect whether we increase it, whether it comes from charities or political campaigning.
TN: It’s definitely not a charity.
IT: Do you know what their running costs are?
TN: There are several million articles on the website. Thousands to tens of thousands dollars per month.
Fucktonne basically.
MxD: JCR Resolves says charities/political campaigning. Do we have to bring an amendment choosing?
AT: It’s okay, we have to do political campaigning.
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Replaces the sum in Resolves 1 with £59.98.
17
The amendment is accepted as friendly
The amendment from MS is considered:
• Replaces the sum in Resolves 1 with £109.98.
There are objections to taking the amendment as friendly
MS: WikiLeaks great. They had an Apache gunship with commentary with them violating rules of engagement. Very clearly breaching it, Pentagon denied it repeatedly. Everything about the war in Iraq – I support the site, enormously wrong. Left Review is nice, but since funds are scarce, put the money into WikiLeaks. It doesn’t have anywhere near the same global reach as WikiLeaks does. ijYou’re raising it to invalidate Cailean’s motion without giving Cailean a chance to explain his case.
MS: He can do it right now.
Cailean Gallagher (CiG): I don’t want to review here. My understanding of the political campaigning fund is that it can also help us in Oxford to forward our campaigns and intellectual life and broaden discussion. If there’s no funding for that then things fall apart, these things last a month or two and then collapse due to funding, these things in Oxford. It’s a totally different consideration to donating to Wikileaks, I would like chance to put it forward. It’s important to make it clear what this campaigning fund is for. For the other organisation, I’ve got wrong impression — if not, let’s have a debate on my motion.
TN: This is definitely political campaigning. We support methods of people speaking out against things that are happening; it’s definitely political campaigning.
DH: I don’t know if this will confuse things too much but if we do this we’ll start debating Cailean’s motion. A better idea is to discuss Cailean’s motion now and decide if we think it should get some money. It makes no sense to vote down this amendment and not pass Cailean’s. Not fair to discuss
Cailean without merits.
Quorum count — JUST
AT: CRUTCHETT YOU ARE NOT LEAVING
DH brings a procedural motion to suspend discussion of this motion until after the Oxford Left
Review motion
---
Continued after OLR motion:
MS retracts his amendment; there are no objections to this
Move to vote
The motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Representation on College Committees by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The current attendance of various College committees by representatives of the JCR Committee.
2. The division between unreserved items (those that junior members are allowed to see) and reserved items (those limited to fellows) in these committees.
3. The distinction between reserved and unreserved items encompasses items pertaining to particular students, individual members of staff, and items of a commercial sensitivity.
4. That, unlike most other Colleges, the JCR currently has no representation on Development
Committee.
5. That although there is student representation on Full Academic Committee, students are not invited to Academic Committee, and are consequently not informed of the business.
6. According to a recent survey by OUSU, Balliol JCR has perhaps the most extensive and involved systems of student representation across Colleges in Oxford.
This JCR believes
1. Greater student participation in College committees is mutually beneficial for both the JCR and
College.
2. That the division between unreserved and reserved items should come with a presumption of unreservedness, and that items only be reserved if they concern individual students or individual staff.
3. That measures should be put in place to allow representatives to challenge the reservation of an item based on a clear description of why the item has been reserved, without compromising on the nature of the sensitivity of the item.
4. That student representation by JCR Representatives should be extended to both Development and
Academic Committees.
This JCR resolves 1. To mandate the President to appeal to College on the aims outlined in Believes 2--4.
Minutes: GL: Now we move onto motion (c), proposed by Ali.
AT: This has been in the pipeline for quite a while. On college committee, there is a distinction between reserved and unreserved business which is confused. There are items we haven’t been able to see until afterwards. It’s been problematic on a couple of occasions. This proposes the paper I want to propose to exec. It is a procedure by which junior members can challenge whether things are hidden. It proposes we extend representation to academic and [another Committee the Secretary didn’t catch]. It’s a straightforward change. It’s a real step forward with our talks with college.
It’s something that will be not so noticable but committee after us will find it very useful.
MS: So right now you can’t even find out if you’re not supposed to hear something?
AT: Yeah. We won’t even get a list of the things they’re talking about. Annoyingly my tutor sits in college meeting, we have to leave after 20m, they come out 2 hours later covered in blood and having a great time, we’ve been missing out on loads of stuff. It’s reasonable that some stuff we shouldn’t hear such as sacking staff or [things concerning] particular students. But at the very least a reason why we can’t hear it and a right to challenge it if we want.
Move to vote
There is no opposition and the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Motion of Support and Further Action to a Change in MCR–J... by Dawn Hollis & Ash Thomas
Motion title: Motion of Support and Further Action to a Change in MCR–JCR Relations
This JCR notes
1. The report written by the MCR President regarding the current relationship between the MCR and the JCR.
2. The fact that currently the MCR pays 10% of its income from college directly to the JCR. This practice is based on a time when the MCR did not have as many facilities and thus MCR members used the main-site, JCR facilities to a far greater extent than they now do.
3. The fact that currently, MCR members are also members of the JCR, meaning that the JCR
President represents (in theory if not in practice) both JCR and MCR members.
This JCR believes
1. That the JCR and especially the MCR have changed over past decades to become relatively autonomous organisations whose mutual relations should be based not on monetary transactions but on socialisation.
2. That the current transaction (whereby college gives the MCR and the JCR equal amounts and then the MCR pays 10% of theirs to the JCR) is unfair and unjustified given the level of JCR services now used by the MCR.
3. That the JCR and the MCR should be for the most part politically separate.
This JCR resolves
1. To support the ideas and proposals of the report of the MCR president.
2. To mandate the Treasurer to investigate ways in which the 10% transaction could be changed and how the JCR might find alternative sources of income once this occurs.
3. To mandate the Affiliations Officers to look into the best way to change the terms of cross- membership.
4. To enter Believes 1-3 into standing policy.
Minutes: DH: I don’t want to keep any of you up later than I have to. This issue may seem new to all of you. This issue has been building for quite some time with committee. At the moment, all MCR members are JCR members, which seems ridiculous.
Quorum count; quorum lost
SMW: If we’re inquorate three time we abandon the meeting.
MS: We weren’t inquorate last time; someone came in at just the right moment.
Quorum re-established
11
AT: If we lose quorum again the meeting will be closed.
CG: Does that include people going to the loo?
AT: I think it does.
DH: Basically at the moment, the MCR and JCR are linked by some very odd systems. Cross- membership for MCR members, MCR members also JCR members. Can come and vote in GMs and elections and use facilities and Ali is supposed to represent them all on college committees.
Currently college gives the MCR and JCR the same amount per year, but the MCR pays us 10%.
The MCR used to be a lot smaller so they’d use our facilities a lot more. This arrangement no longer makes any sense. They have their own politics and a lot of their own facilities. This mo- tion is in support of further action. There is a proposal by MCR Pres, in the centre of your GM booklets. This motion doesn’t do anything, constitutional one will come next term — this gets the Treasurer to look at how we could replce the money we would lose. Affiliations will look into ways we can change cross membership. So medics are not excluded from the JCR if they have committee positions and so on.
RC: Does the current proposal allow MCR members to opt in to JCR membership?
AT: Yes. This resolves for opt-in.
DH: It doesn’t change membership. It flags up that we’re going to change it some time soon; that there’s a problem.
The motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Children’s Village in Xi’an, China by Dawn Hollis
This JCR notes
1. The ‘Children’s Village’ in Xi’an, China, which takes care of children whose parents are imprisoned or dead - usually what has happened is that the mother has been the victim of domestic abuse and one day retaliates and kills the father. Chinese law does not recognise these as extenuating circumstances and so the mothers are imprisoned, leaving the children effectively as orphans.
2. That the Chinese government does not acknowledge responsibility for these children as they are the children of convicted criminals.
3. The amazing work done by volunteers, some of whom have given up their retirement to care for these children.
4. That bank transfers to China cost up to £60, and that the most efficient way for money to get to the orphanage is for it to be taken by an individual.
5. That the proposer of the motion is going to Xi’an this summer.
This JCR believes
1. That children, whether their parents are criminals or not, deserve the best possible start in life.
2. That the Children’s Village is a well-run, warm place which deserves as much support as possible.
10
This JCR resolves
1. To pass £250 for the Children’s Village.
2. To mandate the proposer of the motion to ensure this money reaches the Village.
Minutes: DH: Children’s village in [China] set up for children who have one dead parent and the other in prison.
[Usually the] mother was physically abused by the Father, and at some point she has defended herself and killed the father. The mother is in prison, and the children are orphans. The Chinese government won’t help children because their parents are criminals. The orphanage was set up at requests from foreign embassies and private individuals. It’s run by volunteers. A huge amount of care and love goes into it. They need more money to help those children who want to do further education and so on. I’ve said £100. If anyone wants to amend it up I’d be very happoy about that.
MS: You’re gonna take it yourself. You have no worries about carrying that amount of money to this place?
DH: No. I will get it out of [my] bank account in an ATM in China. I’ll carry it in a body wallet, strapped round me. I’ve not had security problems in China before.
The amendment from MS is considered:
• Replaces £100 in Resolves 1 with £250.
MS: There is only one other definitely charity motion; the other might be [political] campaigning. We have huge amounts in the fund, so upgrade for a very good cause.
The amendment passes with no objections
The motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to London Citizens by Yuan Yang
This JCR notes
1. London Citizens is a charity that coordinates political action and campaigns on behalf of local communities in London.
2. One such campaign is the London Living Wage Campaign, and Yuan will be working on this campaign for the whole of July on a London Citizens Summer Academy Internship.
3. A condition of taking the internship is fundraising £2000 in three months for London Citizens.
This JCR believes
1. It’s good for the JCR to support its members in their charitable and political endeavours, particularly in ways that can enrich other students’ campaigns at Balliol.
2. Yuan would come back to Balliol from a month’s worth of training with London Citizens and negotiating with City firms. This makes her more able to pass on skills and training to the Oxford
Living Wage campaign, which would be of benefit to it.
3. Yuan would also be willing to run a series of general campaigning and negotiation workshops in
2010/11 with the JCR Committee for problems such as rent negotiations, or just for general JCR members who are interested in campaigning. In this way, we can spread campaigning skills and knowledge through the JCR community at large.
4. London Citizens does offer training to other political organisations, but this is incredibly expensive
- £800 for 5 days and Yuan would be a better deal.
5. The case for a Living Wage in Oxford is very similar to the argument for a Living Wage in London; the two campaigns are mutually beneficial, and in supporting a Living Wage in London we are being consistent in our Living Wage commitment in Oxford.
This JCR resolves
1. To pass £160 from the Political Campaigning budget to London Citizens Living Wage Campaign.
Minutes: YY: So there are lots of charities in the world and we all know that. As a JCR we think that giving money to charities affiliated or linked to our own campaigns in college is a beneficial thing. And charities that will enrich the members of the JCR community is also a good thing as it feeds back to the JCR. London Citizens is a great example of this. It’s a community-organising political charity. I’ll be working on their Living Wage campaign, which spread from Balliol’s Living Wage campaign. There are lots of skills I can bring back to Balliol. Negotiating with city firms, relevant to negotiating with Oxford Firms and colleges. Highly valuable training, which is normlaly expensive.
It’s better value for money to get a member of Balliol to be trained by them. I’ve committed to giving campaign training in Michaelmas or Hilary of next year.
The amendment from GL is considered
YY does not accept the amendment as friendly
GL: Firstly, £175 is 65% of the current political campaigning budget. A few other things: we give a lot of money to the Living Wage campaign, we have in the past. I’m worried that this is basically funding Yuan’s internship. I’m not being flippant. We’re giving £50 to Wikileaks. They leaked a video which showed American soldiers gunning down innocent iraqis. And a Reuters journalist.
Reuters have been fighting for years to get that footage. We’re giving just £50 to something that got justice for all those people and holds Americans to responsibility. £175 so Yuan can get trained in helping Living Wage campaign, which I have my own personal qualms with. It’s not worth such a large proportion of our budget. If we pass all three political motions we don’t have enough money.
This is fair.
RM: Is it a registeed charity?
YY: Yes.
MS: Is Fellow a registered charity?
MxD: ; Yes.
YY: Opposition: Firstly it’s not funding my internship, ironically, the internship doesn’t pay me an internship wage. A condition for working with them is to show you are committed in fundraising.
I will be working for them, I’ll be working for the Living Wage campaign in London. I’ll not just be doing nothing.
IT: Do they ask you to raise a minimum amount?
YY: £2k.
IT: Wow that’s loads. In the past when we had people going to all sorts of places. It was thought if that you were getting something back then you should raise money yourself. But since you are asking for a small proportion it’s not the same issue.
MP: Yuan has chosen to do this, we have a political campaigning budget. It’s useful for Yuan to go on this. If you see it as funding it, it’s not a bad thing, people do a lot worse internships. You’re women’s officer OUSU, Living Wage is part of OUSU Women, Yuan is involved. It’s a very worthy cause but a crap campaign. It could do with someone going on a course and learning how to do this stuff better. Pass as much money as we can afford.
GL: Ronan’s amendemnt makes it easier to get it from the charities account. This is basically us giving money to the Living Wage campaign. We’ve given so much money in the past, without a noticeable increase; Balliol isn’t going to get the Living Wage. I’m not sure if it’s still too much.
MP: This isn’t to Balliol or the Oxford campaign; we’re giving it to London Citizens who are more influential and talented than anyone here; they started the campaign. Separate it from giving to
Balliol.
GL: The premise is that Yuan can come back.
13
MP: Partly, yeah.
MxD: How close are you to raising £2k? If we do reduce it, do you believe you’ll get £2k?
YY: So far I have no money. I was told at the start of this term about raising £2k. When I asked for sources of funding, they just said colleges and university. Other students are in the same boat. It’s more surprisng that I asked for less. JCR and college and univeristy are my only real sources of funding in any case.
MxD: ; If we pass £50, do you think you would not get total of £2k?
YY: I don’t think I’m going to get it anyhow. MxD: Do you therefore not get job?
YY: I’d have to self-fund, but it’s an unnecesarily high burden on someone on a high burden. I’d have to donate the money myself.
RC: You have to pay them this and if you don’t get the money through other means you’re going to pay them the remainder of the money themselves.
YY: So far I have been to college, and I’m going to see the proctors and university people. Hopefully that will get me £2k. If I don’t get it, if I get £1950, I would pay the £50 myself. Otherwise I haven’t worked in the last year so I wouldn’t be able to make more than that. So I just won’t go if I fall by a large amount.
GL: If we give you £175 and you don’t get total, does £175 nonetheless go to the charity?
YY: I’d give it back but it’s a worthy organisation to go to. I would come back to Balliol JCR.
Move to vote
GL: I think we should reduce it to £50. It’s still coming from political campaigning, Yuan doesn’t seem to think she’s not even going to get the money, that doesn’t bode well for voting this through.
YY: Matt do it.
MxD: I’ll do it.
YY: It’s okay.
YY: If Ronan moves it to the charities budget that would also make a lot of sense. What Matt said in principle makes sense. Political campaigning and also a charity, it’ll be hugely benefitial to campaigning in the JCR, not just Living Wage; I will open those sessions to non-LW stuff. That is what the fund should be for.
The amendment fails
The amendment from RM is considered. This amendment has been lost entirely.
YY accepts the amendment as friendly
RM: We have loads of money in the charities account which won’t get spent tonight. We don’t have enough in the political campaigning fund for all the motions that apply to it. It’d be better to pass it from charities. Having said that there will be objections that this is a political motion so make your own minds up.
There are objections to taking the amendment as friendly
AT: Into debate.
MS: There is a lot of money; there’s also lots in the bar account, entz. It doesn’t change whether we give the money. Although they are a registered charity, it’s a political campaigning group. There are people who contribute to one of the funds and not the other, I was one of them, given I my views differ to Balliol’s I don’t contribute to that fund. It’s not any less improper.
14
MxD: This is definitely a political cause. Yuan thought so when she brought the motion. She asked for the political campaigning fund. It makes sense to take it from that fund. There’s lots of money in the charities account but we can use that money to give to charities next term. Use political campaigning fund to give to campaigns like this one.
GL: The money we take has to be given to charitable causes. Lots of political campaigning groups are registered charities. Legally we just can’t give money. No money taken for charity, we can’t give to political means — in the education act, that’s why we have political campaigning fund. Every political campaign organisation is a registered charity, almost always, unless it’s an underground thing. Wikileaks isn’t. There’s a question here about how we want to go about doing this. It’s not prudent for us to do something that’s bad. As a principle there is a legal issue here that we can’t just do that.
Move to vote
RM: People can say it’s political, but it’s clearly charitable; it’s not going to harm anyone with it’s ideology. We’ll have loads more next term so spend it now.
MxD: A few things. 1) It’s definitely [on the] political campaigning spectrum 2) Like Michael said, so what it’s got loads of money? It’s a political campaigning motion.
The amendment fails
The amendment from MS is considered:
• Replaces the sum in Resolves 1 with £60. MS: I’m reducing the sum down to £60. I’m bringing this because people thought it can come out of charities, we’ve decided not to do that, there are many other potential uses [of that] on the agenda sheet; we should consider again reducing it down.
RS: This is for Greig — you said it earlier, how much will be left in the political campaigning fund after wikileaks and Oxford Left Review.
GL: £169.98 after the other two. £109.98 if we give £60 pounds to this.
MP: It’s worth bearing in mind that the Oxford Left Review is less likely to pass in general. Don’t see this. . . don’t cut this down because of Maths. Ignore the Maths, we’ll work something out.
DH: Where does political campaigning come from?
GL: Optional levies. It’s about 12p per person. People can increase or remove. Most of the time people don’t give a shit and reduce or leave it. ijWe’ve already rejecting reducing it to £50. Keep that in mind.
MS: That was because people thought we could take it from charities account.
GL: Political campaigning fund is now doing what charities account used to do, build up and empty it. We only get about £30–50 each term for this. Next term if we want to fund the Living Wage campaign again they’re only be able to get £40. The implications of this are: we can raise the base level, people on optional levies don’t increase it very much. People are likely to take offense if we raise it on optional levies.
Conor McLaughlin (CM): I agree with what Michael said. £175 is fine. But the amendment was struck down based on option to come from charities. We could still do all the other charities tonight if it came from there. If came from political campaigning, we’re not going to be able to pass the amount in the motion for other political campaigns; it will not allow us to increase them either.
MP: Question for Ali and Greig. What’s happened to the charitable staus of the JCR? Will there be a political campainging fund next year.
AT: It’s on hold. The deadline has been pushed back and back. They’ll still be one next year.
Move to vote 15
MS: It’s a good cause, from the campaining fund, let’s not empty it as hardly any money comes in. We want to do stuff tonight and in the future so reduce to a more moderate level.
YY: Going £15 into someone else’s budget is not as drastic as cutting down by £115. We think the charity is worthwhile; £60 is a drastic cut down. Given the fact that I will contribute many hours of my time in return for this donation, it’s a very token amount of money. Finally I think the arguments about better campaigns, we’re not in future, here [is a] very good campaign.
The amendment fails
The amendment from RC is considered:
• Reduces the sum in Resolves 1 by £15.
RC: This cuts it by 15.
YY accepts the amendment as friendly; there are no objections
GL: To £100. £60 too little. I’m still not happy. No-one is in charge of raising money for political campaigning. They’ll be £36 left in it; no-one can bring a political campaigning motion next term so we can give more money to the Living Wage campaign. Reduce it to £100. Then there’s about
£100 left in it for next term so someone else can bring a worthwhile motion next for a cause they believe in as passionately or more passionately than any of the other ones here. Let’s not reduce wikileaks to pass this.
CG: The Living Wage campaign, even if Greig has problems with it, is supported by the JCR. It’s in standing policy. It’s one of the few campaigns that Balliol people have a proper impact on that is supported in Standing Policy. The rest are vague “pro-this.” I think that we should support this over what we support other political campaigns. WikiLeaks is good but WikiLeaks has a lot more sources of income than Yuan does here. Keep it at £160.
IT: Firstly, if Yuan weren’t here [going] on an internship, we’d be much more likely to give the money.
As it is we are giving money and getting something back. We might as well give to this rather than the Oxford campaign. There’s no point keeping money back, this is money that’s needed. No pont in saying maybe next term. If there’s a really important political campaigning motion next term, someone can raise the money anyway; [we’re] able to raise money otherwise. If not no-one cares enough.
YY: The argument that money will damage political campaigning at Balliol is fraudulent. In the last two years, the people I’ve spoken to, people have donated less or nothing as no results are visible.
No big political campaigns are coming out of Balliol. There are many campaigns at Balliol that can be enriched. We can help people who haven’t even joined campaigns; [make it] more accessible and easy. We can bring more skills and resources to people who want to take on campaigns. Suppoer here’s a huge campaign that comes up in MT; I’m very happy to help then take on that campaign as I’ve promised.
Tom Nickson (TN): What Chris said about WikiLeaks is wrong. They shut down December – Febru- ary due to not having money. They only got the site up by March.
GL: Sorry if I’ve come across as fraudulent. Yuan and Isabel are saying that if there’s a political crisis we’ll raise money — that’s not how political campaigning has ever really worked. Next term I want to bring £100 because libel reform had been postponed, I want £100 for this chiropracter blah blah blah. I can’t say let’s have a whip round for it — yes the JCR supports the Living Wage campaign, we have done that handsomly. We’ve given lots of money to that campaign. Let’s not give all the money, as this will leave nothing, not like charities, whip around in the bar. It’s not like the Haiti earthquake. £160 still too much.
Move to vote
GL: If we do this no-one will be able to bring a meaningful political campaigning motion next term, a miraculous fundraiser that isn’t going to happen.
16
CG: This is something we’ve all said we support lots of times. The idea that people can’t raise money for a political campaign for things they believe in is obviously not true. Whip round in bar they could. Whether they’d get support isn’t clear but you could try. Give the bloody money.
The amendment fails Move to vote
AT: Any objections to moving to a vote? No. Cool. Sorry. . .
YY: As I’ve promised, after I go I will come back and run a series of campaigning general workshops, either in Michaelmas or Hilary depending on demand. The argument that potentialy very good, resourceful, attractive campaigns in the future at some point in the next year isn’t an argument we should consider at this point as there are no other campaigns to donate to at this point. Leaving political campaigning at a low level is not an issue for Michaelmas. There are many other resources to go to. I’d be happy to help them. The metric for judging whether charities motions pass is what’s going on at the moment. In the past we’ve drained it because of an issue. This issue is like that. Vote for this if you want political campaigning to be better in the JCR.
GL: We shouldn’t give money to this. Pointless what I’m going to say. Yeah. Everyone’s decided.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Alternative Prospectus Printing by Simon Wood & Marine Debray
This JCR notes
1. There is normally an Alternative Prospectus, written by students, at Open Days
2. The Admissions Officers have spent a long time re-writing and heavily editing the Alternative
Prospectus
3. College thinks that there is an agreement by which the JCR should pay half of the cost of printing the Prospectus; this money has not been budgeted for by the JCR (which seems unaware that the aforementioned agreement exists...) 4. Around 2000 APs are needed for the Open Days. 2500 cost £665.76. 5000 cost £1028.85
5. College have suggested that if we buy two years worth of prospectuses we can pay a quarter this year and the same again next year (for a total of a half)
6. Neither the JCR nor the College Admissions Office has very much money
7. Money has to come from somewhere
This JCR believes
1. That if the above agreement is verified, the JCR should honour it
2. That if we do not pay half of the cost, there may not be an Alternative Prospectus at the Open
Days (though this is unlikely)
3. That it is reasonable that the JCR should help the college in the admissions process, nevertheless as the JCR already contributes significantly by allowing the college to use the Alternative Prospectus for its own, it should not be asked to bear the financial costs as well; still believing that a cooperation between the college and the JCR is a good thing.
This JCR resolves
1. To pass up to £140 for the printing of APs
2. Mandates the admissions officers to express our concern with the arrangement.
Minutes: Simon Wood (SMW): We’ve just finishing editing the Alternative Prospectus [hereafter AP], we want to print it, College told us we paid half and they pay half; Denise and previous admissions officers say college pay all of it. College said that was last year’s admissions charging the whole lot; the admissions office went massively over budget for that. So we pay half they pay half. So we’ve got a problem. Either we pay the half, or we don’t pay the half. If we pay the half I’ve got to get the money now because gotta get it printed before open days, so this motion, I need money, but this motion is to make a stand — we’ve written it and it’s advertising them — or conversely we’ll bend over.
MD: It’s very different to the college prospectus. We want to attract people to JCR, societies and
Committee etc.
4
SMW: College have agreed that ours is so good they are printing a flyer as their prospectus. If we say we’re not paying they’ll probably print it. Do we want to stand up to college?
MP: How involved are college in the making of the AP? Did they advise you?
SMW: They keep saying we’re not involved and it’s up to you, but basically they’ve given a couple of comments of pictures in it, they thought lots of girl pictures but most drinking (good, bad), not enough ethnic minorities, though that is more accurate representation but we changed that anyway. Tiny bit but not that much.
Quorum count. Only just; people called over
SB: Not sure if this is debate or not but as admissions officer what is your professional recommendation?
MD: I just want AP to be printed. Whomever pays for it, I don’t mind.
MP: You have more information than many of us. Will it get printed if we don’t pass the money?
SMW: College have said they’ll the pay whole fee for a two year bundle, save money, we pay quarter now and quarter next year — they’re being quite helpful and they don’t have much of a budget.
If we took a stand it’d get printed.
MP: What do you think?
SMW: Do they read the minutes? We’re doing their job for them. We should pass something but not as much.
Greig Lamont (GL): It’s quite a hefty thing, 25 A4 pages. College’s own prospectus is quite small.
So they’re using the AP as their prospectus?
SMW: Yes.
MD: Yes and no.
SMW: That’s what they said to us. MD: Okay.
RC: Why aren’t they doing a proper full length prospectus?
SMW: Ours is good and they don’t have any money.
MP: Do all JCRs have an AP?
SMW: As far as I know they do. Not sure of their finance arrangements. Only found this out at the very last minute. Only when I spoke to Denise who said we’ve never done this before. If we’ve agreed we’ve paid half, pay it this year and maybe change it for next year. Aime and Jen think college pay all, college only has new admissions secretary, Giovanna doesn’t know, nothing to do with her. Ideally I’d have brought next week but no GM.
Ian Jones (IJ): Do we have enough money to pay for this?
GL: Yeah we can find £300. But that’s two thirds of the welfare budget for a year.
CG: Do you think college are trying to con us? By saying we’ve always paid for it.
SMW: More likely is that we’ve been conning college, new person asking “why we’ve done this?” All verbal anyway.
CG: Are they claiming the agreement always been there?
SMW: Yes. But no verification. If anyone has got contacts for former admissions officers that would be very helpful.
SB: Don’t we just have a bank statement, look at equivalent sum going out to college, surely that’s. . .
5
GL: I’ll check the JCR accounts.
MP: Aime, you’re useful here.
SB: Simon and Marine know the admissions people since they’ve been doing admissions stuff since the beginning of time or at least their degrees; look at the account and get best and fairest deal.
SMW: I’ve brought this as it is, so in an ideal world we won’t spend all this money. We haven’t had any time to look at it. Denise had gone home by time we finally found out it’d all gone to hell.
Juliette Kelly (JlK): Is this the first year they’ve decided not to publish a proper one? SMW: Last year they had four sides of A4 on A3 sheet. Crap but had information. Now it’s just “go to the website” and a pretty picture. And it’s because ours is good.
MD: Also their website is good enough.
CG: How much money do they spend on development over admissions?
SMW: We’ve had more applicants per place than anywhere else for nine out of last ten years, so college don’t care as more people apply anyway. They’re pretty underfunded. The department is screwed over as well as us.
Jan Indracek (JI): Some colleges publish it as PDF files. Any college PDF prospectus larger than A6 sheet?
SMW: There’s an extensive FAQ on website. The admissions section is very good. It’s not like our prospectus, which I’ll send to Ian to put on the website.
JI: They’re cutting costs on their own printing.
MS: So just to clarify, you want money but you’re hoping you won’t use all of it? You intend to use it as a negotiating position?
SMW: College have asked “some money towards it at lest” — I said I doubt it’ll get passed at a GM.
They came up with idea of doing it over two years, saves money. I want to take to negotiate with college. If GM wants to fail it, backs us into a corner as to how we argue. If it’s amended down to
£100, we can say we’ll pay that much etc.etc.
Aime Williams (AW): PoI: This is my fault, this motion — I didn’t check with Denise over the weekend. I’ve been a bit useless. This happened last year sort of. They didn’t have a college prospectus by the Summer and that was mainly because Anna Matak told me it was because it was so terrible. They decided to update the website and let us have the prospectus. Can’t quite remember but we didn’t go through this. We just sort of took them to printers office and they were paid for.
SMW: Yeah, you sent the bill to the bursary, bursary charged admissions and they want way over their budget. They paid for the whole lot but weren’t happy about it. Tom Rowley (TR): £332 is a miniscule amount in college, they have a £6m turnover; if they are using our prospectus as their prospectus, they have to recognise that the JCR contribution is actually quite a lot of money that we can spend on welfare etc. For them to pay it it’s a tiny amount of their discretionary spend. While they may go over budget, it’s still a very small effect. It’s more important for us to say, if you’re using it as your prospectus, pay for it.
SMW: That was a point raised in GM when negotiating with her, thanks for raising it. I explained that it was massive to the JCR compared to drop in ocean [for College].
AW: Look at the people before me, how many they printed. We shouldn’t be financially penalised because college have decided they’re incacable of writing a prospectus.
SMW: They are saying this was just broken last year.
6
AW: Nope. The year before, AP was a secretive supplement to the college prospectus and website. We just printed a few and handed them out at open days. It was not a mainstream thing at all. It might be worth saying, this is how much we spent on it in the past; we’re not happy to spend more than this.
JlK: Until I came to the GM, I was thinking we want to have an AP, to show what we think about our
JCR. Funding a bit of it not a problem, because we want control over it. But now there is this issue that college want to make it their prospectus, rather than a website link — it’s not up to us to contribute so much; more of a minimal amount.
Move to vote
CG: There was an excellent point made but it’s been made about four times in a row now.
SMW: There are quite different points and we haven’t repeated ourselves too much yet. There’s more
I want to say.
The move to vote fails
SMW: Do feel free to amend it down. I thought it was easier to bring as a complete motion rather than adding endless amendments myself. MS: Pass this in its current form without amending it down. College are acting badly over this, but we should pass this and get Simon and other members of committee to use this as a negotiating point.
Yes it’s good and we’ll make sure it will not happen again. We can trust Ali, Greig and Simon to negotiate on our behalf.
RC: It’s unfortunate, all this, since we have good admissions but we’re bad at admitting women, much worse than many other colleges. On the other hand college finances are tight and will get in- creasingly tight. We have more money than we need so we can do the charities accounts — it’s a different fund but it’s all our money — given that we think that issuing the prospectus is a good and necessary thing, it’s alright to help out college in this instance.
DH: I oppose the motion. Admissions shouldn’t be down to us. It’s College’s responsibility. They put a lot of responsibility on us as a JCR. We are a JCR keen on admissions; more people sign up to open days than is needed. We shouldn’t have to pay for it. If it’s underfunded, it’s college’s problem. Whether it’s convention or not it’s unfair. Even if we did pass it, we shouldn’t pass it to budget in future years. Oppose this motion; it’ll send a clear message to college that we’re not willing to make up their funding difficulities.
SMW: I’m happy with that. I didn’t want to say “piss off then” without a mandate. Marine and I don’t want to go off on a lone charge.
Move to vote
GL: No-one has brought an amendment so we’re either going to pass this. Even if Dawn is going to bring one, we’ve heard good points, so let’s decide if in theory we want to give some money, or give none. Amending amount.
SPW: We need to have a debate on changing the amount, please someone being an amendment.
The move to vote fails
The amendment from DH is considered:
• Replaces Resolves 2 with: Mandates the admissions officers to express our concern with the arrangement. DH reads out her amendment
DH: This doesn’t mess up the admissions officers for this year, it’s got to be done, but this does strike it happening in future years and say we’re a bit annoyed about it.
There are no objections and SMW accepts the amendment as friendly
7
AT: Debate on the whole motion.
SMW: I meant to flag that point up so thanks.
SB: This is now going to be the seocnd time in a row in GMs in which we’ve passed money and said we’re kind of unhappy. Shouldn’t we explicitely say we don’t want to continue this arrangement — can we have a mandate to admissions to come back with more information? If we were paying for
5 copies in 2004 and now we’re paying for 2500, that’s a ridiculous increase. Equally, every other college has their own glossy quite large prospectus, if we’re paying for that then that’s just wrong.
SMW: This is the last time we can pass money. That’s why we’ve brought it now. It’s cheaper for glossy full colour than black and white on crap paper, so it’s quite good for the money.
SMW: As to passing it as it is the second time we’ve done that in as many GMs, it’s quite hard to negotiate. I’m glad you trust me Michael, make it harder if passes as it was. It’s great if it’s a smaller amount. We’re contributing a bit, [but we’d] rather we didn’t pass all of it. It does make it a bit harder to negotiate.
MP: Can you write an amendment then? Use your mandate, we elected you as admissions.
The amendment from IJ is considered:
• Replace the sum in Resolves 1 with £140. ijThis is as close to half of that as I could get without doing Maths. I agree that in principle we should pay for some of it if we have to, but college are gaining much more than this than we are as we’re writing it and submitting it. Given they’re getting more we should not pay equal amounts.
There are objections to the amendment being taken as friendly
MS: I think we should keep it as it is. If it turns out that there is a long established precedent that we do pay some of it, we shouldn’t jeapardise it. Leave it up to discretion of committee as a whole, not just Simon — just in case there is a predecent, keep it as needed to deal with that.
GL: This is good. Saying £330 is too much, but it’s not half as we’re still paying more. We’re giving you small amount and even then we’re still not happy with this. A good halfway house. It gives
Simon a better starting position. If [we] pass £330, they’ll just take all the money. Let’s give them
£140.
AW: I agree with Greig. Simon needs to be able to say to [College], we pass £100, rest of it your problem. We need to keep admissions and the JCR working together. Maybe £140.
SMW: That £332 is if we buy enough for one year. It’s only £150 per year if we bought two years- worth. That saves us and college £150 each. Are we happy to pass it this year and not next year; this is the other point that I want to raise. Do we want to force us to pay it next year by buying double the amount; it’s more than £300 anyway.
RC: I disagree with reducing the amount. There’s a false opposition between interests of the college and the interests of JCR. We all have the interests of the Balliol community. We know college finances are tight. They are making sacrifices. You’ve heard from Greig that we have the money, it’s clear we won’t be passing this kind of thing again. Things are difficult and we haven’t made much of a concession.
MS: Didn’t College put the kitchen charge up £5 next year which we accepted?
AT: It was extended to people living out.
MS: That’s a sacrifice we were prepared to make. How many more sacrifices? Every time college wants us to do something, we should do everything you ask us to do.
8
SB: When I thought fuck it just £300, but increasingly, we shouldn’t pay this money as it’s the second time in a row we’ve passed it when we’re unhappy. Secondly, we already pay a levy which is essentially an illegal fee, we already accept there’s stuff we can’t have, wage freeze or Living Wage due to financial circumstances. We’re paying for the cost of someone producing it by doing it for free, and then paying for their own advertising. It’s not a personal tradgey, ynlike last week, if we go to Wadham and not Balliol. College have to pay for this anyway. We shouldn’t be paying for something that does not benefit anyone in this room or anyone in the JCR. I don’t want to pay for a full page advert in Floreat Domus to get alumni to enter anyway.
Move to vote ijI thought this would make negotiations easier. We seem to be agreed that we want to pay some and are reluctant. It’d be better if we paid less; this’ll help Simon and Marine.
RC: College spends vast amounts of money on welfare and tuition. This is a relatively small amount of money — review it later — oppose reduction.
The amendment passes
The amendment from JI is considered:
• Adds Believes 3 that it is reasonable that the JCR should help the college in the admissions process, nevertheless as the JCR already contributes significantly by allowing the college to use the Alternative Prospectus for its own, it should not be asked to bear the financial costs as well; still believing that a cooperation between the college and the JCR is a good thing.
JI: I want to add Believes 3.
JI reads out Believes 3
JI: [This allows the] AP to be used by college. In making it JCR Believes it makes a stronger ground for Simon and Marine.
SMW does not accept the amendment as friendly ijIt doesn’t change resolves. It’s not changing what we’re doing.
JI: It makes more of a stand. They’re better ground for explaining to college we’re not happy with this.
SMW: I’ll e-mail this to them.
Move to vote
AT: We’re still in SFQs.
AW: Are you arguing no money should be given?
JI: I don’t care about the precise amount at all. In line with Steve, it’s better to say no, we’re unhappy with this, allow Simon and Marine to communicate [this] as strongly as possible. Believes allows this to happen.
Move to vote
RC: Two grounds. First what I said earlier, but secondly, in the long term we don’t want them to use the AP as their own. Having prospectuses from both sides is a good thing. I don’t want to codify
JCR’s position as saying we’re allowing them to use the AP.
Move to vote
JI: The amendment makes it much easier for Simon to communicate the feelings and beliefs of whole
JCR.
RC: We’re willing to make financial contributions for welfare of the whole college; we’ll not accept a permenant alternation
The amendment passes
The amendment from DH is considered:
9
• Strikes Resolves 1.
DH: This sounds like I’m changing the whole motion, which I am. If we decide that we don’t want to give any money and vote down the motion, all of this stuff we’ve put in won’t count. So this amendment — it gets you to decide whether or not we’re giving money and maintain the important belief stuff. Makes sense?
Iain Large (IL): If we vote the money down, someone [will] give reasons why we vote the money down, that’s fine.
DH: Simon won’t have a motion to take with him.
SMW: I can still say why.
DH: This will give you a motion that’s been passed.
RC: This is clearly a wrecking amendment. This will massively damage the admissions office’s budget.
We’ve already established that last year it send them off-kilter. It’s a very bad thing to make them pay for everything.
AW: It’s unfeasible that we should go in their with a hardline attitude. That’s not going to be good for admissions in Balliol; we’ll not beat anyone. Stephen’s attitude is extremely cynical and not very good. Give them money, even if it’s just a token amount, [to] say we want to show the importance of JCR/college co-operation.
Move to vote
GL: We’ve been discussing this motion for a while now. We’re still in a position where we want to decide give money at all. We can decide this now. People know what they’re going to do. It’s taking fucking ages.
MS: The debate on the amendment is on a slightly different angle — the most important part — then we can go straight to voting on the motion, so keep debating for a while longer.
The move to vote passes
DH: I’m going to abstain from voting; I want to create a mechanism for this GM to not pay the money but still keep in a motion all of the other stuff. If you want to not give College money but want to make a statement that this is how we feel, then this is the way to do it.
SMW: Basically, what Aime said is right. I have enough stuff that Marine and I can argue convincingly.
What I’ve taken to be the mood of the GM at the moment. We’ve got plenty to argue with at the moment. There’s no need to amend it any further. Pass or fail it now. This amendment would be very helpful. If college do say, “sod off we won’t have an AP.”
The amendment fails
Move to vote
SMW: Summary: Basically if you’re happy with passing a bit of money to help with negotiations then pass it, if unhappy then fail it. Do whatever you want to do. I’ve got enough to negitiate with now.
GL: Don’t vote for Dave, Simon said everything that needs to be said. MS: I want to record committee member votes.
AT: That needs a 25% [majority].
MS: The negotiating position is enhanced if we can say what committee said. This is why we have that provision in SOs.
GL: Half of committee aren’t here. Just record the actual votes. That doesn’t add to it. Just record the number of votes in each direction. “oh foody brother said this” Sorry Stephen.
The procedural motion fails
GL: Why don’t we count the actual number of votes then?
The motion passes 27 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions
Result: Passed
Motion: Making JdeB a Non-Committee Position by Max Deacon
(a)
Making JdeB a non-committee position --- FIRST READING
Proposed by Max Deacon --- Removes the position of John de Balliol from the JCR Committee and replaces it with a non-committee position of the same name
The JCR notes
1. The JCR Committee currently totals 21 posts, some of which are shared between more than one person.
2. Balliol JCR has the largest JCR Committee in Oxford.
3. John de Balliol is currently on the JCR Committee.
This JCR believes 1. That John de Balliol should not be a committee post, but rather a non-committee post.
2. That ideally a smaller committee would be a good thing.
3. That the position and responsibilities of John de Balliol mean John de Balliol serves no particularly discernible use by being on committee and at committee discussions.
4. Although not the case this year, historically there has been a low turn-up rate to GMs and
Committee lunches by those holding the post of John de Balliol.
This JCR resolves
1. To remove ‘John de Balliol’ from part 4.2 of the Constitution, which lists the JCR Committee posts.
2. To remove part 4.16 of the Constitution, which reads, ‘John de Balliol shall be responsible to the
Committee for the production and distribution of ‘John de Balliol’, the JCR bogsheet.’
3. To insert ‘John de Balliol’ into part 6.1 of the Standing Orders, which lists JCR non-Committee posts.
4. To insert into Standing Orders a part 6.2.16, to read, ‘John de Balliol shall be responsible to the
Committee for the production and distribution of ‘John de Balliol’, the JCR bogsheet.’
5. This constitutional amendment shall not apply to any person holding or elected to the office of John de Balliol at the time when this amendment was passed (Second Reading) for the duration of that person’s unexpired term of office.
Minutes: Max Deacon (MxD): I want to see what everyone thinks about this.
MxD reads out the motion
MxD: Yeah.
Holly McCluskey (HMc): I heard a rumour you are doing this because you don’t want women on committee and I just got elected.
MxD: Not at all. 1
Marine Debray (MD): Why do you feel JdeB can’t contribute to committee like other positions can?
MxD: It’s not about the people doing it, they are very able, but the responsibilities of the position bring very little of value to other positions like everyone does. It’s about rumour and jokes.
Ronan McDonald (RM): How quickly will this change be made?
AT: That’s depends on amendments. We will have to ratify it at the beginning of Michaelmas though, constitutional.
Stephen Bush (SB): Can we have some kind of motion so this isn’t in the freshers’ first GM? It will horrifically scar the first GM which has 100 people in it.
AT: Bring an amendment to postpone the second reading.
Edlyn Livesey (EL): Do you think the post should be expanded so that it is more relevant to com- mittee?
MxD: No, it’s funny how it stands. These two are going to make it fantastic.
Chris Gross (CG): Mate, don’t start now.
Matt Parsfield (MP): Why is a smaller committee a better committee?
MxD: Not necessarily. I’ve struck it in my amendment which is coming later. The position of respon- sibility is not useful.
Matt Fraser (MF): Do you know who founded this college?
MxD: Devourguilla.
MD: He just did the statues, it was John de Balliol.
AT: Guys! Marine! Keep it down.
HMc: What does this do in terms of accountability? You can’t mandate us. We could go fucking mental.
MxD: Really?
HMc: Does it affect our responsibility?
MxD: Why do you need to be accountable?
AT: We’re slipping into debate. Max, keep it down! Max! Max! Max! HMc: What does it do in terms, because you can’t mandate JdeB? Does it mean less accountable and responsible?
MxD: I don’t think so. You can’t be mandated but still have to go through welfare to publish stuff.
CG: You can’t mandate us to do that.
MxD: Then you’re just publishing a newspaper.
MP: How long has JdeB been on committee?
MxD: I dunno.
MP: He hasn’t done his research.
The amendment from Michael Slater (MS) is considered:
• Adds Resolves 5: This constitutional amendment shall not apply to any person holding or elected to the office of John de Balliol at the time when this amendment was passed (Second
Reading) for the duration of that persons unexpired term of office.
2
MxD: I take this as friendly.
AT reads out the motion
RM: I thought the whole point was so that Chris could be charities while JdeB but apparently not.
AT: Strictly speaking he has retired. He can’t stand while still on committee. So he’s not charities anymore.
The amendment is taken as friendly
SPW: Justify it.
MxD: I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Get rid of it.
The amendment passes with no opposition.
CG: There are a few reasons why this is bad. Max said he just did it because he’s bored and wanted to piss me off. I hate that guy. Second, seriously, this year on committee there were no third years other than JdeB after the first round of elections.
GL: *whispers* Isabel
CG: SWD were only co-opted. It’s traditionally a third year role; if we want third years on committee we should keep JdeB.
SB: People don’t really respect non committee posts as much. There is value to it being faintly ac- countable. There was a scandalous JdeB at one point, got sent down. This means we take it less seriously, like the bulletin that gets slagged off.
MxD: JdeB would still go through welfare before being published. So that’s all fine. The respect that you attribute to JdeB — it wouldn’t change if on committee or not. Third years — Isabel is a third year.
MD: If you want third years on committee, instead of creating or keeping posts just because third years take them, it’s better if third years actually applied for posts on committee Having third years on committee is not a valid reason. On another note, Stephen meant, JdeB might fall into the bulletin, people stop doing it.
MxD: The bulletin is a hefty job.
MP: What a load of shit.
MxD: It’s really funny.
Ronnie Collinson (RC): I agree with Stephen; mechanisms to hold members of committee to account are stronger than those for non-committee. That’s important in JdeB as it’s often a controversial publication. It’s important that holders of the post have enough weight to hold their own against those who wish to be more censorious than is perhaps warranted. An ill-thought out constitutional change. It needs greater reflection.
MS: There’s the whole summer holidays to reflect on it.
CG: Third years don’t run for other positions on committee because they’re finalists. Second years don’t have as much to do. Someone brought up Isabel — yeah but she moved back a year. She doesn’t have exams either. In any case she’s a classicist.
MS: We don’t have to worry about JdeB closing down. Just about every college has a bog sheet, it’s clearly valued, there’s demand — it won’t happen. It doesn’t make JdeB any less accountable. We no-con’d Dave T a few weeks ago, not committee never has been. No problems.
MxD: About accountability, you can get rid of non-committee, do it in a GM, that’s no problem. 3
HMc: Simply, it’s better to have two extra people on committee than not. It might not be the case in the long term, but Phipps and Parsfield have been to committee lunch and have contributed well and me and Chris will go to GMs and Committee Lunch so it’s better to keep it on committee than take away.
Move to vote
MxD: Summary: I was interested in what you guys thought. If you should it should go vote for, if you don’t vote no.
HMc: A smaller committee — no that doesn’t count — keep on committee because everyone else is an idiot and me and Chris are not apparently.
Quorum count
Quorum lost
Quorum re-established
NS: We have to have debate again: there are people here who weren’t here when the vote was called; summing up is enough.
SB: I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that it’s valuable to have Phipps. It’s valuable to have multiple voices on committee; people don’t turn up. EM&O are not in room right now, doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. Plurality on committee is a good thing. Big committee is good. Let’s not get rid of posts from it.
MxD: I’m gonna read it out again.
AT: Maybe to save time not?
MxD does read most of it through anyway.
Motion fails.
Result: Failed
Motion: Donation to The British Friends of Vanuatu by Rhiannon Painter
This JCR notes
1. Vanuatu is one of the poorest countries in the world according to the World Bank
2. Schools on Pentecost Island have big shortages in resources.
3. One school on the Island XXX needs XXXX
4. Each year Oxford University sends volunteer teaches to the Island and six Oxford Alumni will be arriving in January to teach for the 2011 school year.
This JCR believes
1. Learning XXX is vital for students Pentecost many of whom come from poor rural villages and have had barely any teaching in this subject before arriving at the school.
2. These skills will be important if they decide to live in one of Vanuatus urban areas after finishing school to seek employment
9
3. The Oxford Alumni arriving in January are in a unique position to be able to purchase these materials in Australia and bring them directly to the schools as luggage when they arrive on
Pentecost thus minimising the huge transport costs that would otherwise be associated with shopping these materials to such a remote island
This JCR resolves
1. To donate £XX to The British Friends Of Vanuatu who will ensure the money is spent on resources for the school on Pentecost.
Minutes: Tabled to when Rhiannon has finished her year abroad.
Result: See minutes
General Meeting - 2010-10-10
Ali Travis (AT) : Good evening. Guys, please. Keep it down in Pantry. Okay. Hello everyone and welcome to the first GM of the year. GMs are great big meetings we have that execute all the decisions we make about the JCR. They are infamously bogged down in procedure. For the first
GM we’ll have a card game where you see each others cards so any questions about procedure stick your hand up and ask. Let’s get started. Any problems from the minutes? Fine. Officers’ reports.
As you see on the board, everyone on committee is required to write these. If an officer hasn’t given an officers report written they get an opportunity to give a verbal one now. Entz.
No entz officers are available to give their report.
Dawn Hollis (DH): We drafted some motions for the MCR/JCR constitution stuff. That’s about it.
Ash Thomas (AsT): Apart from that we had a lovely summer.
Ronan McDonald (RM): I didn’t do anything.
Alex Curran (AC): I can’t even remember what happened last term but probably good stuff.
Juliette Kelly (JlK): Basically we kept in contact about blood donation. We’re chasing that up. We went through another order of bags.
AT: Any questions for officers? No written ones. We move onto the motions. Everyone has a list of six motions today. I’m going to go through and see if there’s opposition to any of the motions. If there is then we discuss it or it passes nem con/without discussion.
Motion (e) passes with no objections. There is a round of applause.
AT: People talk to me afterwards and we’ll sort out that money.
—
Stephen Bush (SB): Procedural motion: I propose [we] move [the John de Bulletin motion] one for- ward so I can get something ready. Objections.
AT: Objections[?]
SB: I want an informed judgement about the facts of the case. An actual copy of the Balliol Bulletin, not smears, calamies and lies. HMc: I have read the Bulletin and edited it and can tell you about it and apparently you’re not allowed to distribute propaganda during motions. You should have throught about that earlier when I told you I was gonna do this.
The procedural motion passes
—
DH raises a procedural motion
DH: I want to pass a procedural to bring motion (f) forward to now before the Bulletin one
HMc: Oh mother of god.
AT: Holly, seriously.
DH: I think (f) will involve boring discussion and it will be a heavy one to end on. We’re likely to lose quorum. Also it’s important.
SS: There’s well loads of people in here, give it some time.
SPW: Procedural to bring entertainment forward since we’ve had three motions?
AT: We’ve only heard two motions.
SPW: Okay forget it.
Motion: Slater by Dawn Hollis
This JCR notes
1. The recent graduation of Michael Slater, resident pedant and upholder-of-standing-orders for the past 3 years.
2. The complicated array of standing policy, standing orders and lengthy constitution surrounding the JCR and rules contained therein relating to the conduct of a GM.
3. The fact that, apart from the JCR President and a few other committee members, not many people are completely familiar with said rules. 4. The fact that there are times when the JCR president would choose not to chair a GM.
This JCR believes
1. That having at least one pedant reminding us of rules and regulations in GMs is a Very Useful thing and tends to speed things up when disagreements about rules of conduct and procedure arise.
2. That Michael Slater should be rightly honoured for his years of service.
3. That the President should have the option to give up the Chair in order to take part in debates, and should also be able to do so without having to call upon the Vice President or other committee member who may also wish to partake in debate and should not be expected to know all of the rules of running a GM.
This JCR resolves
1. To create the non-committee position of “Slater,” inserting it in the list of non-committee positions in clause 6.1 of the Standing Orders, and inserting the following job description at 6.2.16:
The Slater shall know the constitution and standing orders, especially those relating to the running of a GM, attend all GMs and be available to consult on issues of procedure, and should also endeavour to keep the meeting running efficiently. They shall know how to and be willing to chair as much or as little as the JCR President requires. When not chairing, the Slater shall be free to take part in debates. They need to be able to uphold procedure but when not chairing are not required to be non-partisan or neutral.
2. To change clause 3.8.1 of the standing orders from “The chair shall be taken by the President, or in his/her absence by a member of the Committee specified by her/him [...]” to “The chair shall be taken by the President, or in his/her absence by the Slater, or in his/her absence by a member of the Committee specified by the president [. . . ]”
3. To hold elections for this position at the end of Michaelmas.
Minutes: AT: The format of presenting a motion is as follows. There’s an opening speech, an introduction, which explains what the motion is for and what it’ll do. Once he’s finished we have Short Factual
Questions for clarification questions about the motion. Anything like that. Then we move into debate. Anyone here can make floor speeches for or against the motion. If you want to change the nature of the motion there are a few amendment slips they look like this, if you wanted to change name to Slater to Michael Slater write that down on an amendment slip and we’ll then discuss that.
DH: I do apologise as parts of this motion aren’t understandable to freshers straight away. The rules that govern these meetings are really quite complicated. I dunno if any of you have looked but the constitution and standing orders are fairly long documents.
1
Sean Whitton (SPW): Thirty-five pages.
DH: We had a PPE student called Michael Slater who was very very good at being pedantic and making sure that everything kept working efficiently. We no longer have anyone here who will pipe up and annoy a few people in telling us when to follow the rules to keep us on track. This motion is slightly joking slightly serious to create a new position, not committee but still an official position whose job is to sit in GMs and ensure we follow rules and the more complex ins and outs that come up once every term or something. Questions?
Alice Lighton (AL): Did you ask Michael about creating this position? Would he be proud?
DH: He thought I was joking and was quite surprised when the motion came up.
Nick Spanier (NS): Is this position going to entail GMs 2–3 times as long by dragging on every single motion?
AT: Just questions of clarification.
DH: The point is to make sure we follow rules — debating is not part of the position whereas Michael
Slater liked debating things.
Felix Faber (FF): Is anyone required to know the constitution in their job description? President?
SPW: Me and President basically. AT: Technically no but in practice I like to think I do.
Hannah O’Rourke (HO): Would this position be in charge of keeping the constitution up to date along with the Secretary and President?
DH: Very good idea but not in this motion.
Jan Indracek (JI): If the position exists, would you consider running for it? Honestly?
DH: IF no-one else runs I will but I’d rather someone did it as I already have a JCR position.
Tom Nickson (TN): What positions does this give to the JCR aside from President, Vice-President,
Treasurer knowing enough about the constitution to chair a meeting effectively.
DH: It frees them up if they don’t want to chair. The Secretary is taking notes and Treasurer and
President and VP want to take part in debates. It’s better to have an official position rather than someone expected to maybe know it.
AT: Keep quiet guys. More SFQs? Into debate.
The amendment from AsT is considered:
• Strikes Notes 1
• Strikes Believes 2
• Amends Resolves 1 and 2 to replace “Slater” with “JCR Chair”.
AT: How amendments work — on the screen, Ian will get it there. Ash is proposing an alteration to the original motion. If it passes, we then start discussing the amended motion. Wait. Give me another go. Ash has an amendment. If the amendment passes we start debating the changed motion.
DH: However I can accept it as friendly so it passes into the motion without debate if there are no objetcions.
AT: Any objection to it being friendly we discuss it as normal.
AsT: It scraps everything about Michael Slater because there is a very very valid idea here to have someone chair meetings effectively but having a position named after Micheal is presumptious but it also diminishes the actual content of the motion. Actual idea good; this makes things clearer.
2
AT: SFQs? FF: Would the JCR Chair chair meetings?
Greig Lamont (GL) takes the chair.
AT: Greig’s gonna chair so I can ask questions and stuff.
GL: Och, bloody hell.
FF: As this amendment stands, the JCR Chair will sit at the back and complain but can chair when someone needs it. Do you intend for the JCR chair to chair the entire time?
AsT: I’m piggybacking on Dawn’s motion. My intent is that the President has a goto to go to if he needs to hand the chair on.
HO: Would you be happy with “in memory of Michael Slater”?
AsT: I’d be delighted with that.
Isabel Thompson (IT): We already have the position — we’ve amalgomated it in with President.
There used to be an elected chair, this is stupid, we merged it witH president. The whole thing is a complete waste of time.
DH: There is no position. . .
IT: There used to be but we brought them together.
DH: There is a need that could be filled.
AsT: I’m making the motion more acceptable.
IT: It becomes pointless. The President and VP have to know how to work the meeting.
GL: You can’t ask anything about the actual motion when we’re dealing with an amendemnt. Focus debate on the issue.
AT: I think that if we change this to JCR Chair we’d be trying to introduce a new position without properly thinking it through. If we want an elected chair we need a specificially written motion, not due to an amendment. Vote down amendment because this motion is. . .
GL: That doesn’t sound like amendment debate.
AT: This is inconsistent with us changing Standing Orders. Destructive amendment, vote it down.
Simon Wood (SMW): It’s not a sensible name. Calling it “Slater” I don’t agree with either. Someone tried to change Duckworth to Ric Holland. In two years no-one will know Michaeal Slater so don’t call it afte [some] random student.
HO: The Slater position wouldn’t have to be an elected chair, but someone who goes through constitu- tion and makes sure they know it and updates it.
DH: In response to Simon, to be fair I dunno how many people know who Lord Lindsay actually was.
SMW: He actually did something.
DH: Slater is generic enough, not Michael Slater. It’s not quite renaming Duckworth to Ric Holland.
He was a more objectionable individual than Michael Slater.
Move to vote
GL: Chris just shouted Move to Vote. That can only happen in debate. Not in SFQds When you’re sick of people talking and you want to move on or you just want to be a dick, shout Move to Vote and all discussion stops. Any opposition?
The move to vote passes
The amendment fails
3
GL: Now we consider the motion as a whole.
AT takes the chair
AT: Guys keep it down, keep it down. I’ve received two more amendments since then. First from
Ronan. Adds Resolves 4, to kill Michael Slater. To make it more appropriate to name the position after him. I’m using chair’s discretion not to accept the amendment. Also from Jan, I can’t read this. I’ll allow Jan to present his amendment.
JI reads out his amendment:
• Strikes Notes 4
• Strikes Believes 3
• Strikes all Resolves
• Adds Resolve 1: To hold a discussion and vote every Hilary Term on a possibilty of awarding an outstanding JCR member with the aforementioned qualities the honorary title of ‘Slater’
Simon Stewart (SS): I want a procedural motion not to hear this. This whole motion is going to fail and we don’t need to spend much more time pulling it apart. No-one will remember Slater in six years. No-one wil want the position. Get on with talking about the motion as a whole.
JI: Opposition: We still haven’t decided whether we do or do not want to commemorate Micahel Slater.
The objection is not reasonable. The original motion creates an inflation of positions. This is something to avoid. I want to change this to maintain the possibility to commemorate him.
AT: This needs a two thirds majority to pass.
The Secretary finds himself looking for Michael Slater to check AT is correct :’(
Move to vote
AT: I’ve heard a move to a vote. Objections?
GL: Yes.
AT: [So now] we vote on moving to a vote. . .
There are groans from the freshers
Holly McCluskey (HMc): We know what we’re going to vote so let’s get on with it.
GL: We haven’t actually discussing the substantive issue, if we want a chair, why we have President being chair, why we have separation. We need to discuss this good point. We need to disucss if we want to vote it down and write it again or pass it.
The move to vote passes
DH: Summary: I understand there’s a lot of opposition to the title. I still think that the position is a fairly important one. GMs should be more efficient than they are. This will help with that. If people really disagree with the title we can vote it in and then change the title of the position. If people think it’s a good idea vote it down and tell me and I’ll bring one with a less objectionable name.
IT: Firstly, the issue of Michael Slater, he just did his job as a clueed up member of a GM. I like him but he was nothing completely spectacular. Not enough to name a position after him. BAM, motion out of the way. Secondly, it’s a really big issue as to whether we introduce a chair, probably [should be on] committee, suddenly it becomes a constitutional motion and it requires two passings, needs rewording, rethought, should be voted down 100%.
AT: Put your hand up if you want this motion to win.
SPW: It needs two thirds but not two passings as it is Standing Orders not Constitution.
Motion fails
Result: Failed
Motion: TV room renovation by Jack Cox
This JCR believes
1. The television room is in desperate need of renovation.
2. That the hardworking members of Balliol deserve a decent television which can viewed by more than just the front row and a working remote.
3. The TV room contains a PlayStation and many valuables that should be safely stowed in some sort of lockable unit.
4. Most people in the JCR use and enjoy the tv room at some point during the year.
This JCR resolves
1. To give £750 to buy a new television with wall mount, a remote that works and carry out the other necessary improvements that are required (which would be done in the first option).
2. Don’t buy the lockable unit, just get a decent TV and get D&M to sort what they can.
Minutes: GL takes the chair AT: Procedural: The Resolves here is to give £250 or give £750, so it’s quite unclear. I propose we strike the first one and then whittle the figure around.
The procedural motion automatically passes with no objections
AT takes the chair
Jack Cox (JC): I don’t know if many of you have been in there, it’s a bit despicable, if you’ve tried to work the TV you’ll find it doesn’t work at all — get a nice TV, mount it higher so more people can see it. And to protect valuable things in a nice lockable unit. That’s about it.
AT: What would £750 buy us exactly?
JC: It’s a ball park figure. The TV will be about £500. A decent sized flat screen. The wall mount
[will be] about £150. Lockable unit as well.
Ben Fleet (BF): Also the microwave is temperamental.
David Bagg (DB): Who will spend the funds?
JC: We spend all our time in there so we’ll do it.
Sally Murray (SM): Why a new TV?
JC: It’s too heavy and the remote doesn’t work etc.etc.etc. You can’t press things on the remote.
FF: Who would have the key to the lockable unit?
JC: Lodge — you’d leave your bod card.
FF: Why not D&M?
JC: If they want to do it [they can] but we’ll take the load off.
JI: How much does a new remote for that TV cost?
BF: Dunno. We bought one recently.
TN: Would college let us bolt a TV to the wall?
JC: I don’t see why not but I don’t know.
TN: I’ll look into it.
JC: Only front row could see TV during the World Cup. The atmosphere in there a lot better than in the JCR but in the JCR everyone could see.
5 Jim Ormiston (JO): What fund will it come from, and how much money is in it?
GL: I’m bringing an amendment to specify where it comes from. Entz budget. There’s about £8.5k in that. So there’s enough money.
CG: Atmosphere in there is a lot better. Isn’t that because it’s so grimy and everyone gets together?
JC: People would still do that.
BF: There’s not enough space for people to watch it.
JC: More room for microwave and lockable unit too.
Cat Brooks (CB): Apart from [during the] World Cup, how many people actually use it?
JC: Every weekend, Crutchett and Marine are there every hour; Glee, the Apprentice, Doctor Who...
Alice Buchan (AlB): If enough people want to watch Glee stick it on the projector?
JC: [We] can’t put it on there every time. This room is for talking and discussing politics.
SM: What valuable stuff is there?
JC: A PlayStation 2.
SS: Point of information: Most of it is my stuff that I need to move. I don’t care if it gets stolen or if it gets stolen.
JC: Lockable unit will give the option of leaving stuff.
SS: I’ll leave it because I have loads of PlayStations.
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to the sum of £500
• Takes this money from the Entz budget.
GL: This reduces it to £500 and specifies that the money should come from the Entz account. My reason for reducing amount from £750 is that this is a lot of money and there needs to be something done with the TV room — a lot of it centres around a big TV on the wall and I hesitate that as there is a lot of wear and tear and an expensive TV might get broken. Insurance is incredibly difficult.
People don’t want to insure drunk students. I got hit in the eye with an apple in there and lost my vision for two days. If that kind of things happens in the TV room. . . I agree with Jack and
Ben, we need to paint it, get rid of lockers, get a newer TV, put it a bit higher and make it a little nicer because it wasn’t done up when [the JCR] was done up all the horrid furniture was moved into that room.
AT: SFQs on amendment?
Rhiannon Evan-Young (REY): Take £500 and not buy new TV but [the Secretary didn’t hear the rest of Rhiannon’s sentence]
GL: D&M will fix what is broken; amendment to do that. D&M should be doing this kind of thing when it comes up. Their mandate. They should do it. Simon’s amendment should get D&M to do the work but it actually fixes what’s broken.
BF: I have little confidence in D&M. I’ve been waiting two years for a noticeboard to be put up in the gym; no confidence in D&M.
SS: Jack Hobbs is a twat.
SB: Proposers and amendments question — is there a TV costed in this plan and a smaller one in the
£500 plan? Two separate plans.
6
BF/JC: We’ll get a TV for £500. Abstract figures. Ballpark figure. We’ll spend what’s needed and give the money back. We can get a cheaper TV.
GL: [The TV room] doesn’t need flatscreen mounted on the wall. [It] will get broken. It needs to be painted.
JC: The TV acutally doesn’t work.
Ramin Savi (RS): It makes more sense to pick a specific TV and then vote on that and allow that exact amount of money rather than setting a budget before hand.
GL: Maybe things like that — can’t really itemise. Not much point in doing that. Spend £200 on a
TV, £300 on painting, throws for the sofas or something.
Max Garporoux (MG): Where does the money come from now, not Entz?
GL: My amendment says. . .
MG: What now?
GL: Entz budget. Ed Brunet (EB): Any ideas of pricing?
IT: 42” in Argos is reasonable, not that heavy for £450–500.
Tom Heaton (TH): I concur with Ramin about how much it’s going to cost, we need to know what we’re getting. Vote on principle, but vote it down and do more research and bring a new one.
JC: Or we could just amend it to how much we pay.
AT: We’re creeping into debate. Tom, bring an amendment to mandate the Treasurer to work with the proposers and itemize the costs and bring it back to a later GM. Into debate.
SB: I suppose my point is we’ve just heard the costs of a large TV. I’ve never been as you’ll be reading,
I’ve never been to a JCR bar with a smaller JCR TV than we have. People who want to watch
Match of the Day or X-factor, there’s no reason we shouldn’t spend once-off money and get a TV.
Vote down the amendment so generations of JCR members will enjoy a bigger TV.
GL: Firstly, we don’t need a flat screen. You halve the price. It doesn’t need to be wall mounted, just get a large stand. We’re not talking a 12” black and white. It’s a big TV. Fine size. It doesn’t need to be big and fancy which will get broken.
Move to vote
GL: If you want to strike the motion down and do an itemising thing that’s fine but reduce the amount of money. The trouble with that room is that it’s inherently grimy, and it doesn’t need a flashy fancy TV on the wall.
SB: I think it’s pretty simple. That room, if it’s a big event, during England capitulation last year, both rooms [were] so full. If stood at the back you couldn’t see what was going wrong. There’s nothing wrong with what people in Keble and St. John’s have. Why are we saying we should be a second class JCR?
The amendment fails
The amendment from CG is considered
• Strikes all Resolves
• Adds Resolves 1: Mandates D&M to fix what is broken. 7
CG: I’m not against passing money to fix that room and do it up but we said it would be nice to have paint and the seats fixed. That can all be done by telling D&M to do it. They can pass money at committee lunch to buy paint and maintain the room. They can pass money to paint the room.
Send the an e-mail, no need for this motion. It’s such a large amount of money. We don’t know how much to spend on a TV. We’re not in agreement on what we want. I don’t distrust you but I don’t want to give anyone 750 quid when that’s how much we made as a JCR last year. It’s a lot of money.
AT: Any opposition?
SB: Surely we don’t want to fix what’s broken, we want a better TV. I want to be able to watch Arsenal score a goal or stuff on X-factor.
Ed Crane (EC): Split it into buying a TV and getting the other stuff and get the other stuff by D&M.
IT: Take it in parts?
SS: Pass amendment first.
JC: Change the whole motion to [get] D&M to fix things and add money to buy new stuff.
Move to vote
Someone tries to amend the amendment. AT explains that we never go more than one level of amendment deep
CG: I think we should come back at the next GM with [a motion] saying how the money will be used.
For making it pretty we don’t need to pass money at all. It’ll be done in a week’s time.
IT: I think that we should vote this down to mandate — it’s a great idea but this says let’s not get a
TV which is clearly necessary. Two separate parts of motion. Get D&M to fix things but don’t get rid of the overall budget to get a new TV. We do this all the time in committee lunch. Pass up to £150 and people spend £100. They do not need to spend all of it. Don’t scrap the budget.
The amendment fails
IT: Can I say, I don’t use the TV room but I think it’s in dire need of updating. We should raise the budget to £1000. I’m not going to, we have £850k in Entz. . . JC: £8500.
IT: Oh £8500. Anyway I don’t do maths. We have plenty of money in the Entz budget, the television is a huge communal part that people use every day. Why should we be a second rate JCR, they have two huge flat screens and Sky. No reason not to. For football it’s bad; for a tennis match it’s even worse. Can see things moving. At least £500, £750 is not an unreasonable budget, many people use it every day. Get some new stuff. Don’t put it off. Pass it now and in two weeks we’ll have the TV rather than discussing it again.
Sunil Suri (SunS): Do we have to use all the money?
JC: No.
SunS: There’s a specific offer on Amazon, 22” starting at £230.
GL: As empowering as Isabel’s speech was, the trouble at the moment is we don’t know how much we’re going to spend. If we want D&M to do it that’s fine, we can’t just pass money and leave officers to spend it. The JCR should be able to decide. Now is the time to strike the motion and ask them to come back in a couple of weeks with more information.
SS reads his amendment:
• Adds Resolves 2: Don’t buy the lockable unit, just get a decent TV and get D&M to sort what they can.
8
SS: We think the TV room is a mess. Get D&M to do whatever they can and let these guys get a pretty decent telly up to £750. Can get an amazing one for £400 it sounds like. Buy a telly and clean up
TV room.
JC: We’ll do all stuff with JCR, not just what we want.
Sean Wile (SWi): £750 here and now?
SS: Yes.
SM: Not right place for question — what will we do with the old TV if we get a new one?
AT: D&M would try to sell it. IT: Why not lockable unit?
SS: All the crap is mine and it’s fine in boxes. I agree with three keeping in lockable unit but it’s kind of a waste of money we could spend on TVs or a lava lamp or something.
AT: I have a new amendemtn to strike all Resolves, adds Resolves 1 burn down the TV room and claim off insurance for a better TV. From Ronan. We won’t consider that amendment.
Nicola Sudden (NiS): Bearing in mind the mood of the JCR re the unit, will you accept as friendly?
JC: Yes.
GL: Objections.
Groans
HO: Greig is entitled to his opinion.
Someone: Just because this is Simon’s stuff now — I might want to bring my PlayStation games and not have them stolen. Why is this a huge issue? The JCR might want to buy property and why not have a lockable unit. They can spend whatever and D&M and will do it anyway.
BF: Lockable unit — if someone else wants to bring stuff along. Accept as friendly, trying to speed things up.
Move to vote
SS: Summary: Left all my shit in their for ages, let’s all promise not to nick each other’s stuff then it won’t get nicked.
GL: That’s all nice and great but we should have somewhere to put JCR property that we can keep locked away. If the JCR buys an Xbox 360 we may want to keep it locked up. We’re not the only pepole in here, people go past and through all the time.
Shriya: If the amendment is not approved, do they have to spend £750 on locked unit and telly?
AT: If the amendment is not approved it’s as if this never appeared.
GL: They’re not reuqired to buy a locker.
Shriya: If they get £750 do they have to spend on decorations, lockable unit and a telly?
The amendment passes
Tn reads his amendment: • Strikes all Resolves
• Mandates D&M to come up with options at the next GM
TN: Costed options to the next GM. Three or four options, a team of Mexicans to paint the room for us. Stop all arguments about how much everything costs. Vote off things that we don’t like.
9
AT: Accept as friendly?
JC/BF: No.
SS: I reckon we have worked out what we want. We want a TV and not a lockable unit, so let’s just buy the fucking TV and paint.
Move to vote
TN: It wil be better as we can know how much things will cost.
SB: The issue isn’t that we’re passing £750 and they’ll spend £400 and buy a hooker. We want the best available, we’re passing enough to know we’ll get it. We’ll make this money back in bops.
Pass the motion and move on and maybe hopefully we’ll get home.
The amendment fails
Move to vote
SS: Summary: Let’s buy a telly.
CG: I don’t want to spend that much money on a telly when we already have a telly.
AT: That’s it boiled down.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: RIP Balliol Bulletin by Holly McCluskey
This JCR notes
1. The non-committee position of John de Bulletin was created in Michaelmas Term 2008.
2. Standing Orders is supposed to read: “6.2.16 John de Bulletin shall be responsible for producing the Balliol Bulletin with the aim of informing JCR members of issues involving Balliol and the wider university. At least four issues of the Balliol Bulletin shall be produced each term at regular
2 intervals. John de Bulletin shall be assisted in producing the Balliol Bulletin by members of the
JCR Committee if requested.”
3. The original motion resolved: “3) To review the way the Bulletin is published at the 1st GM of
MT09.”
4. That neither of these two resolutions have been properly fulfilled and there is nothing in Standing
Orders about Balliol Bulletin.
5. The Balliol Bulletin cost around £15 to produce 40 copies in black and white.
This JCR believes
1. The Balliol Bulletin is pointless because any information worth conveying has usually already appeared in email form on misc lists/from committee members.
2. Paying for pointless things is stupid.
3. Using paper to print pointless things is bad to trees.
4. That no more students should be subjected to either attempting to write a Balliol Bulletin or, even worse, reading it.
This JCR resolves
1. Provide the Balliol Bulletin with an optional levy equal to the SCRAWL levy
Minutes: HMc: I used to edit the Balliol Bulletin two terms last year. It has nothing to do with the gossip thing. It’s supposed to be a newsletter. The position was created MT 2008. There’s supposed to be four a term. It was originally intended as something to report from OUSU and Balliol involvement with the university. There should have been a review of this but there hasn’t been so I’m bringing it now.
IT: As someone who has also previously edited the Balliol bulletin, with all sorts of witty puns and was basically brilliant, why is it now shit and you are getting rid of it? Why is it now dead?
HMc: Wasn’t it you who created the position?
IT: It was Adam Smith in 2007. It was really cool to know about affiliations. I wanted to turn it into
NEWT because affiliations is boring but that never really happened. Why is it now shit?
AT: Short factual questions?
10
HMc: There are 10 copies in circulation; it’s not dead yet.
DB: What other student-led publications are there in Balliol?
SPW: [Joking] OxStu?
HMc: There is Scrawl who takes stuff out of the Balliol Bulletin. They have cartoons and stuff.
Sophie Wragg (FW): Problem is fact we’re spending money or idea of bulletin as a whole?
HMc: I haven’t explained why I want to get rid of it. I don’t want to get rid of it right now, I [just] don’t want to elect a new position. It’s £15 for 40 copies of one issue. The Womens’ budget for the whole year is £50. There’s no budget for it so we bring it to Committee Lunch. That’s one issue.
It’s really hard to pull together to actually put in the bulletin. Most of information on it is already there in an e-mail. We can’t do things like GM reports unless we do them immediately because there’s minutes and that kind of thing. All information is in e-mails so it’s really hard to get people to participate in things. I sent out countless e-mails and people don’t have things to put in there about sports and that kind of thing. The issue is that I don’t want to inflict this task on another poor poor person this horrible horrible publication when they could be at OxStu or
Cherwell instead. SM: What is the purpose of the publication meant to be? Are there other gaps it could fill?
HMc: It’s defined as a newsbetter that comes out four times a term. That hasn’t happened. It was one a term last year. There isn’t a definition for it apart from us supposed to report Balliol stuff that’s been going on. We just hear it in e-mails and in the JCR like everyone else does.
SM: For students?
HMc: Yes.
SunS: Resign and let someone else have a go but you’ve answered that.
SB: Where did you get the £15 figure from? It’s not that amount over the road?
HMc: When I did it in computer room last that’s how much it charged.
SPW: It’s actually about three–four times less than what the computer says.
HMc: Then Lotte owes you some money.
CG: A six page issue has been sent round, the first page purely for this GM. How many pages did
Stephen Bush do when he was editor?
HMc: One out of eight.
The amendment from HMc is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to: To end publication of the Balliol Bulletin after MT10
• Amends Resolves 2 to: To terminate the position of John de Bulletin after MT10, therefore not re-electing in 6th week.
HMc: The way I wrote it meant get rid of it right now. I don’t want to destroy Stephen’s role, just don’t want to re-elect.
The amendment is accepted as friendly
The amendment from SS is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1: Provide the Balliol Bulletin with an optional levy equal to the SCRAWL levy
• Strikes Resolves 2.
11
SS: Instead of getting rid of the Bulletin this turns it into something like SCRAWL. People who can’t wait to read the Bulletin don’t cross it off optional levies. People who want it contribute money.
Work with as much or as little as is given. Fits with the rest of the motion. We don’t want to waste money on pointless things. An easier way to discuss is to vote with our money rather than having a big ideological debate over value of bulletin.
SB: If you print off one black and white copy and then you photocopy it, it comes to about £1. The levy will result in me being given a fiver for no reason.
SS: It’ll go into a fund. Greig adjusts levies as accounts get filled.
SM: The results of the amendment is that there will still be someone who makes the bulletin but if no-one pays for it it won’t go to anyone.
SS: If no-one runs for it it won’t get made and if no-one pays for it it’ll have to go online or be made for free or [something]. This allows someone to write a bulletin if they want, and if they want to pay for it they can too.
SM: If no-one runs for it, then it doesn’t have to happen.
SS: We can’t make somebody write one.
Move to vote
SM: I thought this was about the time not the money. Seems it can be done for less.
SS: Summary: This is the way we do our other publications, do them all in the same way. Works for
SCRAWL.
The amendment passes
The amendment from Ben Marshall (BM) is considered:
• Strikes all Believes
• Adds Believes 1: It would be useful to have one concise publication containing both creative writing and current Balliol affairs
• Strikes all Resolves
• Adds Resolves 1: To amalgamate the Bulletin and SCRAWL as a single publication.
BM: I don’t know much about it but it seems as though there are two different levies and two different things. Make one joint publication. Just have it as one. Read the bits you want and ignore the bits you don’t want.
SS: SCRAWL people won’t want to edit the Balliol Bulletin and potentially vice-versa. SCRAWL has its own unique feel. Don’t lose that by putting in weird bullshit.
Liam Whitton (LW): I edit SCRAWL. Some stuff is good. It’s been going 10 years. Four of [our previous contributors] have gone off to be published [writers]. Football is the opposite of poetry so don’t destroy that stuff.
Move to vote
SS: Let’s vote.
BM: Got a couple more points.
Move to vote passes
BM: It doesn’t have to be a massive thing. If Balliol Bulletin is dying then have one page tacked at the back. Let’s not scratch out something that a lot of people aren’t reading at the same time people want to know what’s going on in college. A page to keep them both going at once.
12
LW: It’s disgusting to involve SCRAWL in this.
The amendment fails
The amendment from Aaron and Sophie Wragg is considered:
• Strikes all Resolves
• Change it so it is no longer a ‘publication’ and is instead put up on a board for everyone to look at if they want.
FW: If there is someone willing to do it which I guess there is, and if the problem is that we don’t want to spend the money, the best thing is to not have a magazine instead put it up in the JCR and people can go and look at it, no money at all because just one copy.
HMc: Just one copy of newsletter on the wall?
FW: Yes.
Shriya: Does this contradict the last amendment?
HMc: Yes. AT: We’ll edit the wording to stop that.
HO: We can e-mail it round too so it’s not a big problem if there’s just one copy.
Someone: Already we passed Simon’s so. . .
SS: Everyone will get it, people can contribute to the SCRAWL fund, it won’t be sent to the people who pay the levy, it will just be distributed in some way.
Ian Jones (IJ): Is money an issue?
Ollie: Send it electronically.
AT: Into debate.
SS: I think that the person who is next editor of the Balliol Bulletin should see how much money they get and decide how they want to publish it. We don’t need to make that decision now. They can see what shape they want it to take later.
SB: As incumbent editor, I think it’s good there are hard copies. They can easily make clippings for their own records. When they send off internships they have a clipping. Don’t restrict to only electronic verison. It’s not that expensive to photocopy. This is a non-issue.
Move to vote
GL: Everyone knows how they are going to vote.
HMc: I haven’t had a chance to respond to electronic comments and what it would be like if this passed.
Move to vote
FW: What is says.
SB: At this point there are at least 10 people who have read 10 copies aside from 2 round the copy.
Print publications are taken more seriously, a little, than online. I can use all the credibility I can get.
The amendment fails
Move to vote
AT: No objections.
SPW: Hannah and Isabel objected!
13 Abdul: We’ve been here all night, so let’s just move on.
HO: We should think about this a bit more as this is another position which some of you might want to run for.
Move to vote passes
People ask for clarification on what is being voted on
AT: Only Simon and Holly’s amendments have passed. We keep the bulletin and set up an optional levy so everyone gets the opportunity to pay for it or in fact not pay for it. It’ll be circulated on paper for everybody. You don’t actually have to pay, everyone gets a copy. Keep the position.
Rhiannon Garth Jones (RGJ): [Whichever way] we vote, this is just how we pay, we’re not losing it.
SS: Summary proposition: People make crosswords in the Balliol Bulletin which you can do on the toilet.
It’s alright. If you guys want to give someone money to keep it and write hilarious crosswords I say go ahead.
Georgina Sturge (GS): We don’t need more money. Bush will just go on a bar crawl.
SS: Point of information: I wasn’t suggesting anyone pays the levy.
AT: Show of hands in favour of creating an optional levy. If you put your hands up then we keep the
Bulletin and have a levy. If you vote no it will stay as it is. It’ll still be paid out of JCR accounts.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Bored with the JCR boardgames by See below
Proposed by: David Bagg, Eleanor Brunt, Xena Cologne-Brookes, Anna Comboni, Cat Brooks, Ravindran Shanmugam, Hannah Gliksten & Ben Marshall
This JCR notes
1. The disappointing lack of word and speech based boardgames provided for its members.
This JCR believes
1. That word and speech based board games provide for the entertainment and education and for further opportunities for socialising of its members.
This JCR proposes
1. Pass up to £100 for the purchase of board games from the Entz account.
Minutes: The slideshow of photos from freshers week is watched
Most of the freshers leave
DB: Thank you Mr President. I and others bring this motion before the JCR today in order to rectify an absence of boardgames we noticed early on this week. During the freshers board game session.
Piddlingly small amount to play. We ended up playing Call My Bluff. It was a transparent failure.
The lack of range of games is a detriment to the JCR. We proposed the motion to as it stands and consequently we wish you to pass it.
Are you Xena?
AL: How much do they cost?
DB: I didn’t put it in, I’ll treat an amendment as friendly, it won’t cost that much.
AT: I had a cheeky look on Amazon. £20–25 per game.
GL: Did a JCR committee member help you draft this motion?
DB: Yes, the Secretary.
GL: It’s fucking awful.
The following amendment from GL is taken as friendly somewhere around here: • Changes Resolves 1 to: Pass up to £100 for the purchase of board games from the Entz account.
Will Smith (WS): Why did you pick those particular games?
DB: These games all involve comparatively little pieces and counter cards. Scrabble being the exception.
There’s a great variation in the range of tasks what you can do. It’s appropriate to have these board games. For interviewees as well as JCR members.
14
Ben Spencer (BS): Which is the best ever board game and why?
DB: The honourable gentleman will not hold it against me for treating that question as superflous to the motion.
AT: Amendment from Joe Bartrim (JB): “Add Risk it’s boss.”
The amendment is taken as friendly
JB: Short and sweet. Risk is the only board game worth playing. You get to conquer the world. Unless you get to be really good politicians you won’t get to do that otherwise.
SPW: Risk fails if you lose any pieces and there are hundreds so it’s probably not a good idea.
JB: Reiterate previous argument: Risk is boss.
DB: Given the number of pieces that Risk requires and the length of time it requires to play, it would not be suitable to have in the JCR in the first round of game purchases. I’m not opposed to bringing forth a motion at a later date.
The amendment fails
Move to vote
An amendment from GS to mandate Xena to dress as a warrior princess for a week is dismissed by the Chair
AT: Hannah please keep it down. I’ve heard Move to Vote.
DB: Mr Chairman, [I’m pleased with the] speed of which this has got [through], [I’m] so glad we’re not having another round of trivial pursuit. SS: Boardgames are stupid. If you have loads of people in the game, invent new hand signal games or skipping or playing hopskotch.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: On Your Bike by John Lees
This JCR notes
1. Many students in Balliol own bikes.
2. Many of these bikes will break at some point.
3. The owners of broken bikes want to fix their bikes as quickly as possible.
4. The porters currently supply a bike repair kit, which consists of a pair of pliers and a spanner for two possible nut sizes, and a screwdriver if you’re lucky.
This JCR believes
1. A set of tools held by the porters is the quickest and most convenient way for Balliol students to fix minor bike issues.
2. The current bike repair equipment readily available is not adequate for fixing a lot of bike problems.
3. Many common bike issues could be fixed if we also had a set of Allen keys, and a greater range of spanner sizes.
This JCR resolves
1. To allow a maximum £20 to buy the aforementioned Allen keys and spanner set, which can be given out by the porters with the existing tools. 2. To mandate Comrade Bike Rep to purchase these tools.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Affiliations Events by Dawn Hollis
This JCR notes
1. The successful JCR-MCR social event held at the Manor last term.
This JCR believes
1. That social affiliation with the MCR is important and should be increased and maintained.
This JCR resolves
1. To mandate the Affiliation Officers to aim to run at least one joint MCR-JCR event per term.
2. To suggest an appropriate budget to the Affiliations Officers for JCR–
MCR events in line with the findings of the Treasurer and President’s review of budgets.
Minutes: AT: Last motion of the evening.
DH: I’m going to have to explain the background for everyone to understand. One of the jobs of the affiliations officers, myself and Ash, who you all met at introduction to committee, it to affiliate with the graduate complex[, the] MCR. Balliol is unique because we have an equal body of grads and undergrads. We both belong to the same college but don’t interact that mcuh. This motion is attempting to fix that. Last term we had the first ever affiliations event at the manor. It was a really good fun event. We passed money at time, bought drinks, snacks, pizzas, load of undergrads came and spend time in the grad complex. We got ideas for future events. It’d be good to make them a termly thing rather than them having ad hoc. Create a budget for affiliations that it has not previously had, mandate affiliations officers to attempt to have such events at least once per term.
CG: Can I nominate someone else to vote for me? Need to write an essay.
AT: You can’t do that.
GS: What’s the affiliations budget at the moment?
DH: Zero. We don’t have one. Before we passed affiliating with the MCR into job desctrition there wasn’t any money we needed. MCR not OUSU it’s more social so it justifies a budget.
SS: How much do we spend on June Jamboree.
15
GL: Approx £300-400.
Stephen Dempsey (SD): Are the MCR contributing to this as well?
DH: I can’t promise anything but I’m fairly sure they would do. I will ask Chris Hinchcliffe to pass a similar motion. [I’m] equally happy to do something like that.
Ollie: Will this make a profit?
DH: No. They’ll be a profit in terms of fun had and different people to interact with.
RGJ: Does the MCR have a budget for this purpose and is it as large as £200?
DH: No budget for this purpose. They have a fairly good entz account.
HO: In terms of MCR finances, they have a lot more money than we do. Their womens’ officer has £600 per year, I get £50. If there’s any way to bargain with them because we could get more money from them. . .
DH: For affiliations last term they gave the bulk of the money. I know what people are trying to say but we need to decide how much we are going to be giving before we ask anythign [of] them.
Fresher Alice: Did you charge for the June Jamboree? Do you plan on charging for this? How much?
DH: The June Jamboree is not an affiliations event. It’s free, you pay for drinks and food. We didn’t charge for the affiliations event last term and don’t intend to [this term]. Maybe a formal event for a small charge but apart from that, informal like last time, free hopefully.
SS: How much did you spend on the last event, JCR and MCR?
DH: We passed £100. MCR put in £200 or £250. I think the budget is the thing to expect debate on to choose a more appropriate amount. [At the] event we did last time we could have done with more money for more alcohol and more pizza.
SS: How many people attended last time? How much per head?
DH: Ash?
AsT: All the rooms were full; the gardens outside were full.
DH: Couple of hundred.
AT: First amendment.
The amendment from AL is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to have events once a year rather than once a term.
AL: It’s a good idea to have MCR/JCR events, but every term? Nobody’s going to go. £600 a year is a lot so have one once a year.
DH: Once a year makes it far too rare a thing to happen. I envisage making it more regular interaction.
The strength of Balliol is the two common rooms but [we should] have more impact between the two. I’m happy to reduce the amount per term but not to reduce the number of times we’re mandated to try per year.
IT: This raises larger questions about what the event is going to be. We’re paying a budget of £200 for an event. That seems like an awful lot of money. A lot more than the annual welfare budget, more than Welfare Week. Why shouldn’t it be a free event. We can have a lot of MCR and JCR people together and it doesn’t need to cost anything. We have a lot of rooms available — encourage shared bops. Event doesn’t have to cost anything. Why should we provide free pizza and drinks to people? Great idea but far better to do it on a smaller scale. £200 much better used as welfare money. Yes bonding is a great idea and I object to once a year, we’re not going to become friends.
Until we know what the event is it’s very hard to note. Vote amendment down until we know what the event is going to be. If a massive event, once per year is good, if smaller three times a year is much better.
16
DH: Isabel is referring to the mtion as a whole. I can’t tell you what this specific event will be. We’re thinking, vaguely — we’ve not run this through the MCR — [I] don’t want to talk about it yet.
It’s not just about what Ash and I do this term, but what future affiliations officers do. We can’t talk about events that will hopefully happen in perpetuity. I would be happy to have an annual budget and leave affiliations to have an event once per term, with a yearly budget of less than
£600. Future officers can decide how to spread out their events. Cheap or free one term, expensive another term.
GL: Move to vote.
AL: If it’s once per term no-one will go. Someone might go to a drinks party once per year.
DH: This amendment changes the idea behind the motion which is to increase affiliation with the MCR.
The amendment fails
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Changes Resolves 2 to: To suggest an appropriate budget to the Affiliations Officers for JCR–
MCR events in line with the findings of the Treasurer and President’s review of budgets.
GL: What Ali and I should have done over the summer is do a really comprehensive review of all our budgets
SPW: A Comprehensive Spending Review?
GL: Yes, exactly like the conservative government. Iain Large [former JCR President] was [always] saying, we don’t know how much money we have to spend. The budgets in the JCR haven’t been updated for years. Womens’ officers have £50/year. This is loads in comparison with everyone else. Ali and I this term will work out how much disposable income we have. Don’t decide the amount and decide how much we can afford for welfare, if we think £100 per term for women then not spend £200 on socialising with grads. No contempt in that at all.
DH: If the amendment and motion pass, when will the budget be confirmed? GL: By the time I hand over to my successor.
DH: If not can I bring another motion?
GL: Yes.
SB: When will the GM get to vote on the review of budgets?
GL: There’s never been budgets through a GM.
SB: Yes, every budget we have goes through a GM. E&E most recently for example.
GL: Once the report’s done.
SB: When?
GL: If Dawn needs money for an event this term she can bring another motion. Or Committee Lunch.
IT: If this gets voted through, does this guarantee a budget for it? It may still not get one.
GL: No, but in Trinity we made £5k profit. We’re making money so there will be a budget.
The amendment automatically passes with no opposition
AL: We have loads of contact with the MCR anyway. Go and make friends there if you want to.
Move to vote
DH: With the budget issue taken out of the way, you’re telling me and Ash and our successors to try and make a fun event once per term so please [vote] for it.
AL: I don’t think we need some bureaucratic process telling affiliations officers to do their job.
The motion passes.
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-10-24
Ali Travis (AT): If you want to watch the GM come this way. Sorry I mean if you want to take part come this way. No matters arising from the minutes, then we approve those.
David Bagg (DB): What’s the status of preparation for the Balliol Bonfire?
AT: The bonfire’ll be in two weeks time, two weeks on Saturday. As a JCR we will prepare a little and big Guy Fawkes. If anyone has any paraffin we’ll stick that in too. Need to choose the charity to donate entry fees to — e-mail me with suggestions. Also music. That’s my personal involvement
[in preparations]. There’s been lots of nice breakfast meetings to go to.
Dawn Hollis (DH): Sorry for no affiliations report. Formal hall on Tuesday 4th is an affiliations event,
MCR and JCR are invited. Free alcohol courtesy of the MCR. Lots of jugs of wine and stuff on the tables. That’s what I’ve been working on lately.
Motions (b) and (c) pass automatically with no opposition
Motion: JCR — MCR by Ali Travis & Dawn Hollis
This JCR notes
1. The new MCR constitution created and passed last term.
2. The current, unequal system of cross-common room political affiliation whereby all MCR members have JCR membership and can vote in JCR GMs and elections.
3. The section of the current JCR Constitution relating to membership [Appendix 1].
4. Clause 4.2 of the JCR Constitution which states that a member of the MCR, elected by the MCR, should sit on the JCR Committee.
5. Motions passed in Trinity 2010 relating to a proposed end to the current financial arrangement between the MCR and the JCR whereby the MCR pay a certain amount of money per student to the JCR in return for services, which are largely no longer used now that Holywell Manor has a barof its own, etc.
6. Some students for whom the division of JCR and MCR are not as clear as for others, for example, medical students who become MCR members on starting clinical school in their fourth years but are still socially involved in the JCR and wish to remain a part of it, rather than necessarily becoming part of the MCR.
7. That the term “junior member” is often used by College to refer to undergrad- uate and graduate students.
This JCR believes
1. That the JCR and the MCR are separate political bodies and that this should be reflected in the
JCR constitution.
2. That, nevertheless, a controlled and mutual level of cross-common room political involvement would be a sensible measure to ensure the two common rooms do not become entirely disparate.
3. That we should nevertheless endeavour to include students who become MCR members but wish socially to remain a part of theJCR.
This JCR resolves
1. To change the JCR Constitution from that appendixed to as follows, from Michaelmas 2011:
(a) To insert at clause 2.1 all undergraduate members of college where it currently states all members of college.
(b) To insert the following under the heading of Opting In after the section on Opting Out:
2.5.1 It is possible for MCR members to opt-in to the JCR by writing to the President of the
JCR at any time from Sunday of the first week of Michaelmas Full Term to Saturday of the fourth week of Michaelmas full term inclusive.
2.5.2 This right of opt-in shall be brought to the attention of all members of the MCR, espe- cially those who have just moved up from the JCR, before Sunday of the first week of
Michaelmas.
2.5.3 Those who opt in gain the right to run for or continue positions on the JCR Committee, and the right to vote in GMs.
2.5.4 Those who opt in, apart from given at 2.5.5, must pay compulsory JCR levies.
2. To uphold clause 4.2 of the constitution and encourage the MCR Affiliations Officer to sit on JCR
Committee.
3. To mandate the JCR Affiliations Officers to discuss with the MCR Affiliations Officer the possibility of a motion being passed in the MCR giving the JCR Affiliations Officers the right to attend MCR
Committees and GMs, and one vote in said meetings.
4. Amends clause 8.6.1 in the Standing Orders to remove the phrase “graduates do not pay JCR levies”.
Minutes: Greig Lamont (GL) takes the chair
DH: Background to this motion: the MCR completely changed its constitution last year. In revising it they came across an odd situation with JCR/MCR cross-membership. All MCR members are members of the JCR; they can come to our GMs, elections, and can vote in both. It doesn’t make a lot of sense because they don’t pay JCR levies. We’re two separate institutions. They have their own place at Holywell. There are some students who want to still be JCR members.
Joe Kinsella, a fourth year medic, is on [JCR] Committee but is an MCR member because of the way the medical degree works. His social group is the JCR and he wants to maintain his job on
Committee; it makes more sense that such people can remain members of the JCR if he so wished.
This is non-controversial.
AT: Short factual questions? Sorry, Greig. . .
GL: Short factual questions to Dawn and Ali?
The amendment from Sean Whitton (SPW) is considered:
• Adds to Notes: That the term “junior member” is often used by College to refer to undergrad- uate and graduate students.
• Replaces “all junior members of college” in Resolves 1 with “all undergraduate members of college”. SPW: Can I ask a short factual question on my own amendment?
AT: No.
The amendment is accepted as friendly
The amendment from AT is considered:
• Adds Resolves 4: Amends clause 8.6.1 in the Standing Orders to remove the phrase “graduates do not pay JCR levies”.
• Amends Resolves 1 to take effect in Michaelmas 2011.
AT: [Here I’ve] changed standing orders so they are in line with what motion actually does. There is a reference to grads not playing levies, so I’m eliminating that. Also it introduces a clause so it only takes effect MIchaelmas 2011 so we aren’t taking Joe out of our membership and then letting him opt back in again from next year.
The amendment automatically passes with no questions, opposition or debate
Move to vote
There is no opposition of any description and hence the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Charities GM by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. Section 3.13 of the Standing Orders, which reads “By default, any motion passing money to a charity will be heard at the final GM of the term during which it is submitted. Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of the Chair, for emergency charity motions, where the charitable cause would suffer were a donation to be delayed to the final GM of term.” 2. Section 3.11 of the Standing orders which reads “The last GM of Michaelmas Term shall be the
Annual General Meeting”
3. Both the termly charities GM and annual AGM attract a large number of motions.
This JCR believes
1. The double whammy of a charities GM and AGM would lead to an overlong meeting that would discourage participation and endanger the mental health of the chair.
2. Charitable motions should be deferred to the GM preceding the AGM.
This JCR resolves
1. To amend section 3.13 of the Standing Orders to read “By default, any motion passing money to a charity will be heard at the final GM of the term during which it is submitted, except in the case of
Michaelmas term, where charity motions are deferred to the GM preceding the AGM. Exceptions may be made, at the discretion of the Chair, for emergency charity motions, where the charitable cause would suffer were a donation to be delayed to the final GM of term.”
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Housing Ballot by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The annual Housing Ballot currently organised and managed by the Drs. Who.
2. The timetable, price banding and procedure of the Housing Ballot as decided by students.
This JCR further notes 1. College’s legal obligation to adequately inform students of the cost and availability of accommoda- tion in College.
2. Instances where inconsistent information about the accommodation and the ballot process have caused confusion.
This JCR believes
1. College should be responsible for the official application of a housing process as decided by students.
3
2. College should relay official information about the ballot timetable, room prices etc.
3. Students should retain their right to change features of the housing Ballot.
4. The Drs. WHO should retain their responsibility to inform and assist the JCR on matters relating to student welfare and accommodation.
This JCR resolves
1. To mandate the President and Drs. Who to pursue a system whereby the Accommodation Manager is responsible for the administration of the housing Ballot.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Lockers by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The strain in storage space in the shelves in the library. 2. The battered, seldom-used lockers in the JCR TV room.
3. In an attempt to reduce storage of clothes and other personal items (particularly from those living out), the library committee are prepared to purchase new storage lockers for theJCR.
This JCR believes
1. We need new, better suiting lockers in the JCR.
2. The new lockers should have greater individual storage space, so personal items other than books can be stored.
3. The new lockers would be best placed where the drinks machines currently are, moving the drinks machines next to the games machines.
4. The new lockers should be lockable.
5. The lockers should be cleaned out once a term, and repaired promptly by the works department if they are damaged.
This JCR resolves
1. To recommend to the College Library Committee that new lockers be bought, taking into consid- eration Believes 2-5.
Minutes: AT: You may not have noticed that we have lockers. The librarians aren’t happy about people leaving tyres, sandwiches and lasagne in the storage places in the library. They’ll pay for a new set of lockers. This accepts that kind donation and outlines briefly what sort of lockers we want. They should have larger individual storage space. They are primarily used by those living out. Space for a rucksack rather than just a few envelopes. They need to be lockable, with the keys held in the lodge. A security measure. Feel free to amend if you disagree with this bit. We’ll move them to that wall with the drinks machines; it’s more accessible and easy to use. The drinks machines will still be usable. JCR Committee will clean them out once per term. We’ll promptly repair them if they are kicked in.
GL: Short factual questions? DH: What would the lodge take as a deposit?
AT: We’ve not decided.
DH: You can’t give your bod card if need to get in the library.
GL: Keys will not be given to individuals; get from the lodge.
DH: It’s easier to buy coin-operated lockers. The key is attached to the locker.
AT: Possibly. Fair point actually. I’d accept an amendment; that might be sensible.
AT: Any more questions. . . ? [Greig scowls]
DB: How many lockers?
AT: As many as will fit and they are prepared to pay for. Annoyingly this is low on details because I’m getting a sense of what people want out of lockers and then we can negotiate the money. They’ll be enough for most of the livers out.
The amendment from Simon Stewart (SS) is considered:
• Replaces Believes 4 with: New lockers should be lockable.
SS: From the lodge, but that depends on what lockers are for sale.
The amendment is accepted as friendly
GL: Any debate? There’s no debate and no opposition so the motion passes.
Result: Passed
Motion: Let's Play Fifa 2011 by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes
1. The amazing new TV.
2. The recent release of Fifa 2011. 3. The sad lack of a modern games console in our JCR in comparison to most other Colleges.
This JCR believes
1. We should have a new games console.
2. In terms of the deals and games avaliable, a PS3 makes the most sense financially.
4
This JCR resolves
1. To pass £284.99 for the purchase of a PS3 bundle deal, including FIFA 2011 and some fighting game.
2. To pass £27.85 for the purchase of a lockable unit for same.
Minutes: AT takes the chair
Stephen Bush (SB): In [my] first year we were able to play pro-evo on the PS2 which is in there, we had a wondeful time; Tekken and many other games. We had lots of fun and lots of people enjoyed doing it. Now the PS2 does annoying things, it glitches when it loads, it glitches all over.
SS: Point of information: it’s completely broken.
SB: When I last played it you could tell it was gonna die soon. Anyway — it can’t be used to play stuff on. Now we have a new shiny HD TV thing, we s hould have a nice new modern console like John’s or Keble or Trinity or Wadham. This is the cheapest package deal I could find. On “Play.com”. A really obscure fighting game and Fifa 2011. We can use it to play these two games. I for one would have no objection going in with others to get more games. On its own it’s a sizable expenditure for a small group but it’s a tiny amount of the Entz fund. We should be up to date, and have the same facilities other JCRs do. Totally pass this motion.
Felix Faber (FF): Entz fund? How much [is in it]?
GL: £7899.
SB: In the constitution it says you don’t say where money comes from, it’s at the Treasurer’s discretion; the most appropriate, well-stocked fund. But this is clearly entz expenditure.
GL: How many people actually use the PS2 other than your immediate circle of friends? SB: Lots of people. I couldn’t tell you. If you go to Keble, lots of different people are using it, when we had one. There were £15–20 who used exclusively [some game]. There was another similar contingent for Tekken. Hannah O’Rourke who wouldn’t be seen dead near a football game — yes, it’s because she’s a girl — plays Tekken.
Sam Ellis (SE): You said it makes most sense financially, why not an Xbox?
SB: In terms of package deals. If you look at the processing power of free consoles, Wii is an accident waiting to happen. It’ll be broken in a day. It’s about which one has longest shelf life. The PS3 has the longest shelf life.
Ben Spencer (BS): Are you just going to buy us lots of Doctor Who games?
SB: The Doctor Who game on my PC is free; I downloaded it from the BBC website. And: fuck you.
Chris Gross (CG): Other than graphics and names on backs of player’s shirts, is there any difference between 2011 on the PS3 and Fifa 06 on the — much cheaper — PS2?
SB: Yes. The gameplay is completely changed. It’s a completely different game. Fifa 06 is an appalling game.
Simon Wood (SMW): [What about] Fifa 11 for the PS2[?]
SB: It’s really good.
Stephen Bush (SB): How about you go outside and play in the sunshine?
SB: I burn easily. What? It could be true.
Hannah O’Rourke (HO): Can we get Tekken 4 on the PS3 or is it only on PS2? Four is the best.
SB: Controversial statements in this. . .
AT: That sounds like debate.
Eddie: Is the PS3 backwards compatible?
3
HO: It is for some titles.
SS: You can download PS1 games. Also it’s a Blu-Ray player and a DVD player.
Holly McCluskey (HMc): Are you going to play on this when the Apprentice is on cos that’s going to be a problem. SB: [There’s an] informal agreement — for a time-specific program, [or one that’s] happening live, people need to switch over and go out and wait. This is for 2am at night, when Vince will come in — not
Vince, I mean John — will tell us all to be quiet.
FF: We have the old TV if there is a conflict of watching shows. Also we can put something on in here.
It’s possible to be compatible with more people. PS3 people will man up and wait while people watch their program.
The amendment from SMW and Tom Nickson (TN) is about to be considered
Nick Spanier (NS): Can I raise a procedural not to hear this amendment?
AT: It’ll need two thirds.
NS: The PS2 is broken; buying games for it is like polishing a turd, to quote Greig Lamont.
The procedural motion passes
AT: Any objection to the motion as a whole?
CG: I’m just drafting an amendment to the motion.
FF: [On his laptop] We can get an Xbox, Fifa 11, and a racing game — £150.
SB: I will look around for better deals. This was the best at the time. PS3 is a better investment than an Xbox 360. It’s [soon] going to be replaced by an even better Xbox — the PS3 will last longer and play Blu-rays.
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to: Pass £150 for a games console & games, investigate the best console and buy Fifa ’11 for it.
• Strikes Notes 3.
• Strikes Believes 1.
CG: I haven’t gone through — we’ll pass £150 for games console, you can get pre-owned PS3s and stuff
— [this’ll] investigate what’ll be the best option. Buy Fifa 11 for it, whatever platform for it, and then other games.
AT: Up to £150 out of entz for a games console. SB does not accept the amendment as friendly
Alex Cruchett: (ACr): £150 for the console or for the console and Fifa?
Both
James Paul (JP): Are you sure you can get that for that? Games and a console. Pre-owned for £100,
Xbox and PS3.
HO: Just to ask, [do] you know — Xbox 360, does it play Tekken?
SB: I promise you Tekken will happen.
FF: Tekken is not on the Xbox.
HO: Then I’m against the Xbox.
Georgina Sturge (GS): If we sold the PS2 how much would we get?
4
CG: Zero pounds.
Isabel Thompson (IT): Don’t tell them it’s broken. . .
AT: Into debate.
GL: Coming back to what Alex said, the idea that pre-owned are going to be falling apart and covered in crap. . . once it’s been used, if you buy a laptop and sell it a month later [you get a lot less], no-one wants [used] electronic goods. This is fair because you’re passing up to £300 for a very small minority of the JCR, when you think what you can do with £300 for. . . we have the money to do it. Stephen will make out that a used one makes us second class citizens. We don’t spend
£300 if we can get it for less. This strikes a nice compromise. Good idea.
SB: Unfortunately this doesn’t make us second class — it’s not sensible to spend less on something that won’t be in warranty; it could arrive broken — there’s lots of extra costs on top of the £150. It’s simple and easy to get a nice package for something new. More people will use PS3 than are in this room right now.
SS: The £150 is a difference we could make up if everyone promises to get really drunk at the next bop. It will last for ages. It’s not a huge expenditure. It can be used as a Blu-ray player and stuff.
Watch Blue Planet when hung over all the time. He can have £285 to spend on a PS3 and games; it’s not a huge issue. If he can get a cheaper one I’m sure he will. The TV last week — they passed
£700 and spent £400.
Eddie: A minorty of people play it but it’s at least three times as big as the board game playing minority.
SS: [But] we spent £100 there.
HMc: £300 might be a lot of money to spend on something that will probably get broken within a year or two. Buying it on ebay and “it’ll probably be broken” doesn’t stand because you can pay securely and get [the] money back if it’s broken.
CG: Simon makes good points about why PS3s are great, but pre-owned consoles have exactly the same features. Ebay is pretty secure as people who sell this stuff sell thousands and care about their ratings; they are legit traders, not some kid who’s taken out the disc reader. The number of people who [will] play it is small; I played on thePS2 in my first year, it really wasn’t bigger than the number of people in this room. We took up a lot of time in there, I feel quite bad about it, no you can’t watch TV because Chris is beating Stephen Bush at Fifa again. You can buy pre-owned consoles from Game, they have to work and you can also buy within the warranty. This says “let’s get the best deal we can.”
Stephen Dempsey (SD): A small group including myself but seeing as it comes with Blu-ray most people can use it. It’s a good investment.
CG: Pre-owned [PS3s] have Blu-ray too.
SMW: When you were saying about the bundle, that it is convenient and uses and easy to do and things like that — it’s completely inefficient. Part of the amendment from Nickson and I was to disagree with the PS3 making most sense financially. There are lots of far cheaper ways to buy a
PS3 than this way. It’s not a problem with the PS3. The problem is spending £284 for something we can get for £150 because it’s easier for you to go on Play.com than look around and. . .
SPW: Move to vote. We all know what we want on the amendment.
ACr: There’s still stuff to say.
The move to vote fails ACr: Think about it. Stephen, it’s not such a bad idea to get pre-owned. Obviously we will ensure it’s not a piece of shit. If we ensure we have a guarantee, I don’t see what the problem is. There will be costs alongside, extra controllers or if one breaks and you can’t sprint anymore on Fifa. The money spent on it is £300 and there are other costs alongside it. The idea of getting pre-owned is good; we save money and [we shouldn’t] spend more.
5
SB: I’m not opposed to finding a cheaper version. As Simon pointed out, we didn’t spend the whole amount [with the TV]. I’m happy to look again. It’s not a good idea to cut to £150. Look for what we want, which is a PS3 to last a long time, and get that. Let’s not go as high as £284.99 that we pass. Don’t reduce down and pen ourselves in unnecessarily.
SS: I just checked. We’re still on amendment 2? Yes. I checked on the Internet, it’s £180 on the
Internet. Pass £285 and ask Stephen to get cheap pre-owned if he can. Change to £150 and he won’t have enough money. Give him enough and tell him to get the best deal he can. If it’s cheaper
[to buy pre-owned], get it. We should do that.
Move to vote
CG: Maybe you can’t get a PS3, or Xbox for £110 — that’s why I said it. If we definitely want a PS3 then vote against my amendment.
SS: A PS3 is good because it’s a Blu-ray player. Stephen will get the best possible deal. This is the maximum he has to spend.
The amendment fails
AT: Motion as a whole. Amendment from Isabel — spend £300 on another TV to show more than one sport. I’ll not accept that.
IT: I said this as a welfare issue. I reckon that if someone is playing on the PS3 and someone comes in wanting to watch TV. . .
SS: We’ve still got the old TV.
AT: Any more debate on the motion? How will purchasing work? Can Stephen arrive with a receipt?
Move to vote The move to vote passes
SB: PS3s are good for all the reasons outlined. People will enjoy having one. We should have one. It’s good to have games consoles in the JCR.
GS: It’s only a very small minority and you could just go outside and play hopskotch like nice children instead.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Movember by Chris Gross
This JCR notes
1. Movember is when boys grow their upper lip hair for the whole month of November to raise awareness of prostate cancer and to raise cash for research into prevention, treatment and cures.
2. Last year’s highly successful Team Balliol Movember effort which raised money and awareness and built comradeship among the participating members of the JCR.
3. Toby Kershaw’s moustache (see Appendix 2).
This JCR believes
1. Raising awareness of prostate cancer and raising cash for research are both Good Things.
2. If everyone were a bit more like Toby Kershaw the JCR would be a bit better, if a bit older, place.
This JCR resolves
1. To donate £200 to Team Balliol 2010, providing 20 Mo-Bros can be found to take up and complete this manliest of challenges. 2. To mandate all male Committee members to take part and female members to either draw or apply a prosthetic moustache one day in Movember, and to force a constitutional crisis if any of them refuse. To include Moustache Mondays where every member of the JCR not growing a moustache wears a prosthetic one.
Minutes: CG: This is an initiative to raise money in awareness of prostrate cancer and other male problems.
Everyone says “why have you got a moustache, they’re not in fashion anymore?” [See] Toby. “It’s more prevalent than you think, terrible?” It raised lots of money [last year]. We gave £200. That’s why I chose that figure this year. If you see appendix 2 you can see — or just look over there and there’s a man with a moustache. We should all look more like him. He’s dreamy. Um yeah.
HMc: Is this part of your desire for Toby to be your Dad?
CG: Yeah.
SB: There are some people who aren’t very good at growing moustaches. Can you do something so those unhappy people can get involved in fund raising some other way? I don’t know why I just didn’t say “girls”.
CG: There are mo-bros who take part, and mo-sos — sisters who help out. You can register to be a mo-so and stuff. And walk down the street and say “hey what’s with that moustache you’ve got there?”
6
AT: This is only about men. Can you mandate [female] committee members to draw on a moustache for Movember?
CG: I would accept that amendment as friendly so long as it included the forcing of a constitutional crisis if they don’t.
GS: I was going to say the same thing. A stick on moustache, wear it for the whole month.
The amendment from Ian Jones (IJ) is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 2. IJ: This isn’t because I don’t want to do it, I might do it anyway, but it’s not in spirit of it to force people to do it.
CG: Resolves 2 is to encourage male committee to do it. Obviously no-one will force a constitutional crisis if any male members of committee refuse to grow a moustache. Mayube they will if they aren’t already going to if this is there.
Ronan McDonald (RM): Then it looks like they’re doing it because they have to. Just take it out and they’ll do it voluntarily. We had the exact same debate last year.
Move to vote
SB: We had the same last year — that’s why I moved to a vote.
IJ: I don’t think it’s in spirit of Movember to force people to do it.
CG: It’s a light-hearted thing so it’s exactly in the spirit to force people to do it and pretend to bring the JCR down to its knees if it doesn’t.
The amendment fails
The amendment from DB is considered:
• Amends Resolves 2 to end at “to take place”, striking all that follows.
DB: Thank you Mr President. This is a very similar in ideal to the first amendment but it takes out the constitutional crisis if a member of JCR is not be able to grow a moustache for whatever reason which can vary. As the motion stands, forcing a crisis could be potentially destructive.
CG: Yeah — it’d be a crisis.
DB: I agree with the moral case for committee members to grow a moustache hence I leave the first half of Resolves in the motion.
IT: Didn’t we just delete Resolves 2?
AT: No that failed, we kept it in.
GL: I challenge the decision to take the amendment. . .
CG: We just voted down something that did exactly the same.
AT: Any more debate?
DB: It’s not the same. This keeps the encouragement from the JCR to committee members to do it, but stops the forcing them to leave office if they don’t.
CG: If someone is mandated to do something [and they don’t do it] then you do a [motion of] no con[fidence]. It is the same. This way it’s written in a slightly more hilarious way.
SS: It’s slightly different because if we resolve to force a constitutional crisis we’re saying we’re going to do it. [By] mandating we’re not saying we will no con people.
7
DB: I accept the strong charitable and moral basis for the whole motion. I think forcing a constitutional crisis if Committee do not grow a moustache, should be up to the JCR in the context at the end of Movember rather than requiring it with a motion; there may be overriding circumstances.
CG: I think we just voted down something that was basically the same; I like my wording, I think I’m perfect so this must be perfect.
The amendment fails
The amendment from NS is considered:
• Amends Resolves 2, adding after “to take part” “and female members to either draw or apply a prosthetic moustache every day in Movember.”
NS: I agree with the point earlier — the nature of motion is inherently sexist. [We should] require females to take part as well.
HO: I agree with this too — at the same time — this is a short factual question! — can we just wear it for an hour each day, if we go to tutes for something we can take it off. . . as long as other JCR people see it.
NS: I’m okay with the wording but against the spirit. Draw it on with sharpie every morning.
GL takes the chair
GL: Any more short factual questions?
SS: Let’s say this is a good idea. We can’t shave our moustaches off to go to tutes. Tutors will ask why you’ve drawn a moustache, you explain, the tutor says “okay I won’t send you down or rusticate you.” GS: Women will probably get sponsored more money than men to wear a stupid fake moustache for a month.
HMc: A lot of girls won’t do this cos it’s a fucking horrible idea.
AT: Just so people realise this would mandate all female comm members to draw a moustache every day or they’ll be no conned so obviously we can’t pass this.
CG: Obviously if women don’t draw it every day we won’t no con them. The constitutional crisis if people don’t do it is clearly ridiculous and won’t happen and a no con vote would fail. Get into the spirit of things, Ali.
SS: It’s not ridiculous when you live in a castle in the middle of a city and do weird bullshit all the time. We do not live in the real world. Even if you go to the shops you’re raising awareness — the whole point of the thing. Stop taking yourself so seriously and think about people who have prostrate cancer.
Move to vote
Susie Dedegan (SDe): Can they stick [one] on?
CG: Yes it says prosthetic.
GL: Speech in proposition of the amendment?
NS: Initially worded the motion is sexist, Chris is in full agreement, this is how it should have been from the beginning.
HMc: I already grow my upper lip hair every day so. . .
GL: We’ve heard persuasive arguments in favour and against.
The amendment passes
There is a round of applause
8
IT: The whole point of the motion is that we donate £200 to [the] charity. The whole point is to be sponsored, it’s mass sponsorship — it’s a better idea for us to try to get money from parents and friends. £200 can be donated to another cause we’re not doing something to sponsor. This charity will get a lot of money from sponsorship. CG: I think that it’s a good charity. Last year we did it as a JCR as a whole; people did it independently
[too]. Individual and group sponsorship went well. We do group sponsorship a lot. Overseas work
— some money from JCR some from individuals.
IT: [Such donations were] banned in my first year.
CG: It isn’t banned.
HMc: We are mandating people to do it so give the money and people can do the website thing at the same time.
SS: The charity where we’re getting full JCR involvement can [have] thewhole JCR donate as a body.
Donate this sort of amount of money. We’ve donated this amount to one person’s pet cause [before].
Move to vote
The amendment from GS is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to unconditionally donate £200.
CG wishes to accept the motion as friendly but there is opposition to this
GL: In that case we have to discuss the whole thing; short factual questions please.
AT: Isabel raised the point that we’re just giving money rather than trying to encourage people to take part. This GM motion is quite a big movement in encouraging non-JCR committee members to take part. We’re taking the incentive [away] otherwise. We will find twenty mo-bros, and it’s fun, so keep it in.
GS: In spirit of gender equality it doesn’t fit the motion now with the new amendment.
CG: It’s still the manliest of challenges. I am obviously a fan of gender equality but Movember is about men strutting their stuff with moustaches. It’s funny with women putting moustaches on, but on the whole it’s seen as a male feature to have a moustache.
Move to vote
GL: Do a speech, do a speech. . . IT: MY GOD THIS IS LIKE OUSU.
GS: Also there are more than twenty people on Committee. Who gets the money?
CG: The team as a whole.
CG: I think that we should keep it because I like this bit. We might as well keep it because it doesn’t change anything practically but it does keep the encouraging people to do it thing.
The amendment fails
The amendment from Juliette Kelly (JlK) is considered:
• Amends “every day” to “one day” for female members.
NS: We’ve already debated that.
GL: I’d like to accept this because I think it’s better because it will mean people actually do it.
NS raises a procedural motion to overrule GL’s decision to accept the amendment
NS: We’ve already discussed this in [the] previous amendment.
AT takes the chair
9
AT: Nick is proposing to overrule Greig’s decision as a chair. This’ll take two thirds to pass.
GL: My reason to accept is because very few women will do it [otherwise]. A specified day — women wear for 24 hours.
SS: [That’s not a reason for accepting an amendment.] A reason for accepting it is something like “I don’t think we’ve discussed it.”
The procedural motion fails
GL takes the chair
JlK: I think that it’s a great idea to get females involved. I’d be willing to do it on a day, but the thing is to increase maximum participation, it should only be oe day. I’m turning 21 in November; I’m not wearing a moustache that day. This is the best way to make females actually get involved in it.
Conor McLaughlin (CM): If the amendment passes I’ll put in an amendment, if it’s for one day only, because the JCR is sponsoring, the whole JCR should do it; [wear] for one day only. CG: You can only mandate Commitee.
SDe: How about every Monday or one day a week rather than just one day? Funnier.
Move to vote
IT: I would like to withdraw my move to vote.
The move to vote fails
HMc: I’m gonna say I really don’t want to do the moustache thing but I will do it for one day. A big fundraising day [with] buckets to put money in.
AT: I agree with Juliette, it’s a fantastic amendment, people would acually do it — [it’s] funny instead of weird. Moustache every day for a month is completely insane. Do it at the very end. Couldn’t agree more with this amendment.
Move to vote
The amendment passes
GL: Amendment from Simon — it’s a halfway house so [we’ll] hear it.
The amendment from SS is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to include “Moustache Mondays” where every member not growing a moustache wears a prosthetic one.
SS: The point is awareness [raising]. If it happens every day it keeps the Movember thing at front of peoples mind a bit longer. Blokes who can’t grow a moustache, like me, well maybe I can actually
— people who want to get involved and can’t grow can get involved. Mondays are boring anyway.
HO: Can we combine this with massive event on the last Monday?
AT: Just Committee?
SS: No. Send out an e-mail, tell everyone, provide fake moustaches from the Internet in the JCR.
DB: Will it provoke a crisis of confidence?
SS: No.
AT: One day sounds like more fun. I worry that this wouldn’t happen if we did it every Monday. If we said everyone has to wear a on Monday by the third Monday we wouldn’t do it, basically. One day might be better. 10
HMc: People would pick and choose which Mondays to do it. Keeping awareness up — [even for males] everyone every morning is like “look at your hilarious moustache today” and it carries on all month.
CG: Girls do it for a day, more if they want. Committee members can discuss it at Committee Lunch about when they have their moustaches. Guys are wearing them all the time so yeah.
Move to vote
SS: I reckon it’d be fun but whatever.
AT: This isn’t a bad idea but I reckon it’d be hard to enforce. Practically it might not even happen.
The amendment passes
Move to vote
The motion passes
GL: Any other business? In that case hurray.
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-11-14
Ali Travis (AT): Okay guys let’s get started. Guys keep it down in Pantry we’re getting started. Okay thank you let’s start.Minutes:
Sean Whitton (SPW): EGM soon, OGM done.
Dawn Hollis (DH): Since the last GM we ran an affiliations event in Hall with MCR/JCR dinner.
Great success but many more MCR members than JCR members. Next time there is an event please try to come along to give the JCR a bit of a turn out. Unless Ash has anything to add that’s it.
Ash Thomas (AsT) doesn’t have anything to add
Tom Nickson (TN): We installed the PS3 and made some cool stuff.
Motions (a), (f), (h), (i), (m) and (q) pass nem con.
—
Rhiannon Garth Jones (RGJ): Procedural motion to hear the Housing Ballot motion first or early or whatever?
AT: Procedural to hear (g) now. Any objections?
RGJ: I have to leave at nine, I want to be hear as it’s under my job remit, doesn’t ruin everything else too much.
Nicola Sugden (NiS): Fair point but there are people who might want to vote who aren’t here yet.
The procedural motion passes
Motion: Housing Ballot by Jonathan Edwards
This JCR notes
1. The housing ballot conducted early this year deciding which current second years successfully applied for a flat in Jowett Walk and which failed.
2. The disadvantages of living out as opposed to living in college accommodation, including among others the greater cost and greater inconvenience in securing private accommodation and the less desirable locations and facilities available.
3. The up-coming ballot to decide the order in which the rising third years will be able to select rooms in college for the next academic year.
4. The much lesser disadvantage of placing lower in the ballot for third year accommodation in college as compared to the disadvantages of living out in second year versus living in Jowett Walk.
5. The importance which potential applicants place on accommodation when considering which college they will apply to.
This JCR believes
1. That it is desirable that the JCRs housing policy be as fair and equitable as possible (and that this under-pinned the motion passed on 17/1/2010).
2. That this requires that those who were disadvantaged as a result of previous ballots should be correspondingly advantaged in future ballots if this is at all possible.
3. That it is therefore desirable that those who did not get their first choice of accommodation for second year should have priority in choosing their accommodation for third year over those who did get their first choice for second year.
4. That granting this priority to those who were previously unsuccessful is the best and most appro- priate method available to the JCR for compensating them for the disadvantages suffered regarding second year accommodation.
5. That it should therefore be adopted as JCR policy and that whoever is responsible for the up- coming ballot for third year accommodation be mandated to give such priority to those previously unsuccessful.
6. That furthermore setting a precedent by adopting this policy will ensure current first years and future Balliol undergraduates receive a fair deal, and the attractiveness of this will be a benefit to the college as a whole given the importance prospective applicants place on accommodation.
7. That retroactively applied changes to the terms of an agreement are unfair and thus against the spirit of the motion.
This JCR resolves
1. To mandate whomever is responsible to ensure that those who applied for accommodation in Jowett Walk [in the year previous to the ballot] be given assurance of living on site over those who applied who got in while leaving the rankings of those who always intended to live out as they were.
2. That Believes 1–5 be entered into Standing Policy under the heading ‘Accommodation’, minus what appears in brackets.
Minutes: Jonathan Edwards (JE): Most of you have read through the motion. Seems controversial. I’m not just doing it because I applied unsuccessfully to Jowett. Some people applied and got in and agree.
Argument in favour. Most of you who aren’t first years will remember Jowett Walk vs. living out ballot. JW was massively over-subscribed. In [our] first year we’d been strongly advised that everyone who wanted to live in Jowett would be able to but this wasn’t the case. In January about three months after the Jericho and Cowley housing markets open, we were forced to live out and find accommodation when the best value houses had gone. In addition living out is almost universally more expensive than living in Jowett; financial principle. Almost everyone who lives out is further away from College, many disadvantages, also have to deal with things like water bills, electricity bills, landlords, not all of whom are good/helpful and lastly you have to deal with the social factor of living far away from everyone you know. The majority of the year are clustered
1 in Jowett. I’m in Jericho, some are in Walton Manor, Cowley, half an hour from College. The disadvantages are considerable.
Contrast the with the disadvantage of coming lower on the third year ballot. Everyone who wanted to live on the main site was able to do so. Everyone who wasn’t able to given first priority in
Jowett. The differences are very slim. The difference between the top pick in College and last pick for third years in College is not particularly considerable. The last third year to choose their room still gets preference over every single fresher; the first person may get the best room but it comes with a much greater cost. All rooms are a lot more comparable than the situation of living in Jowett and living out. The disadvantages in the third year are much much less.
If you agree with me so far — the question of what we do with this [arises]. People in Jowett should not get financial penalty of living out get more money. In principle since they didn’t get first choice, they should get priority over people who did. It doesn’t do justice but as close as we can possibly do. The disadvantages of coming low in the third year are a lot less. It doesn’t match but it’s the best we can do.
Further I add that this JCR has passed a motion that retrospectively changed people’s chances.
There was a motion in January to give 3rd/4th years priority over second [for Jowett]. Freshers at the time voted in favour because they thought it was fair even if it disadvantaged them. Do the same thing tonight. Although some people suggest College are opposed to this motion, their grounds are unreasonable. It would advantage College because applications between colleges are done at random. More than one person is here because Balliol is early in alphabet. Very important for most applicants is accommodation. People rail against Jesus because they broke their promise.
Possibly the most critical for people applying to Colleges. If it became widely known that Balliol said you could get three years and then you don’t, College won’t get applicants. College has reasons for this motion. They won’t oppose it when I put these arguments to them.
RGJ: Point of Information: The motion that passed in February, priorities, was not passed retrospec- tively, it was passed before the ballot was made. Everyone knew.
DH: 1) How would this motion deal with people who choose to live out? Same disadvantages — would they get favoured in the same way?
JE: As it stands that’s correct. It only advantages people who didn’t get their first choice but I’ll take as friendly something that changes that.
DH: Jowett in one’s third year is more expensive than the main site?
JE: Yes. Conor McLaughlin (CM): One of your Notes is how much more it costs to live out. If you come top of the Ballot in third year the rooms are more expensive.
JE: Yes. But you aren’t compelled to choose the most expensive rooms. [We’re] arguing on choice here.
Have choice for the most expensive but obviously they don’t have to. A lot of people, have said they had a choice of poor rooms and really expensive rooms, who came low on ballot.
AT: We’re creeping into debate.
David Bagg (DB): Where does this motion leave people on 4yr or greater courses?
JE: It doesn’t affect them in any way.
Alex Curran (AC): Have you spoken to the accommodation person in College?
JE: No. If the housing ballot is delayed to give me time to do that I will.
Danny: How many people will be affected — how many will be given priority?
JE: In the region of about 40/50.
RGJ: 42 last year.
2
Juliette Kelly (JlK): Have you considered the recent housing changes that means the ballot isn’t as unfair as you consider it to be — this’ll only actually affect our year. The ballot was moved forward so the choice of housing is much better. Able to choose lower rents. Can find cheaper than Jowett.
JE: True but doesn’t apply to current second year?
JlK: Have you considered the fact that it is only applies to our year?
JE: Other factors still have effect.
AT: Creeping into debate Juliette.
Felix Faber (FF): This motion in Resolves only applies for the upcoming year — intentional?
JE: Not intentional.
FF: It doesn’t mandate future committees.
JE: It’s entered into Standing Policy so it would.
Marine Debray (MD): There is a ballot for people who did not get in Jowett and get the top 42 and then a ballot for the rest? JE: Something like that. Leave to housing officers.
Sam: What would it do if you chose to live out?
JE: We’ve had a similar question. I’m happy to take an amendment. As it stands, they’re in the same position as people who applied to Jowett and got in.
Jonathan Scott (JS): Retroactively applying changes to someone, changing the rules after the deci- sion, is unfair. Replace Resolves to apply to all future years but not this year. Violates another principle of fairness.
DA: Suppose I chose to live out. Would it be possible for me to get the best room in College?
Jim Ormiston (JO): I have an amendment that will fix that.
Lizzie Durham (ED): How does the affect people going on a year abroad? Affected by this or anyone in the housing ballot last year?
The amendment from JS is considered somewhere around here:
• Adds to Believes: That retroactively applied changes to the terms of an agreement are unfair and thus against the spirit of the motion.
• Strikes Resolves 1; replaces it with: In future years, absolute priority will be given to those ballotted out of Jowett; this year’s ballot will proceed as previously set out.
JS: It’ll only affect people who have already balloted for housing. Whatever happened in that housing ballot shouldn’t affect your future chances. If you go into a future housing ballot it won’t affect you.
Simon Wood (SMW): By balloted out, you mean tried to get into Jowett and failed?
JS: Yes.
The amendment is not taken as friendly
JO: I applied to Jowett and I didn’t get in. I agree that’s it’s unfair to change things retroactively. Even more unfair than current the system. Retroactive changes are a last resort and are undesirable.
But if we pass this and then pass this motion we say “the fair thing to do is to organise it as original Jonathan suggested but this year we’re not going to do that to avoid screwing over people who already started”. Fact you are in Jowett is guiding your judgement here. Which of course I am biased too. We should be thinking, whatever happens is unfair but this is a lessar unfairness.
3
JS: We should treat this year differently. If the fair thing to do is to put people who failed better on ballot, it’s fair if the people went into the Balloting system knowing that this would happen to them. We should treat this year very differently because they’ve gone into the ballot expecting one thing. The force of the amendment is to say that’s a bad thing.
SMW: Purely on the amendment, this isn’t a good idea because part of problem last year was so many wanting to live in Jowett. This incentivises putting yourself into the ballot even if you want to live out. Gives you priority year after. Cynical way to look at it but everyone will bundle into the
Jowett ballot to have a shot rather than people who genuinely want to live there.
JS: Hopefully JCR members are not all that cynical. There’s quite a high risk you’ll end up in Jowett.
Isabel Thompson (IT:) But you can pull out.
JS: Ah.
MD: If we have a new set of rules in time for the next ballot, people can decide if this motion passes whether they want to go to Jowett and not have priority for their third year or if they want to risk living out or have a better chance. Lots of people going to Jowett thinking they would have as much as people who do. I agree with Jonathan.
JlK: Whole point of Jonathan2 was that if you choose to live in Jowett you have all the factors — our year didn’t have that decision to make. So it shouldn’t affect anyone who applies to Jowett again.
SMW: This is only for one year?
JlK: Only for our year. Huge factor in my decision. I thought I’d be able to live in College and not have Jowett affect that.
JS: I agree fully. Also, risk of cynicism — in later years, that’s a reason to defeat the motion as a whole, which I’m going to oppose. This amendment avoids retroactivity.
SPW: Move to vote.
SPW: We’ve heard good arguments and a lot of opposition. Marine there, for example, was pure repetition.
Danny: I’ve more to say.
The move to vote passes
JS: Retroactivity is unfair. The whole motion is about being fair.
JE: I agree. It’s unfortunate that we’re doing things retroactively. Never any contract. You always must have known the possibility that the ballot process was going to change. It happened earlier this year. Secondly, it is unfortunate but it’s more unfortunate that people who didn’t get into
Jowett this year being so disadvatnaged. Should outweigh problem of retroactivity.
The amendment passes
Applause
The amendment from JO is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 1.
• Adds [to Resolves]: To mandate whomever is responsible to ensure that those who applied for accommodation in Jowett Walk [in the year previous to the ballot[ be given [absolute] priority over those who applied who got in while leaving the rankings of those who always intended to live out as they were.
4
JO: Under the current system, all of the people who applied to Jowett and who didn’t get in will be shunted to the top of the ballot. It’s quite defensible that they should be put above those who applied and got in but it’s patently unfair. It advantages me more if this motion passed without this amendment. It’s patently unfair that someone who always chose to live out is dropped below someone who applied to Jowett and was forced to live out. This will mean — ballot done as it is. List of names of everyone in year. Leave everyone who didn’t apply to Jowett in the ranking.
Rearrange applications so those who failed go above those who succeeded, maintaining their internal orders. Bit more complicated but makes no difference.
AsT: Can you explain to me again? JO: Ballot everyone in the room. Everyong gets a number 1–80. Say you are person who always applied to live out. You now left with that number and not changed under any circumstances. Motion won’t make any differences. Suppose you applied to Jowett and failed to get in. You are swapped with all the people who were above you who did apply to Jowett and did get in.
SPW: It’s genius!
JO: Alternatively you could... okay... Ballot everyone. All the people who applied to live out hold on to their number. Everyone else is taken to one side and reballoted in two separate groups, applied and got in and didn’t. Those who got in are put above those who did taking up all the slots. Basically it changes it so that if you never applied to get into Jowett you are not disadvantaged.
Jackson Ehlers (JsE): When you said people who applied to Jowett and reballoted — you mean re-ordered — move people who didn’t get in to the bottom? Not an actual reballot.
Mike Howarth (MH): This still gives a higher priority in the third year ballot to people who balloted for Jowett Walk and failed than for people who lived out. Better situation than those who went.
Not just everyone who lived out being put at top, advantage of living out through choice is less.
JO: We’re not disadvantaging those who chose to live out. That much is certain.
Charlie Stevens (CS): Do what Simon suggested? Everyone ballot for Jowett, on the off chance they will be advantaged?
JO: Already a problem with the original motion. No new problems, solving one unfairness. Do you see what I’m getting at? This amendment is neither here nor there with that point.
Greig Lamont (GL): So if there are 100 people and 80 apply to Jowett and 40 in and 40 don’t, 20 choose to live out. Third year ballot, say 40 who applied successfully come top 40, unsuccessful next 40, chose to live out 80–100. All then do is move unsuccessful Jowett up. Bottom 20 remain.
JO: Yes. They stay where they are. Not helped [or] disadvantaged. No impact on those who chose to live out for better or for worse. Regardless of whether fair, this clears up one patent unfairness.
No-one could object to this.
Cailean Gallagher (CaG): Is this [retroactive]? JO: Motion as a whole is...
CaG: No.
JO: This won’t change anything. Just for future years.
Ian Jones (IJ): Yes it will...
JO: Retroactive if you want. Amalgomate amendments.
MH: I disagree with thte fact that people who lived out through choice are disadvantaged below those who lived out through necessity. So everyone is aware, if the amendment fails, I will bring an amendment so that everyone who lived out for whatever reason gets priority.
5
JO: I’m happy with that from a selfish point of view. Not entirely fair. While the issue doesn’t affect those who chose to live out in any way. Made a choice.
MH: Less advantage than people who lived out through...
JO: If we’d not brought a motion at all. Expectation no different.
MH: Advantage to other people which they don’t have.
JO: Objection to the motion as a whole. Causes less of a problem.
JO: Suppose this amendment fails. As a person who to chose to live out you are screwed. If mine passes you’re not. Anyone who chose to live out would selfishly support this.
MH: Not a question of that.
JO: This gives people who chose to live out a better deal than the original motion.
SMW takes the chair somewhere around here
AT: Vote this down because it’s too complicated. I can’t see this helping. It’ll just cause panic.
IT: I’m doing the ballot and I’m happy to do it. It’s not that complicated. This is fair and a really great clever idea. Motion as a whole is going down but vote this through.
JO: Give minutes with a spresadsheet.
Ronan McDonald (RM): For people from now on everyone will enter Jowett.
JO: Objection to the motion as a whole. RM: Your motion enshrines that.
JO: Already problem with the original motion.
RM: Point of amendment is to make it fair for those who live out by choice. Still at a disadvantage.
JO: Makes things better.
Move to vote
JO: Summary: Makes it fairer regardless of the motion as a whole. Ali’s motion does make sense but it’s not overly complex. Not more than 5 mins with a spreadsheet. Regardless of your opinion on motion everyone should support this.
AT: I still don’t understand it. Very complicated. Does cause a problem of incentivising people to apply for Jowett.
SPW: All the scientists are putting their hands up because they understand it...
The amendment passes
AT takes the chair
The amendment from AC is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 from “to be given absolute priority” to “be given weighted priority” (to be determined by the parties running the ballot).
AC: I’m just doing this because absolute priority a bit naziist.
JE: Thanks a lot.
AC: Shouldn’t be that heavily weighted as not that much of a disadvantage.
JO: So at the discretion of the housing officer?
6
AC: College are doing the weighting. If anyone wants to flow in a weight in another amendment — I didn’t want everyone to hate me.
MH: Am I correct in thinking that the housing ballot has to be brought to exec, agreed “this is how we’re going to run it.” Not just at one person’s discretion: series of discussions it’ll go through.
JS: Two amendments that strike Resolves 1, this amendment also changing Resolves 1. Are they all combined together into one Resolves? AT: Yes.
Patrick Garvey (PG): Who will do the weighting?
AC: It will be the housing person of College. Go through exec. If anyone wants to bring a weighting now they can.
AT: Accommodation manager. If this passes I will bring a paper to exec arguing that the weighting should change. We decide and bring a proposal.
IT: I’m wondering what sort of weighting you envisage?
AC: I don’t really know because I don’t know that much about it. Thinking an extra .2 of a chance or something. Won’t be that difficult.
AT: Will need to change program.
GL: Sean will do it!
Alex Walker (AW): Force them to set priority or their choice?
AC: I dunno. Happens at exec.
DH: General question I’ve been wondering — how much discretion do people making the ballot have in taking in circumstances such as needing to live on the main site if you have a disability or something. Within the ballot is there any discretion?
AT: It’s done randomly by a computer program. If someone has an illness that means they should be in College, through Doug and not us.
Caitlin McMillan (CM): We have housing offiers who according to amendment have input into how it’s run. There’s a chance these housing officers could have a vested interest in how the housing ballot runs. Giving that sort of power in the direction of students who might be affected by it is a dangerous thing to do on a year by year basis.
AC: Good point. I assume they will speak to accommodation manager, President; exec have still got to pass it, they’ll hopefuilly sort it out.
Max Goplerud (MG): The whole argument of giving people power — absolute too much and weighted better — we could write a weighting system and get that approved later. Any system will be complicated. Absolute place flipping — weighting is a lot harder to actually do. Find a weighting plan we like and vote on that.
JO: To me this amendment seems dangerously vague. I agree with the principle but it’s not prescriptive enough. When it happens, even if decided in this room, take a lot of time making fairly arbitrary choices with numbers. People will have forgotten what the issues are. Be a little more prescriptive.
Some weighted priority [will] sort it out — [don’t] not support this.
Move to vote
AC: Summary: I don’t agree with the motion as a whole but if it goes through this would be fairer.
Weight priority on ratio of Jowett/not-Jowett or whatever. Have to be approved by College so we can’t bias it.
7
JO: Really vague. We don’t really know what we’re voting for.
The amendment passes
The amendment from MD and Stephen Bush (SB) is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1 to “to be given assurance of living on site” rather than “[weighted prior- ity]”.
SB: It seems that one of the problems is people not getting a flash room because you chose to pretend to live in Jowett but also people who want to live in Jowett on their own-sies in your third year if you don’t want to. Oh, did I say something funny? Does anyone want to throw down?
MD: Some people wanted to live in Jowett and wanted to live out. For admissions we guarnatee two years in college. In your third year you have prioirty on main site but not get priority in what rooms you get. Also something about Jowett being cheaper than living out — the best rooms are less expensive. Amending Resolves 1 so people who didn’t get into Jowett would be guaranteed a room but not priority.
IT: Point of information: We only say guaranteed for two. Everyone who wanted to live in College got to. No-one was forced out.
JE accepts the amendment as friendly — but there must have been objections as it is voted on and discussed
CM: Somebody who didn’t get into Jowett ended up in the bottom place, who swap with?
MD: Bottom ones. People from 97–100 didn’t get rooms, if they didn’t get to live in Jowett then they go 94–97 and Jowett people are Jowett again or live out.
JO: I may be wrong about this but as I understnad it, people in third year if they want to live on site, they almost — it just happens. If we pass this, the whole motion is basically doing nothing. Same as knocking down the motion as a whole. Passing this gives them an assurance which in effect people already have.
MD: Thank you for your question.
AT: I’ll take that as a sign that we’re now in debate.
SMW: Nick would have been a lot happer in Trinity last year if he knew he had a room on site rather than worrying about being on his own in Jowett.
SB: Nothing about third or fourth years in the language of the motion. This explicitely says they have a guarantee of college.
MH: A lot of the problem with the ballot last year was when it was first done — six people were told they would have to live out. That’s why people were so worried, this would eliminate that. Doesn’t knock down motion as a whole.
IT: Remember that just because Jowett people are told you get to live in College, still one or two people who have to live in Jowett if not on main site — not be someone who failed to get into Jowett — we’ll still have worried people like Nick.
MH: Doesn’t negate motion though.
IT: No no. I’m surprised Jonathan accepted. Absolutely no priority.
Move to vote
GL: Bloody hell. We’ve been here for nearly an hour. All know what this does. You can decide on your own. We don’t need people talking about it loads. Main motion is contentious issue.
DH withdraws her opposition to the MTV The move to vote passes
8
MD: Summary: Takes issue away of why a lot of people are here. Priority given to cynical Jowett people. Removing all of this happening. Make sure of living in College, not having to live out again, have a room on main site. Doesn’t chanage amazing have to pay a lot for or not.
JO: I’m the only person with opposition I won’t take up much time but — actual effect of this is very small. Motion won’t do anything that it set out to do. Didn’t really see the point of the whole motion.
The amendment passes
AT: Debate on motion as a whole.
IT: It barely matters whether we pass this. Still vote it down because the only real point of motion is to bring it in for this year because it was late on telling people to live out and not getting the first pick of houses. Only real point of motion is to have it for this year. Is unfair and we’ve decided it’s unfair. Next year everyone will get first pick of houses. People aren’t really disadvantaged by living out anymore. Both Jowett and living out have pros and cons. Jowett is not any cheaper.
More expensive per day. Because we’ve moved the ballot, people meant to be helped by this aren’t disadvantaged anymore so whole thing pointless.
GL: Point of amendment was to stop Nick getting really drunk when he finds he might not be living in
College.
AT: We’ve having speeches in debate, we’re not having squabbles.
JlK: Motion says living out really disadvantageous. Everyone across the country lives out. We’re lucky we don’t have to live out all the time. Why say this JCR against living out which is what I get from this.
CaG: More weight to the same thing. Some people in Jowett who didn’t want to be in Jowett. Point people will make is why not leave ballot — you get into groups and apply with friends. If you get in, you can’t go anywhere. Not that simple. But there are benefits to living out and in and this doesn’t tkae account of that. DH: I’ve a few point to make. Biased thing coming out a lot. Motion Jonathan passes means no immediate bias. Not the issue now. I live in Jowett but I’m not speaking as if I am. Not an unfair motion. What you do one year should not affect another year. Fresh chance each time.
As you’ve said, disadvantages — no vac res./expensive — independence. Every year randomised within itself. Bad feeling within college. Not the atmosphere you want to create. Ballot fair each year and independent. Begin third year guaranteed college — idea of living in Jowett next year worrying. Want to be near libraries, with friends — living out with a different social group shouldn’t get you more of a promise. Everyone should be treated the same; third year a new year.
SMW: Good idea, people going abroad. Harking right back to an hour ago — what we decide now — fact your year got a bit screwed over — doesn’t have any impact on admissions. We say the same thing we’ve always said — guaranteed 1st/3rd, nice place down road you might get a space in.
People say better than Bristol. Admissions argument in favour of your thing isn’t good.
SB: Two things. In most other univerisites which have a culture of living out, people who want to live in get to live in because it’s their first choice. What we have now means logical progression. First years ask about housing — they say if not in Jowett they get some preference. Intuitively unfair when I say no. This intuitively fairer.
Move to vote
RGJ: Talking for more than an hour. Similar arguments the whole time. People know how they will vote. Maybe someone got something to say but everyone knows.
NiS: I was tempted to shout MTV after Stephen’s amendment but disadvantages of living out have been massively underplayed. People would like to get angry about for five more minutes.
The move to vote passes
AT summarises the effects of the motion a little
9
JE: Everything’s been said. I still support it.
IT: It’s going to advantage people that don’t need an advantage, only applies after this year — so many pros anc cons on both sides of living in Jowett — most important things about the motion is Simon’s cynical worry. Pointless and potentially dangerous.
The motion fails
Result: Failed
Motion: Role of Admissions Officers - FIRST READING by Simon Wood
This JCR notes
1. That the roles played by Committee members are fluid
2. That the role of Admissions Officers now and as written in the constitution are somewhat different
3. That the absence of ‘Access’ in the title of any JCR committee member causes some confusion to people outside the JCR (e.g. OUSU, other college’s acess officers/staff)
4. References to officers in the Constitution are singular.
This JCR believes
1. That the constitution should be updated to reflect the role of the Admissions officers in the modern
JCR
2. That the title of the Admissions Officers should be more representative of their role
3. The Constitution should be consistent in its style but changing all the officer titles to plurals is a waste of time.
This JCR resolves
1. To replace all mentions of the “Admissions Officer” in the constitution with the “Admissions and
Access Officer”.
2. To replace section 4.8 of the constitution (Appendix A) with: The Admissions and Access Officer shall be responsible to committee for:
Access: To liaise with the OUSU VP Access and Academic affairs and College Admissions staff regarding access, and to promote both college-based and University-wide access schemes and events.
Admissions: To liaise with the College Admissions staff to co-ordinate student involvement in
College tours, Open Days and Interviews. To rewrite the Alternative Prospectus biannually.
To organise entertainment for candidates during interviews and for those staying overnight during Open Days. To bring the JCR’s opinions on matters pertinent to Admissions to the appropriate staff.
Minutes: SMW: Should pass quite quickly. Purely superficial. Changing name of admissions officers because got access in the name so OUSU and random people who want access officers know how to contact me rather than Eleanor as Scarf. Make it easier for us and rest of univeristy. Also update constitution as it talks about access and not admissions. Most of stuff it talked about defunct. Made it more vague. If Target Schools collapses we don’t have to change the constitution yet again. Two amendments. I’m proposing the Eleanor one.
DB: Is it prudent to change the constitutional remit of admissions during JCR elections?
SMW: I warned all of people running before they were running. They knew it was happening, [and it’s] only superficial.
The amendment from SPW is taken as friendly:
• Adds Notes 4: References to officers in the Constitution are singular.
• Adds Believes 3: The Constitution should be consistent in its style but changing all the officer titles to plurals is a waste of time.
• Replaces “Officers” with “Officer” throughout Resolves.
SMW proposes the amendment tabled by EC:
• Adds “. . . and to co-ordinate access initiatives run by Balliol students.” to the end of the “Access” clause in Resolves 2, amending punctuation accordingly.
• Removes the now superfluous “and” in Resolves 2.
SMW: I talked about OUSU and Target Schools and ambassador schemes. I omitted to say anything about Balliol Students. Eleanor Connolly is involved in some scheme with a primary school down the road doing access-y kind of stuff. More of a thing grads are doing. Wanted to point it out I’d missed out Balliol people doing access stuff in the constitution.
The amendment is taken as friendly
The motion automatically passes with no opposition
Result: Passed
Motion: Ball Loans by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. College Balls / Summer Events are often held in Balliol.
2. These summer events typically require a start-up loan from College to pay deposits for produc- tion/artists etc.
3. College typically grant such a loan on behalf of the JCR .
4. In past years, this loan has not been brought to the attention of the JCR, and consequently the
JCR were not able to approve/deny seeking a loan on behalf of the JCR.
This JCR believes
1. The Ball Committee should obtain permission from the JCR to request any loans from College.
This JCR resolves
1. To add the following to the JCR Standing Orders: 4.6.14 The Ball Committee may not request any loans from College on behalf of the JCR without the approval of a GM.
2. To stress future Ball Committees to adhere to the regulations in Standing Orders 4.6.1-13.
Minutes: SMW takes the chair
AT: Sensible and obvious motion. If Ball Committee wants loans which are underwritten by the JCR they should come through a GM. Last year this didn’t happen. Adding it to SOs because it’s very important. I’ll stop there, not too much to say.
Ben Spencer (BS): Background please.
10
AT: Last year the Ball Comm didn’t sell enough tickets. Took decision to cancel Ball. Instead of losing
£24k we only lost £11k in cancellation fees. Given the loan from College of £5k to pay for fees.
Used money in £3k ball account. When Ball went tits up and cancelled it, we were left with £11k debt. Once you take away the £3k in the Ball account, goes to £8k, £3k — marquee company gave it in credit. Just talking £5k. This £5k was College’s loan. We still have to pay that. At
Exec this Wednesday the final decision made about who pays for it. I’ve argued college should contribute. But it was explicitly made on behalf of the JCR so it seems unlikley we’ll get out of that debt. Motion next GM to do something with £5k, £2.5k out of entz and £2.5k structural deficit for ball comms for next three years. When I found out ball cancelled, I was aware of loan and I was really angry. Idea that we spent £5k without anybody knowing about it is awful. I’m furious. This is the time to make sure it never happens again.
Nick Spanier (NS): Can we charge Sunny that £5k?
AT: I’m not going there.
AW: Any chance College will help now we’re doing something about it?
AT: That’s why I’m doing it. We’ll do it better next time. Haven’t given up.
SMW: Debate. There is no opposition and so the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Proposal for JCR savings by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The attached paper ‘Proposal for JCR Savings’.
This JCR believes
1. The JCR should ensure that sufficient funds are kept in current accounts to allow for the efficient functioning of the services of the JCR.
2. The JCR should utilise money that is not being spent on an annual basis through a three tier system of savings/investments as described in the paper ‘Proposal for JCR Savings’.
3. The JCR Financial Executive Committee should be responsible for ensuring that the JCR current accounts have sufficient money by distributing money from savings/investment accounts.
4. The JCR Treasurer should report back on the merits of the proposals outlined in the paper ‘Proposal for JCR Savings’ no later than MT 2011.
This JCR resolves
1. To mandate the JCR President & JCR Treasurer to do the following, as proposed in ‘Report on
JCR Savings’:
• Establish an HSBC Business Direct Current Account with a balance of £8,000 entitled
“Bar Current Account” for use by the Lindsay Bar.
• Establish an HSBC Business Direct Current Account with a balance of at least £25,000 entitled “JCR Current Account” for use by the JCR and Pantry. • Establish two Saffron Building Society Fixed Rate Saver accounts, with a 1 year term each with balances of £5,000.
4
• Establish an HSBC investment account with the same signatories as currently outlined in
Standing Orders, and to purchase the following EFTs:
– £5000 in HSBC FTSE 100 ETF
– £5000 in HSBC SNP 500 ETF
– £5000 in HSBC S&P BRIC 40 ETF
– £5000 in HSBC MSCI EM DAR EAST ETF.
2. To mandate the JCR President, Treasurer & Environment & Ethical Investment Officer(s) to report on the merits of the proposals in the ‘Report on JCR Savings’ to a GM no later than MT 2011.
3. To eliminate Standing Order 8.8 “There shall be a JCR Emergency Reserve Fund, the money held in which shall be accessed only in extraordinary financial circumstances and with the approval
(requiring a two-thirds majority) of a GM.”
4. To add Standing Order 8.8 “The JCR treasurer shall be responsible for ensuring any current and/or savings accounts remain practical and competitive.”
5. To add Standing Order 8.8.1 “The JCR treasurer shall report on the status of the JCR current, savings and investment accounts as part of his report on the forthcoming financial year.”
6. To add Standing Order 8.8.2 “The status of the JCR current, savings and investment accounts shall be reviewed by the Financial Executive Committee at least once a term.”
The mentioned appendix can be found in the printed minutes in the Secretary 2010 folder in the JCR Office.
Minutes: AT: Don’t want too much time. We have £63k in various accounts. That doesn’t include entz, charities which are directed by levies and we’re not proposing to touch those. Out of £63k we spend about
£33. Calculated based on my report in back of book. £33k on a termly basis. Basically cos of Pantry — goes on tabs. In 4th week we’ve spend 4 weeks money on food. Jumps in 5th week. [So]
£30k to play with.
This doesn’t mean we’re very rich; we’ve got all this money to squander. For organisation with
£250k income this is not a lot of savings. Doing what we can to make that more which is what I am proposing here. Band A is a current account. Very important we keep format of signatories.
Maintain Nick and Greig on Bar account. Unlimited withdrawals. Interest [would be] nice, but no business accounts don’t give interest. Propose we stay where we are with these. Band B fixed rate savings with 1 year rolling term. Likely to spend in capital expenditure. Over next 3/5 yuears.
Likely to spend portion of £10k buying new chairs for TV room, floor/aircon in bar. Very very accessible. One year rotating bond. One year cos lifespan of comm and don’t want to lock up for further years. 2.25% AER. If we want to withdraw money we can do with a couple of working days notice but lose 180 days interset. This band not contentious at all.
Band C. £20k need as a base in same way college have endowment. Very often if you look at
JCR audited accounts, JCR makes a loss on a term. Three years ago we lost £6k. Need base of money. Unlikely to be touched in capital expenditure. Still need to be fairly accessible. Goal for this account is to be very very simple to avoid any contention about savvy investing. To minimise people’s input. Nightmare is arguing about emerging markets at a GM. Very vanilla. Safe. Not without risk but fairly safe. Most broad spectrum of investment you could have. Advice from finance bursar at nearby college, he said 75% chance we get 8%. 15% chance we rise at about rate of interst. 10% chance we lose 3 or 4 percent. That’s a reasonable amount of risk for the JCR to take based on what I’ve said before as we need it to serve as an endowment. EFT are cheap and easy to traed. Also politically not contentious. Not physically buying stocks in British Aerospace.
Ant Butler (AB): Covered up to £50k. Wise to put so much into one bank?
AT: Financial services compensation scheme insure up to £50k. All banks I’ve talked about — UK companies so we are protected.
11
AB: More than £50k? AT: No. Never go above £50k.
HO: 10% chance we could lose some of this money?
AT: Yep.
HO: Are you sure £50k guaranteed? Company not an indivudial.
AT: Doesn’t cover large company? I believe we are covered.
HO: Definitely check that.
AT: I did research.
NS: Greig has promised to reimburse us that amount if we lose £20k.
DB: What provisions made within HSBC for the ethical investment of this money?
SMW: Amendment will cover that.
AT: I haven’t made any provisions. ETFs are a product that HSBC offer. Go up and down with an index. FTSE does this, and they have some of interst. We won’t have a chunk of cigarette factory in Indonesia. Very happy for people to raise ethical issues but not a huge problem.
MG: Why pick FTSE?
AT: I didn’t choose these ETFs. Got advice. Safe with some risk. Politically uncontentious; just what
I asked for. A savvy investor wouldn’t do quarter/quarter thing. This is simple.
Alice Buchanan (ABc): What’s the rationale between having two £5k accounts rather than one £10k account.
AT: Clever idea from Alex. Minimum size of account is £5k. Suppose we have to pay £4k on chairs.
We can close one account and get all money out and have another still earning interest. That’s why there are two.
HO: Advice from a finance bursar — who is that?
AT: I haven’t asked him permission to say who it is so prefer not to.
HO: Is it worth us hiring a financial advisor for £500. Concrete written thing. We can then sue him if we lose any money.
GL: You [can’t sue]. No-one would go into it.
AT: Us hiring someone — this guy has given us that for free. Sits on investment committee of Balliol so he knows what he’s talking about.
A moments expectant silence
AT: Errr, bad example.
HO: I’ve been talking to my Dad about it. If financial advice written asking for secure safe invest- ment without possibility of losing money, if written down, you can sue them and get at least compensation.
AT: I’d be cautious of that. Paying £500 for advice from someone else, probably just some dick from
HSBC.
HO: Future committees, if goes tits up, to get some compensation back.
12
GL: If we want a safe investment we put it in 1.8% account. That’s not what the JCR should be doing.
This guy was so excited about what we could do with our money. High street bank products that people buy. Not on markets. Ali not going to Lloyds in a green jacket and waving his paper in the air. We are voting to take a risk.
AT: We lose all the money if world economy equals 0. 10% chance that we go down, not “oh it vanishes.”
MH: We’re not saying we want a safe investment. Accepting some degree of risk. So no compensation.
IT: Because it’s a stock market thing, only lose money if we choose to sell. Goes up and down.
GL: Return depends on when we sell even if value goes down.
AsT: We’re not going to wake up and find we have no money. We’ll see if things are going down the tubes and get out if the Treasurer is awake. We’ll not wake up and find the accounts empty.
The amendment from Seb Fassam (SF) is considered:
• Adjust the ETF figures in Resolves 1 to [total] £3750 and pass the freed-up £5000 to the
Balliol Ball Committee.
SF: If we can gamble on stock market we should invest in [the] Ball.
IT: Using entz fund for that?
SMW: Debate. AT: Vote down amendment. Argument [over] paying for [the] ball out of JCR funds. Bringing motion to next GM — half out of entz, £800/year for three years. Have that debate then. When we know for sure whether we’re paying the loan. Reasonable point that JCR should be paying this if we have money but save it for the AGM.
GL: Is this £5k in upcoming ball?
SF: Yes. JCR accounts swelled while I’ve been here. Nice if we use it for Ball.
GL: I’ve got considerable worries about Balliol balls. Stock markets a better bet.
BS: I agree with Ali. Good idea inappropriate for this motion.
Move to vote
SF: Summary: Essentially, one event everybody will go to is the Ball even people who never go to bar or Pantry still go to Ball. We own all this money, spend it on something we can all enjoy. In this account it will be there for next 100 years.
AT: Opposition: Vote this down so we can talk about it at the AGM.
The amendment fails
The amendment from JlK is considered:
• Amends Resolves 2 to include Environment & Ethical Investment Officer(s) in the mandate.
JlK: We are E&E so we should have a say in where we invest.
The amendment is taken as friendly
SMW: Back to debating on the motion as a whole.
AT: Are you free tomorrow morning Juliette?
Laughter
AT: I’m seeing a guy from HSBC tomorrow.
There is no opposition and the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: JCR budgets by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes
1. The JCR Budget Report (see appendix)
This JCR resolves to
1. Accept the recommendations of the JCR Budget Report (see Notes 1).
2. To amend Standing Orders 8.4.5 to read: ‘Termly Budgets of the following amounts for the fol- lowing positions shall be set aside: Women’s Officer(s): £75; LBGT Officer(s): £75; Students with Disabilities Officer(s): £50; Ethnic Minorities & Overseas Officers(s): £50; Academic Affairs
Officer(s): £50; Environment & Ethics Officer(s): £50. Officers holding these positions shall be able to spend this money with the consent of the Treasurer and, where the money is being applied for welfare purposes, Dr(s) WHO.’
3. Insert into Standing Orders clause 8.5.4.1: ‘A budget of £100 per term shall be set aside for Dr
WHO/General Welfare Budget: £100 per/term. This budget can be spent by Dr WHO with the consent of the Treasurer, or by any other Welfare position, by passing it at Welfare Sub-committee, and with the consent of the Treasurer. Individual Officers may also, in exceptional circumstances, pass money from this General Budget for position-related expenditure should they have reached the upper-limit of their termly position budget by a majority of the Welfare Sub-Committee (subject to appeal to full JCR Committee).’
4. Insert into Standing Orders clause 8.4.5.2: ‘Funding for a ‘Welfare Week’ (or alike event) may be obtained by a motion proposed at GM which must include a sufficiently detailed budget detailing the amount requested for the event, and how that money shall be spent.’
5. Insert into Standing Orders clause 8.4.5.3: ‘Funding for Fairtrade Fortnight (or alike event) should be obtained by a motion proposed at a GM, which must include an outline budget detailing the amount requested and how that money shall be spent.’ 6. To Mandate the JCR Treasurer to review the JCR Budget Structure after three full terms of
Implementation, if not before.
A copy of the mentioned JCR budget report may be found in the Secretary 2010 folder in the JCR Office.
Minutes: GL: Don’t know if this is contentious. Report is as expanded as I can be bothered to do. Hope you had an ability to read it. Chance not ability. At the moment we have £500/year for Dr WHO, E&O,
SWD, Womens’, Charities, LGBT; £50/event. We spend almost £1k/year on events just not out of budget. Useless so I thought we’d update it. Termly core position budgets. Runs through them.
Dawn’s left, Ash still here — notable things, no budget for affiliations or to charities/rag. They didn’t spend charities budget for about three years. No affiliations is in 1.6. Self-explanatory. Just to clarify. Budget the amount we spend, not half of what we actually spend.
SMW: SFQs for the Treasurer? Anyone? No okay. Into debate.
There is no opposition and the motion automatically passes
—
IT: We should thank Greig for doing such a good job on this.
SMW: Yes. Everyone quiet. We need to thank . . . good job on this.
Applause
Result: Passed
Motion: JCR — MCR - SECOND READING by Ali Travis & Dawn Hollis
This JCR notes
1. The new MCR constitution created and passed last term.
2. The current, unequal system of cross-common room political affiliation whereby all MCR members have JCR membership and can vote in JCR GMs and elections.
3. The section of the current JCR Constitution relating to membership [Appendix 1].
4. Clause 4.2 of the JCR Constitution which states that a member of the MCR, elected by the MCR, should sit on the JCR Committee.
5. Motions passed in Trinity 2010 relating to a proposed end to the current financial arrangement between the MCR and the JCR whereby the MCR pay a certain amount of money per student to the JCR in return for services, which are largely no longer used now that Holywell Manor has a barof its own, etc.
6. Some students for whom the division of JCR and MCR are not as clear as for others, for example, medical students who become MCR members on starting clinical school in their fourth years but are still socially involved in the JCR and wish to remain a part of it, rather than necessarily becoming part of the MCR.
7. That the term “junior member” is often used by College to refer to undergraduate and graduate students.
This JCR believes
1. That the JCR and the MCR are separate political bodies and that this should be reflected in the
JCR constitution.
2. That, nevertheless, a controlled and mutual level of cross-common room political involvement would be a sensible measure to ensure the two common rooms do not become entirely disparate.
3. That we should nevertheless endeavour to include students who become MCR members but wish socially to remain a part of the JCR.
This JCR resolves
1. To change the JCR Constitution in Michaelmas 2011 from that appendixed to as follows: (a) To insert at clause 2.1 “all undergraduate members of college” where it currently states “all members of college”.
(b) To insert the following under the heading of “Opting In” after the section on “Opting Out”:
2.5.1 It is possible for MCR members to opt-in to the JCR by writing to the President of the
JCR at any time from Sunday of the first week of Michaelmas Full Term to Saturday of the fourth week of Michaelmas full term inclusive.
2.5.2 This right of opt-in shall be brought to the attention of all members of the MCR, espe- cially those who have just moved up from the JCR, before Sunday of the first week of
Michaelmas.
2.5.3 Those who opt in gain the right to run for or continue positions on the JCR Committee, and the right to vote in GMs.
2.5.4 Those who opt in, apart from given at 2.5.5, must pay compulsory JCR levies.
2
2. To uphold clause 4.2 of the constitution and encourage the MCR Affiliations Officer to sit on JCR
Committee.
3. To mandate the JCR Affiliations Officers to discuss with the MCR Affiliations Officer the possibility of a motion being passed in the MCR giving the JCR Affiliations Officers the right to attend MCR
Committees and GMs, and one vote in said meetings.
4. Amends clause 8.6.1 in the Standing Orders to remove the phrase “graduates do not pay JCR levies”.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Levy realignment by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes
OUSU Levy
1. The OUSU Subscription Levy on JCR Compulsory Levies (£2.17);
2. That OUSU is now funded by a central block grant from the University, and so is no longer student-funded, so student subscription fees are no longer required.
Tampax Levy
1. The Tampax Levy on JCR Compulsory Levies (£0.40).
2. Tampax spending over the last 2 years has rarely exceeded £30 per term, and in some terms far less than £30 is spent on Tampax products.
3. To meet the current expenditure on Tampax a levy of £0.10 would suffice.
Recovery Levy
1. The Recovery Levy on JCR Compulsory Levies (£2) which was created after a voluntary VAT
Declaration by the JCR in 2007 of £7694.51 to “recover a proportion of the money that has been spent this year” on paying HMRC that money. (Original motion approving compulsory recovery levy).
2. Though the total £7694.51 has not yet been paid off (£1450 or so remaining) the JCR Accounts have now fully recovered from the voluntary declaration.
3. However, the funds collected from the recovery levy have been part of integral JCR spending, thus abolishing it would have a detrimental effect on the JCRs finances (especially considering proposed increased spending on budgets and the withdrawal of the 10% of the MCR’s block grant from
College.
4. The £2 is nevertheless needed by the JCR, though not for the purposes of replenishing the accounts as it was originally intended.
Picture Fund Optional Levy 1. The Picture Fund Account currently has £617.30 in it.
2. Framing a large picture costs around £300–400.
3. The state of mild-disrepair of the JCR Picture Fund.
4. An optional levy of £0.15 would expect to generate circa. £54 per term.
5. Such money could be used to repair existing pictures, many of which require repair (some to a greater degree than others).
This JCR believes
1. We no longer need to pay OUSU subscription fees, so we shouldn’t.
2. We do not need more money for Tampax products than we actually spend.
3. The JCR should be clear and transparent about what it charges students for, why it charges them, and how those funds will be applied.
6
4. The JCR Picture Fund should have enough money in it to allow a proper refurbishment of pictures in disrepair, and an optional levy is the best means of achieving this.
This JCR resolves
1. To remove the OUSU Subscription Levy from JCR Compulsory Levies.
2. To reduce the Tampax Compulsory levy from £0.40 to £0.10.
3. To allow any un-used Tampax funds to be applied for the purposes of purchasing pregnancy tests.
4. To remove the Recovery Levy from Compulsory Levies, and increase the JCR Funds levy by the amount of the Recovery Levy (£2, from £11.33, to £13.33).
5. To add an optional JCR Picture Fund levy effective from HT 11 of £0.15.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: JCR office computers by Tom Nickson
This JCR notes
1. One of the JCR office computers recently broke irreparably.
2. We are currently doing our work on old, slow and unreliable machines.
3. Denise especially would find a speedy new PC a great help.
4. That Dell sell a suitable machine for £259.
5. Backing up documents is Very Important, and an external hard drive makes that easier.
6. You can never have too many USB mice and keyboards.
7. Dell offers a full upgrade to Office for 125, but we don’t need that since we can use Open Office.
This JCR believes
1. Denise needs a faster machine, and we can have her old one.
2. We should buy two or three sets of USB mice and keyboards to be kept in the JCR office for replacement of broken ones/laptop users in the office/fun.
3. We should buy a large external hard drive and set up regular, automatic backups of Denise’s machine.
This JCR resolves
1. To pass £259 for the Dell PC below.
2. To pass £30 to stock up on cheap mice and keyboards.
3. To pass £50 for a 1TB external hard drive.
4. To mandate the Computer Officers/Mssrs D&M to install and make good.
Addendum
English Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (32 BIT) with Recovery DVD
Intel Pentium Dual Core Processor E6500 (2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache)
Microsoft Office Starter 2010 includes reducedfunctionality of Word & Excel with advertising Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security Services, 15-months
Display Not Included
2048MB (2x1024) 1333MHz DDR3 Single Channel
Hard Drive : 160GB Serial ATA (7200RPM)
Optical Drive : 16X DVD+/-RW Drive (No PowerDVD as included in OS)
UK/Irish (QWERTY) Dell Standard Quietkey USB Keyboard Black
8
Dell Optical (Not Wireless), Scroll USB (3 buttons scroll) Black Mouse
Services & Software
1Yr Collect & Return Warranty - No Upgrade Selected
Accessories
No Speakers
8-in-1 Media Card Reader
Also Includes
Vostro V230ST : Standard Base with Integrated GMA X4500 Card
2 Meter Power Cord - UK
D11s319
English Docs with Start Up Guide
1 Year Collect and Return
Vostro Desktop V230ST Order - UK
Vostro 230 ST Diagnostics and Drivers
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: New JCR website by Tom Nickson
This JCR notes
1. Our crap website, which is hard to navigate, unreliable and ugly.
2. That some magical fairy sub-committee has designed and built a new one to replace it which isn’t crap. (it’s here: http://jcrdevel.xyrael.net/).
3. That the JCR has hopefully had a bit of poke around and emailed problems to [someone].
4. That there is indeed a set of functionality to cover ”Democracy”, which is things like GMs, elections, minutes and other such official business. This is where most of the work lies, but is well underway and will be finalised over the Christmas break.
5. That the new website has a gallery, in need of your amazing/dreadful images.
6. Eventually the top banner will be animated.
7. You can book laundry slots online!
8. Isn’t the new site pretty?
This JCR believes
1. The new one is indeed pretty.
2. We want our website to be interesting and useful to current members and potential future members, so we need to fill it with great content and excellent photos.
3. Everyone in the JCR should have a look round it if they haven’t already, and forward com- plaints/suggestions to [someone].
This JCR resolves
1. To declare the new website the official Balliol JCR website.
2. To declare the old website the old website.
3. To mandate the Website sub-committee to perform the change over during the Christmas holiday. 9
4. To also mandate the Website sub-committee to complete the site completely before Hillary Term.
5. To send [someone] all great photos of Oxford, their tute work or Hassan.
6. To have a look round the site and if there’s something that could be done better or even spell’td properly, to email [someone].
7. To request a memorial poem be composed by the Comrades Shakespeare.
8. Allows the current website subcommittee to continue work on the website over the Christmas vac.
Minutes: AT: takes the chair
TN: Website subcommittee been working on new and updated and spruced up website. We want to change ballioljcr.org to use it you guys have to say that. Go take a look. Will be bugs, e-mail me and I’ll sort it or tell Ben to sort it. If you pass this motion, we will finish over Christmas and launch it for new term. Useful for people applying and useful for you guys, e.g. book laundry slots online, lots of exciting democracy [functions]. Banner will be an exciting animation that will flip between various pictures. Apart from that that’s basically the final verison.
AT: Is it easier to edit?
TN: Yes sir it is.
NS: Can I buy bacon in my PJs?
TN: You can buy and put in.
DB: What will happen to old stuff?
SPW: Imported.
TN: Archive code somewhere.
DB: URL inhabited by new website.
SB: Minutes not on current site on new site?
SPW: Happen over xmas.
SB: People like online voting. Would we be able to do that if we so chose?
TN: Yes we can tie that in and tie to bod card. GL: Have my continual requests for search function of minutes and agendas?
TN: Not made it to me.
SPW: Not made to me either.
14
GL: Display of incompetencies that have marred the Travis–Whitton administration.
SPW: We’ll do it over xmas.
SPW: Quorum count please.
SB: Procedural — change quorum to 10.
SB: Really long agenda. Some people will have deadlines. Constitutionally — one time people passing charities can. 20 fair enough, 10 a bit low. Painfully lng AGM.
SMW takes the chair
AT: TERRIBLE precedent so small hub can spend JCR’s money.
The procedural motion fails
AT retakes the chair somewhere around here
The amendment from BS is considered:
• Allows the current website subcommittee to continue work on the website over the Christmas vac.
BS: We’re unelected or reelected — not necessarily on Committee. Allow current website subcommittee to continue wokring on website over Xmas in co-operation with new committee so that it is more coherent than dumping mostly but not quite finished website on them.
The amendment is taken as friendly
DB: Does this make the motion constitutional?
SPW: No. Can form ad hoc committees, just can’t spend money.
AT: Motion as a whole.
There are no objections and the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: JCR Website Hosting by Tom Nickson
This JCR notes
1. We have bad web hosting for the current site.
2. Our lovely secretary runs a charitable web hosting company SilentFlame (www.silentflame.com), and is also a massive nerd.
This JCR believes
1. Charity is good, as are nerds.
This JCR resolves
1. To see if we can get hosting significantly cheaper than from SilentFlame.
2. If not, to contract SilentFlame to host our website
3. To mandate the Treasurer to make it happen within a reasonable (£200/year max) budget.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Spanish and Italian newspapers by Ben Marshall
This house notes 1. That the JCR receives a daily copy of French and German newspapers
2. However, there is currently no subscription to a daily Spanish or Italian newspaper
3. There are people in the JCR who want to keep as up-to-date with Spanish/Italian news, just as there are those who enjoy reading the foreign newspapers the JCR currently receives
4. Balliol makes references to it being a diverse, multicultural college
This house believes
1. That Spanish and Italian are languages which are just as important on a world stage as French and German
2. It is not fair that there are students and speakers of these languages who don’t get to read fantastic newspapers in those languages
3. It would greatly increase Balliol’s strength as an internationally appealing college to have a sub- scription to newspapers from Spain and Italy to complement those foreign ones the JCR already receives and it makes sense to have a representative of each of the four main foreign languages learnt by students today
This house resolves
1. To buy a once-weekly subscription to the Spanish centre/left paper El Pais and the Italian La Repubblica, which would mean that we would receive them on a
ıs weekly basis to the JCR like we do with current French/German papers.
10
2. To task the Treasurer to set up this subscription as soon as possible
Minutes: Ben Marshall (BM): We get at the moment a French newspaper, not Spanish and Italian. People speak these and they’re big languages. Not a massive amount per term, I think we should get some. MH: Rough estimate?
BM: I would. Spoke to Alex earlier, more Italian speakers than French speakers in the freshers. Almost every operson I’ve spoken to, 50 people would really support this. Lots of linguists here who think it’s a good idea. Even people who have done an A-level or have gone would be enthusiastic to pick it up. I support papers I don’t read.
TN: How many people who are still at the GM would read these?
BM: Not sure. Can’t remember. A lot of people though.
Sean Wile (SWi): Papers daily?
BM: Yes. Priced up online — if overwhelmingly known we want them once a week, no idea. That’s not fair.
Olly Murphy (OM): Can you get it online?
BM: Yes you can translate it into English. All articles available online.
RM: Which of these languages do you speak? Can you tell a joke in Spanish please?
15
BM: Read the paper and you’ll find them.
SMW: £130 is a lot of money. More than Womens and EM&O budget per term. These benefit far more people. Certainly [no need] to get it every day. Very few people who can speak those and you can get it on the website.
IT: Do we get German papers? Why on earth not Italian? Been meaning to do this for ages. I study
Italian, why dissadvantage when German do?
RM: Lots of people speak Spanish but don’t study it. Emphasise that. I read El Pa ́ want to read it
ıs in JCR. Georgina also reads it online every day. More so than do German or Italian.
BM: Lots of people I spoke to are not studying languages here. Admittedly quite specialist. Much greater people that know a language.
SB: Two things. More Spanish speakers than ethnic minorities in this college so that argument is redundant. Really good academic benefit if you want to learn a language to having paper around.
If we have the money to invest we have money to provide newspapers.
GL: I’m annoyed there are not more people here; debate is stagnant. Believes 2 is not correct. Believes
3 not correct to any extent. We need to decide — some people will use these, but still not many.
Huge expenditure for JCR to make every term for over a year or however many yeasr. This much money on a small prportion of people. PS3 better investment than this. La Monde gets read sometimes. Frankfurter Algemeine doesn’t get read. It’s nice — not unfair that people who speak other languages don’t have someone else to buy their papers. Everyone speaks English. Not spend
JCR money on very small proportion. Silent and it’ll pass anyway.
The amendment from SWi is considered:
• To change the daily subscription to a weekly one [and adjust the cost in Resolves 1 accordingly].
SWi: I am in a significant minority in reading La Repubublica every day. I’d rather some form brought in. Worried that there would be opposition to spending the amount to get daily. Rather see a form of paper once a week. Stay in JCR whole week, throw away when next one comes in.
The amendment is not taken as friendly
AT: One paper per week?
SWi: Sunday paper, yeah?
BM: Saturday one is the bigger one.
SWi: Yeah.
AW: Cost divided by seven?
BM: Not quite. Sunday/Sat more expensive. Not exact division.
SWi: A lot cheaper.
Michael Schumacher (MSc): Is there a delay in receiving papers?
SWi: Generally it’s one day.
GL: This is a good amendment. Strikes a balance between catering for people’s needs. We’re getting a magazine rack, and cleaners won’t throw it out. Are they stapled? Could be stapled. Make sure not thrown out. Nice happy medium balance.
The amendment passes
The amendment from AC is considered:
• Changes buying one copy a week to two copies a week.
16
AC: One a week not that great. I always throw beans over my papers. Get two a week of the same one.
There are objections to the amendment being taken as friendly
NS: There aren’t that many so two copies on the same day means not a rush of two people to it at the same time.
IT: This will double the price but we’ll not get double the benefit. If it turns out it always gets thrown out — if one thrown out they both will so not a great idea.
FF: We get by fine with one La Monda, move to a vote.
AC: Prop.: I’m really messy with my breakfast.
FF: It’s probably fine.
The amendment fails
Move to vote
BM: £130 pounds there. Needs changing.
IJ: Implied by past amendment.
GL: We discussed it in the amendments.
AW: I didn’t know about French/German paper so we should address that slightly.
The move to vote passes
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Frankfurter Algemeine by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes
1. The JCR purchases one copy of Frankfurter Algemeine per day (Monday–Saturday) at the cost of
£2.70 per day, resulting in expenditure of £16.20 per week, and £129.60 over an 8 week term.
2. That on the days of 1–6 of November the JCR Treasurer checked the ‘newspaper counter’ in the
JCR before supper and on all but one occasion found said copy of Frankfurter Algemeine unused.
3. By way of contrast to another international newspaper, on all of these days the French newspaper
Le Monde had been removed and used.
This JCR believes
1. The JCR should not spend money on something that is not used.
2. Frankfurter Algemeine is rarely used, and its usage is insufficient to justify such a large expenditure by the JCR.
This JCR resolves
1. To reduce to once per week the JCR's subscription of Frankfurter Algemeine.
Minutes: GL: For five days I check the £2.70 a day paper. Hadn’t been used. No problem getting rid of it. We’re paying for something we don’t need. Paul here earlier. If he gave a shit about it he’d still be here.
Story of his life. I’m just in a really bad mood. La Monde does get read. In a week it hadn’t been read once. Oh it was a grad. One time it got used, I saw the person reading it, grad rower, not a
JCR member. Not need for one a week. No-one cares enough to be here to oppose.
OM: If Algermeiner misspelt in entire motion . . . I’m happy not to get that paper because it does not exist. DB: Does this leave the JCR with at least one German publication?
GL: See Stephen’s motion. I speak German, a bit, and even I don’t read it, so does Olly.
The amendment from SWi is considered:
• Amends Resolves 1: Change ‘discontinue’ to ‘reduce to once per week subscription.’
SWi: I sound like someone who loves weekly newspapers. Doesn’t get read every day but does get read by a number of people during the week. Weekly one has a load of cool stuff that is more interesting that the little bit of right wing news. Weekly subscription.
TN: Have you read it once a week since you came up?
SWi: Yes I have.
GL does not accept the amendment as friendly
BM: We just had a smilar sort of thing. Majority wants Spanish and Italian once a week; sentiment not different.
17
GL: You have identified numerous people who have read it. I looked in the JCR. Only on one ocassion had it been read. Buying it once a week: not worth £2.75.
SWi: Could just be readers of German papers are very neat with it.
AW: If I’d known the paper existed I would have interest in reading it. No information on any such thing.
GL: I’m sorry but it sits up there with all the others papers.
SWi: It’s useful to have something in German in the JCR. Keep up knowledge of European affairs,
GL: Use it will get, empirical knowledge, nobody reads it. Few people who do read it, not many people turned up to dispute and they know it’s gonig to happen — 2 people, in here, not worth £2.70.
The amendment passes
SB: When I saw this, I said of course get rid. I’m uneasy with the argument about people not showing up. If I read Carribean Eye or whatever — it’s real, I had to do press clippings during Labour leadership — if I read CE, can’t iamgine more embarassing than turning up and explaining why it’s important in my second language. JCR shouldn’t assume people feel confident to talk in what is sometimes a hostile environment in their second language means we discontinue it entirely. Keep a weekly one. If we have money to get a PS3 for people who want to play Fifa or whatever.
GL: I’m proposing it with the amendment.
SB: I’m sorry I’m a moron.
Move to vote
SWi: Summary: You’re right people don’t read it every day. Might be intrested in it once a week.
GL: Once a week still too much.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: JCR periodicals by Greig Lamont
This JCR notes
1. The JCR currently purchases a number of journals/periodicals which are placed straight into the library (bar one copy of Private Eye which is placed in the JCR). These are (one copy of each):
Oxford Times, Tribune, Spectator, New Statesman, The Week, Private Eye.
2. That when asked about the level of use of the journals/periodicals housed in the library bought by the JCR the librarian replied: “they are used, but not massively.”
This JCR believes
1. If the JCR purchases items for use by JCR Members then these items should be situated in an accessible place to ensure they receive sufficient use and justify the expenditure on them.
2. It is pointless to have rarely-read journals/periodicals in the library when they could be in the JCR.
3. JCR Members do not primarily go to the library to read periodicals, but do go to the JCR to read newspapers and periodicals.
4. If JCR-bought journals/periodicals were placed in the JCR they would be read more widely than they are in the library.
5. The risk of these journals/periodicals being stolen or removed from the JCR is insufficient to outweigh the benefit of increasing JCR Member access to the journals purchased by the JCR.
This JCR resolves
1. To place all JCR-bought periodicals and journals in the JCR, as opposed to the library.
2. For the Treasurer to inform the JCR Cleaning Staff of the existence of these periodicals and journals and instruct them not to dispose of themuntil they expire.
11
3. To mandate D&M to construct/purchase a magazine rack to place said journals and periodicals in.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: The Times They Are A’Changin’ by Stephen Bush
This JCR notes
1. Our current newspaper subscription (see Addendum).
2. That the Times and the Guardian vanish very quickly.
3. That while the Guardian website is freely avaliable, the Times paywall makes it very difficult to read articles in the Times once youve missed the day’s Times.
This JCR believes
1. We should definitely get more copies of the Times.
2. It would be nice, but not necessary, to get another ocpy of the Guardian.
3. Ideally, but not neccessarily, the total number and cost of our newspaper subscriptions should remain static.
This JCR resolves (to be taken in parts)
1. To increase our Times subscription from 3 to 4 copies.
2. To increase our Guardian subscription from 3 to 4 copies.
3. To cancel our subscription to the Morning Star.
4. To reduce our subscription to the Independent from 2 to 1.
Addendum — The JCR’s current newspaper subscriptions
1 FT
3 Times
3 Guardian
2 Daily Telegraph
2 Independent
1 Mirror
1 Daily Express
1 Suddeutsche Ztng
1 Morning Star
1 International Herald Tribune
1 Le Monde
2 Independent
2 Sunday Telegraph
3 Sunday Times
3 Sunday Observer 1 Independent on Sunday
Minutes: SB: You can’t read the Times for free online anymore. If you miss the Times in the JCR your window of oportunity to read an interview or a comic has gone. I think we should get another one. I really like the Guardian, most people here do, I’d like there to be another one. Not increase overall cost of our newspaper subscriptions. I looked around. Morning Star fails as a newspaper. A lot of the time it’s factually inaccurate. News has things which aren’t facts, then it’s not a newspaper.
One Independent enough as always sports section of paper still there and Independent. Guardian better than Independent. It’s owned by a Russian Oligarch, it’s employed Tom Rowley. . . more
Times, hard to get one, extra Guardian. In parts. If people want to keep a paper with account of a fictional march. Suggested workers in cloth caps saying “good on ye for helping the proletariats.”
There are no objections to a procedural motion from SB to take the motion in parts
AT: Amendment from Susie amendment. Strikes Resolves 1. If we take in parts I drop that. Actually forget that.
MSc: How much does it cost every day for a year compared with getting a subscription to it online?
SB: Can an institution get a subscriotion?
SMW: More expensive. Get it as an institution.
DB: Even if you do get an isntitution subscription for Balliol JCR, you can’t logon in two locations at once. Equivalent to buying one copy except onine which is same price.
The amendment Susie Deedigan (SDe) is considered:
18
• Changes Resolves 3: replaces ‘Morning Star’ with ‘Daily Express’.
SDe: The Daily Express is shit.
IJ: Do you want to keep the Morning Star?
SDe: Yes.
TN: Why is Express [more] shit than Morning Star? AT: Now in debate.
SB: While I don’t like the Express either, keep it because you’re giving a little bit of money to Labour party. Two when I was E&E we should live as paperless as we can. Main reason we haven’t dropped Express is Pantry ladies read it. Isn’t worth the hassle.
AT: Danni reads it and she loves it.
SB: Not get rid of it.
GL: Really good sports section according to my grandfather.
MH: If you are taking out anything vaguely right wing we’ll get another call to get the Mail.
SD: Summary: We should get rid of the Daliy Express and keep the Morning Star.
SB: We shouldn’t.
The amendment fails
TN: Why should we support Rupert Murdoch’s evil decision to put TImes behind a Paywall?
SB: Support existence of a print media that is high quality. If the paywall fails, political parties and football clubs will pay for news. Paywall is best thing that could happen. Self-appointed experts from spin machines will go on there.
DB: I am addicted to the Times puzzle section and don’t get one at 10am. Times has best puzzle section in the United Kingdom and that’s a good enough reason to get another copy.
Move to vote
SB: Have to hear opposition?
GL: This is a shit motion, move to a vote.
AT: Procedural motion — do these by simple votes, no SFQs. We just vote.
SB: Oppo.: Good for people to express opinions and maybe win people over rather than assume we’ll have no changes of mind.
The procedural motion passes
Resolves 1, 2 & 3 pass. Resolves 4 fails
Result: See minutes
Motion: Donation to Nightline by Isabel Thompson
This JCR notes
1. People get very stressed and sometimes overwhelmed at Oxford.
2. People often feel they have no-one to talk to about their problems.
3. Nightline is a confidential listening service, which is volunteer run and relies on donations.
This JCR believes
1. It’s good to have someone to talk to if you’re having a hard time, and Nightline is there to listen and thus performs a very important service.
This JCR resolves
1. To donate £100 to Nightline.
Minutes: IT: I got a letter from Nightline saying we rely on donations in order to exist. Most JCRs pass money to nightline, suggested £100, please please pass 100. I said, yeah.
SPW: Does nightline get any money from the university?
AT: Yes.
MSc: Does anyone use it?
IT: Dunno.
There is no opposition and the motion automatically passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to MEDLIFE Oxford by Abu Abioye
This JCR notes
1. Access to quality healthcare is a basic human right, yet according to the WHO over a billion people worldwide are denied this
2. MEDLIFE (Medicine, Education, and community Development for Low Income Families Every- where) is a student-led charitable organisation that aims to help families achieve greater freedom from the constraints of poverty, empowering them to live healthier live
3. 100% of donations to the MEDLIFE fund are used toward the creation of medical clinics, schools and other development projects to promote access to basic necessities and skills encouraging poor individuals and families to free themselves from the constraints of poverty and promote a cycle of health, education and personal development
4. The Mission Fund promotes local primary care providers to bring preventative and curative treat- ment to people living in poverty who live in marginalized, rural or areas that otherwise prevent their access to quality medical care. These funds support efforts to educate these patients about gender and age specific health concerns
5. Currently, MEDLIFE works with poor communities in South America and students for the UK,
Canada, and USA are able to volunteer their time and effort to give the poor a voice
This JCR believes
1. The poor people that MEDLIFE works with deserve the right to health care
2. The work MEDLIFE does, both in impoverished parts of the world and in promoting global health awareness is important
This JCR resolves
1. To donate £200 to MEDLIFE Oxford; to be split equally between the MEDLIFE Fund and the Mission Fund.
Minutes: Abu Abioye (AA): Says what it stands for. Student run. Started off in America. New chapter in
Oxford. Looking for donations. I split it — two funds. MEDLIFE fund which is 100% of that goes to projects — no admin costs. $15k to bring clinic in Peru at the moment. You need long term sustainable development projects rather than just going in there for a couple of weeks. Mission fund, take mission to Equador for two weeks. This pays for medicines, mobile clinics, doctors.
The amendment from AA is taken as friendly:
• Replaces Resolves 1 with: To donate £200 to MEDLIFE Oxford; to be split equally between the MEDLIFE Fund and the Mission Fund.
IT: Quorum.
Quorum is re-established, just
The motion automatically passes with no opposition
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Oxford Development Abroad by Aggie Yu
This JCR notes
1. Oxford Development Abroad (ODA) is a University-wide organisation that aims to assist with small-scale, community-initiated, sustainable development projects in the developing world.
2. ODA coordinates volunteers from the University to work on education, health and sanitation projects. Last year ODA sent 36 volunteers to Nepal, Uganda and Morocco for 4-8 weeks over the summer. In the past, ODA have helped fund and build a library in Jasberie, and a youth club and improved school facilities in Lamatar. In Guatemala, much-needed sanitation facilities were built at a medical centre. In Uganda, water tanks were built at schools and springs in villages were protected to provide clean water for over 1500 adults and children who previously drank from stagnant swamps, and also provided training on building smokeless stoves, reducing the incidence of respiratory related disease one of the biggest killers in Africa.
3. ODA gives in-depth training to volunteers before departure and provides high-profile speaker events open to the entire university.
4. ODA is planning to continue its work in deprived communities with similar projects thissummer.
5. Overhead costs are kept to an absolute minimum, but each year ODA must pay for insurance, publicity and fund the university-wide speaker events.
This JCR believes
1. The work of ODA makes a crucial difference to peoples lives in Uganda, Nepal and Morocco.
Volunteers must fund all personal costs themselves. Without central fundraising to cover minimal overhead costs, these valuable projects cannot go ahead. The future of this years projects relies upon raising these funds.
This JCR resolves to
1. Donate £200 to ODA, making the cheque payable to Oxford Development Abroad and pidging it to Aggie Yu, Balliol.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Donation to Schistosomiasis Control Initiative by Max Deacon
This JCR notes
1. Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), who are attempting to eradicate a variety of neglected tropical diseases:
Roundworm (currently infects over one billion people)
Whipworm (795 million people)
Hookworm (740 million people)
Schistosomiasis (22 million in Nigeria alone, including 16 million children)
2. Schistosomiasis is the second most socioeconomically devastating parasitic disease after malaria.
3. Giving What We Can, an academic organisation set up by Toby Ord, a fellow of moral philosophy at Balliol, has found treatment of neglected tropical diseases such as those listed above to be by far the most cost-effective health intervention.
4. The NHS is prepared to spend £20,000 per year of life.
5. Treatment for neglected tropical diseases costs £2.14 per year of life.
14
6. A Balliol Blue costs £3.00.
This JCR believes
1. Almost all charitable giving is a Good Thing.
2. The JCR charities account serves primarily to support charities that its members care about or have a relationship with.
3. Remaining funds should be given to the most cost effective charities.
This JCR resolves
1. To encourage its members to think about the cost effectiveness of their charitable donations.
2. To donate £300 from the Charities fund to SCI.
Minutes: Max Deacon (MxD) is not present and so TN takes over the motion TN: Toby Ord has analysed cost-efficient charities for QALY. SCI by far the most efficient. £300 given to this will save huge amounts more than anything else we can possibly do. Really good thing to do.
SMW: Money on optional levies?
GL: Yes. We had this debate last time as well.
AT: Max’s amendment, we’ll call it Tom’s.
The amendment from TN is considered:
• Amends Resolves 2 to read: To donate £500 to Schistosomiasis Control Initiative.
TN: Most cost-effective thing to save lives. Not precise figures, not me who did it. £2.14/year of life.
Really good thing, as much money as we can give.
DB: Greig — how mych money left in budget, before this mtion passes?
GL: We have £1187.
RM: Pass this we’ll have £187 left in account. Emergency money next week to Pakistan flood relief.
AT: Debate.
GL: £200 still very generous. Don’t think we should give £500 and completely exhaust the account.
Time and time again we’ve debated leaving the account empty. We did it with pol cam and it turned out we fucked ourselves so let’s not do it again.
RM: We’ve donated to this many times. Original motion plenty. Even if not an emergency I want to give money next week to Pakistan.
MxD: I left money in the account for emergencies. However as far as I can work out, more cost- efficient, life years you save per pound you give, better to give to SCI to give to Pakistan flood appeal. I am thinking, it’s better. I understand if flood appeal close to people’s hearts; I’m happy to give £300 to SCI.
Move to vote
MxD: Most cost-efficient. Save more years of life.
20 RM: If we only cared about cost-efficiency we’d give the entire budget to SCI. £300 is loads of money, let’s have extra money for other things. Next year’s charities officers, not sure if they’re all here.
They’re not here so no fundraising going on so have some left.
The amendment fails
The motion automatically passes with no opposition.
Result: Passed
General Meeting - 2010-11-28
Ali Travis (AT): We have quorum. If you’re in Pantry come and grab a seat. Any matters from the minutes?
Simon Wood (SMW): Yes, they’re not out.
AT: Noted. Questions to officers? If not we move onto motions.
Motions (a), (b), (i) pass nem con.
Review of standing policy
Collection of the tuition fee
Chris Gross (CG): This item of Standing Policy is about a method that no longer exists so we shouldn’t have a position on it.
AT: SFQs? Discussion/debate? No. Vote.
The policy is dropped
West Papua
CG: Let’s see if anyone knows what’s going on in West Papua before deciding to keep it in for another three years. West Papua is still part of Indonesia, a province. I don’t know anything else about it so can’t answer SFQs. If no-one knows and no-one who wrote it in is here we don’t believe it if no-one knows.
1
Marine Debray (MD): What do you mean for the next three years?
CG: It’ll be renewed [again] in three years time.
Hannah O’Rourke (HO): The West Papua thing is still ongoing as far as I am aware. I met this guy from West Papua at Oxford Radical Forum and had a really long chat to him; I was running the
Living Wage Campaign stall. He still e-mails me about the protest [they] do in London. It’s still a problem with just a tiny campaign. They don’t have the resources. We should carry on believing this. He had a really good point. It’s still a problem. There is somebody out there who is still severely affected by this.
Stephen Bush (SB): All of this is still true. Since then we have passed stuff on what we think on ethical investment and SRI generally. Addresses this anyway. We don’t specifically have a problem with the occupation. But I think we should keep it; [just saying that] there’s an argument against.
David Bagg (DB): It seems to me that this was written on BP investing in the university that there is nothing we can do about that now. I don’t even know what they invested in. No point in retaining this at all.
SB: The university does have a process by which it scrutinises its fiscal universe every quarter. This is still something we should have an ongoing belief about. When our new E&E officers go to OUSU meetings they will use this.
MD: It also says that BP is a bad company. Considering recent events, we should probably keep believing that.
Move to vote
The policy remains
---
SD: Any other business: Ali and Greig and Simon have done a really good job, little thank you from all of us
SD hands a bottle of something to AT. Greig receives something similar. SS receives a large lolly and jar of sweets from JlK
CG offers a standing ovation
SMW: Nick has managed to keep everyone in drink and the bar in profit and in our hands.
SMW presents NS with a bottle of liquor.
Motion: Role of Admissions Officers by Simon Wood
Note: Appendix A has been omitted to save paper
This JCR notes
1. That the roles played by Committee members are fluid
2. That the role of Admissions Officers now and as written in the constitution are somewhat different
3. That the absence of ‘Access’ in the title of any JCR committee member causes some confusion to people outside the JCR (e.g. OUSU, other college’s acess officers/staff)
4. References to officers in the Constitution are singular.
This JCR believes
1. That the constitution should be updated to reflect the role of the Admissions officers in the modern
JCR
2. That the title of the Admissions Officers should be more representative of their role
3. The Constitution should be consistent in its style but changing all the officer titles to plurals is a waste of time.
This JCR resolves
1. To replace all mentions of the “Admissions Officer” in the constitution with the “Admissions and
Access Officer”.
2. To replace section 4.8 of the constitution (Appendix A) with: The Admissions and Access Officer shall be responsible to committee for:
Access: To liaise with the OUSU VP Access and Academic affairs and College Admissions staff regarding access, to promote both college-based and University-wide access schemes and events and to co-ordinate access initiatives run by Balliol students.
Admissions: To liaise with the College Admissions staff to co-ordinate student involvement in
College tours, Open Days and Interviews. To rewrite the Alternative Prospectus biannually.
To organise entertainment for candidates during interviews and for those staying overnight during Open Days. To bring the JCR’s opinions on matters pertinent to Admissions to the appropriate staff.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: Charities cock-up by Sean Whitton
This JCR notes
1. Standing Policy 8.6.4: Not later than seven days before the AGM, the Charities Officer(s) will publicise the following: the charities currently included on the levy, why they are there, and for how many terms they have been included. Special mention will be made of any charities that have long-standing ties to the college. Following submissions by members of the JCR, to be received by the JCR Secretary no later than three days before the AGM, the charities to be included on the levy for each of the next three terms shall be proposed by the Charities Officer(s). No charity will be subject to an automatic renewal without a submission, although submissions to renew charities to which Balliol JCR has a long-standing commitment are to be encouraged.
2. The catalogue of administrative failures of the 2010 Secretary, as detailed in the annual report of the Admissions Officer and the hilarious graffiti on the Secretary’s annual report (at the time of writing).
3. That to this list must be added the failure of the Charities Officer to implement 8.6.4, and the failure of the Secretary to harass him to do it.
4. That JCR accounting is not in any way screwed up if we do the charities levies at the first GM of
Hilary instead, since optional levies do not go out until 4th week. This JCR believes
1. The charities levy review is important, and we should do it properly.
2. That public humiliation for administrative failure is a Good Thing.
This JCR resolves
1. As a one-off measure, to act on Standing Orders 8.6.4 at the beginning of Hilary Term 2011 rather than at the end of Michaelmas Term 2010.
2. To transfer responsibility for this to the Secretary-Elect and Charities Officers-Elect.
3. Immediately after passing this motion, to boo, hiss, jeer and cajole JCR members Sean Whitton and R ́n ́n McDonald. o a
4. Immediately after completing the levy review next term, to applaud, cheer and celebrate Susie,
Liv and David.
5. To enter Believes 2 into Standing Policy, under the heading “Administrative Failure”.
Minutes: Sean Whitton (SPW): We aren’t doing this and we are supposed to do this and it’s a good idea so let’s do it properly.
AT: Any opposition?
The motion automatically passes with no opposition
Boo, hiss
Result: Passed
Motion: Balls up by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The decision of the Ball Committee to cancel Balliol Ball 2009 due to poor ticket sales
2. The resulting cancellation fees (from food, production and entertainment companies) left a deficit of £8,268.85 in the Ball Account.
3. That £3,268.85 of this is owed to Urban Science who have agreed to hold this fee in credit for two years.
4. That the Ball committee intend to use this production company (for work exceeding the amount in credit), and transfer the money they saved directly to College
5. This leaves a deficit of £5,000 in the Ball Account, which will have to be paid to College this year.
6. That without paying back the £5,000 deficit to College, permission to hold further Balls / Summer
Events is very likely to be denied.
7. The current balance of the Entz Account: £6,610.35, with a further £1645.00 coming in at the beginning of next term when Battels are received.
This JCR believes
1. Having Balls / Summer Events is A Good Thing.
2. That the JCR should resolve to clear the Ball debt in a way that will minimise financial strain for both the JCR and the Ball, and fit with our charitable objectives.
3. That the Entz Account is designated for entertainment purposes, and has sufficient money to absorb £2,500 leaving £4110.35 in the account.
4. That the incumbent Entz officers have indicated that it is not desirable for the balance of the Entz account to fall below £3,000, as this would leave us unable to replace Entz equipment.
5. That an £833 structural deficit in the next three Balls/Summer Events is a tolerable burden for an event with a budget in excess of £20,000 per year.
This JCR resolves
1. To transfer £5,000 from the Entz account to the Ball Account.
2. To set up a structural deficit within the Ball account of £833 per event for the next six years to be paid to the Entz account.
3. To repay the Ball Committee loan to College without delay.
Minutes: Isabel Thompson (IT) takes the chair
AT: This motion is long overdue. As everybody knows, the ball went tits up last year. We ended up with £11k in unpaid contract fees. Production company, food company, music — they all had their own cancellation fees which we had to pay. We had a £2k balance in the ball account as it stood, this brings it down to £9k. We managed to negotiate a credit system with production company: any money spent with them on on future events will be for free for up to £3k if spent in the next three years. Ball committee will do this. College have agreed to wait until the ball committee spend money on production and they’ll send that amount of money to college. What remains is the £5k that currently stands in deficit to the ball committee account.
This account needs to be cleared before we can have a future ball. We need to pay this off this year. I’ve tried to propose a way we can do this. I’m keen that we minimise the impact on the entz account and future balls so I’ve tried to split it halfway. £5k out of entz to leave £3500k left in entz. Over the next three balls, we’ll instigate a structural deficit in each of these. First x they spend goes back to entz account. It splits the burden of loss between entz — JCR wants to have balls and is donating bop money — it also recognises that it’s quite a lot of money to pass from entz so we’d prefer a structural deficit over the next three years.
IT: SFQs?
CG: College lent the ball committee £5k. College didn’t think to tell the JCR that the JCR would have to underwrite it. JCR didn’t know we were underwriting. It’s students who happened to be members of JCR who college lent money to. Why should the JCR pay college back rather than
College accepting that they lent money to something that failed?
AT: The ball committee requested the loan without the knowledge of the JCR — when the ball commit- tee requested permissions to hold the ball, they asked on behalf of the JCR. It’s our fault for not 2 enforcing [our] Standing Orders. College ruled that paying £5k for a student party wasn’t within their charitable objectives and they can’t pay this. The JCR doesn’t in fact enter into this. The deficit is to the ball account. We could leave it like that and the ball goes bankrupt. As it stands, ball comm has £5k deficit which we need to sort out if we want to have future balls.
IT: Into debate.
Rosie Pigott (RP): We need to pay back to entz, having first this year, we’re having a lower cost event, making it really low risk — paying this back is a large percentage of the entire budget just spent on paying back. If this ball is a success — which it will be as I’m on the committee — next year we’ll charge more, less of a percentage of the budget.
IT: We have an amendment on the table from Ali.
The amendment from AT is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 2.
AT: I strike Resolves 2. This gets to the heart of what Rosie is saying. Not sure I personally believe this but basically it gets rid of ball deficit for three years. It pays a lump sum so they can go ahead and more[over] to ensure there’s no financial burden. £1k deficit is hard on a ball strugglng to get off the ground. This eliminates the deficit on the ball account completely. It does pass £5k out of the entz account, which is SO much money. We’ve accumulated money there for years. If we want to buy LASERs, this is several years build-up that we’re spending right now. It’s worth bringing this to discussion because some people believe having a care-free ball is very important.
Eleanor Connolly (EC): [There’s a] commemoration ball in a few years? 2013. Organised by college or not? Will this be paid off by then?
Rhiannon Garth Jones (RGJ): The commemoration ball in 2013 will be organised by the devel- opment office and College. Students don’t organise it and we won’t make any money from it.
Essentially the years that the ball committee can make a profit to repay a loan is this year, next year and 2014.
MD: Is there anywhere else we can take the money from? AT: No. Definitely not. We can’t take out of general savings, for a load of reasons I will bring up in the next motion. No is the short answer to the question. Tampax fund — would be a bit immoral.
Isn’t what entz is for, but it’s the nearest thing.
HO: How does this deficit work? I’m a bit confused. They have to pay back £833 regardless of whether they make a profit?
AT: Yep.
HO: An amendment to make it over six years to repay the whole £5k?
AT: Chris is nodding so yeah.
Greig Lamont (GL): Chris has an amendment; this amendment decides if the JCR should be fully responsible for ball committee failures or whether we accept joint liability. It’s not disputed that the £800 deficit will be burdensome on a ball, of course it will — but we must make sure we don’t unduly punish the JCR and the people who pay money to events to the JCR. The ball has never used entz money before — not in the last four years — people giving money to entz, they’ve not consented to it being used for this purpose. It’s not an entz and ball account. We have a ball account, we have an entz account, they’re very separate. It’s important that future ball committees have a bit of a nagging thought in the back of their minds, of an £800 deficit, that there is a lot riding on their actions. The ball last year on admin side was done appallingly. Budgets were not submitted to me, to a GM, they didn’t come to Committee Lunch. If we’re paying £800/year
[giving] accountability financially, it puts them in a much better place. It’s less likely things will go wrong again.
3
SMW: I disagree with this a little bit. Although it’s a financial burden, £833 when you have a budget
— it’s very little on the scale of the budget. Alcohol itself is pence anyway once you’ve done the marquee. An easy structural deficit to do. It’s not £2.5k from a year.
MD: It would be difficult to burden the JCR over an event that the JCR had no control over. It was very secretive, we were never really informed, it was not put through GMs. There was no control from JCR members. We’re asking people who pay levies to bail out something they had no control over — it’s difficult to justify.
HO: How many are coming at the moment?
IT: £400.
HO: Add £3 per ticket, cover the cost, distribute the cost.
GL: [They] can’t do that now.
CG: The ball is a ticketed event that people have to pay to go to. If we get rid of this Resolves, we’re saying that it should be £5k taken from the entz account which are things for everyone to do. Entz is for bops. They can all go to them; it’s free for everyone to go to. It can be used for more stuff like that in the future. [It] shouldn’t take any kind of hit in the long run. It’s not for that purpose.
Juliette Kelly (JlK): The problem with a structural deficit (SD) was that this year we are literally trying to get out of bankruptcy. Having a SD this year — the problem Eleanor is talking about, we’ll not have a ball for the next three year’s worth of balls. This SD doesn’t work because this year if we’re going to make a sucecss of the summer event slash ball we’re already limited by having to use that production company, we’re trying to make a successful event for people that is cheap so you want to come but still amazing. To say that £1k has to be paid back to the JCR this year is not viable.
Mike Howarth (MH): It’s inevitable that the JCR has to take some kind of hit. It’s not desirable, it’s not what entz is for, but there’s no other way. To say that we’re not responsible is a bit of a soft option. We were: we never chased it up. We are liable for at least some of this[; it] has to come from entz.
SMW: I don’t understand “fighting against bankruptcy.” If this passes, you’re working on £20k or whatever.
JlK: You’re saying that we have to make £1k extra to what we spend. We can’t break even. We haven’t taken a loan from College cos they won’t give us any money. There was a startup loan last year.
We’ve budgeted based on how many tickets we want to sell. Having £1k there we have to add on.
If we want price to be no more than £55, so people want to come — one of problems last year was that it was expensive. We wanted to make sure that people felt they could afford to go. For us to pay back this year, we don’t have any money, we don’t have anything to work with. We don’t have £2k in the account to start with this year.
GL: I don’t know how convinced I am at the fact that this — I think we all agree this puts a burden on a ball. It’s a private commercial event. If you can’t make it so that you can’t pay back deficit you shouldn’t have the ball. If this is completely impossible, and it’ll not make money at all, we shouldn’t have this bloody thing as it’ll just fuck up again and leave another £5k debt. Ball committee needs to say, buy 40% less balloons, not put hessian over the entrances, do without some matting here. These are the kind of decisions that have to be made. Any private event would have to do this. If you want to get it you have to pay for it — it should be a success within its financial constraints.
Move to vote
Simon Stewart (SS): We’ve heard both sides of the argument.
RP: I just want to respond to what GL just said.
The move to vote fails
4
RP: I just want to say, it is not really a matter of balloons or not - we’re making sure we’re budgeting to what we can afford. We still want to make it a really god ball so that future balls can be a success. We’re getting the best value for money, acts we don’t have to pay for, as much stuff for free as we can. It’s not about hessian on the door. It’s trying to work to the minimum and have a really good ball. Not decorations — marquees and music systems.
JlK: Just want to add — if you are saying that balls are private, it’s true but this is something Balliol as a whole can enjoy — something that all of College will go to. I was disappointed last year:
“I can’t go to an Oxford Ball and see people from all years.” Going to a ball with your College, community spirit. If we can’t spend money so Balliol has a successful ball. Cherwell will be saying we have a success, say we’re good at making events.
RGJ: As the Ball Treasurer, I think a structural deficit [of] say £833 is in no way ideal for this ball committee who are really struggling with the opinion of Balliol balls generally. It’s possible, though. If there is to be a SD, it should be no more than this, no more than three years. Imposing it for
6 years is unfair on future ball committees. Chris’s amendment is unfair. The amendment we’re doing now, that Ali’s proposed, is a little bit unfair. The original motion recognises there should be joint accountability from ball committee last year and the JCR. I don’t think £833 is ideal, it makes it really difficult, but it would be possible and I don’t think it would be the worse way of dealing with what is a frankly shit situation.
Move to vote
AT: Summary: Rosie or Juliette should propose — not sure I am in favour.
JlK: This year we shouldn’t have to face a £800 deficit. You’ve heard all the reasons.
SS: We managed to do formal pantry for £16/head and a lot of people said it was much better than a ball. We’re not going from this year’s ball to the best ball in Oxford. Build it up over a period of years. SD is not unmanageable. Scale down the event. If we all go for a few years and build up the reputation, we can have better balls in a few years time. We’ll not cover the bad press with one ball anyway.
The amendment fails
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Replaces “for the next three years” with “for the next six years”.
CG: We’ve just said that the ball is capable of absorbing a 3% hit because it’s right that the JCR should be paid back money. Why not for the next six years? It’s not fair to put a deficit on people — but how it is fair to have entz in deficit for that period for that time? If three is okay, why not six.
Steve Dempsey (SD): Are you changing the amount or just the time?
CG: £5k over the next six years.
MD: Would we have to remove the belief that we have joint accountability?
CG: No. [Pauses.] No. Don’t understand why we would.
IT: Debate.
Edlyn Livesey (EL): I’m not sure if this is the case but in my experience — say you buy a ticket and then it falls through. Unless you pay on a credit card you won’t necessarily get your money back. There’s no legal responsibility for us not to pay for the ball last year. If it’s the case, it seems to me that people for the last three years who paid for a ball ticket last year, they’ve got off quite lightly.
If three years money out of entz is equivalent — first option — two years of the entz account, it’s fair enough that people who pay into this account for two years, who’ve got off lightly who could have been charged for tickets last year, even if they hadn’t given money to the entz account.
SS: I agree with this. A deficit for six years is not really a problem. Future members of the JCR will support balls because they’ll recognise Juliette’s points about getting people together. I don’t think
5 the fact that the ball has a SD will put Balliol people off going to a Balliol event. I’d be happy to see that size of event for next years. We don’t have grounds for cross-Oxford balls anyway.
CG: People have paid into entz for years and year and years. It’s built up. [They wanted] to do good and fun stuff. Then to say that the money 3rd years have been paying [for three years], we’re now giving a good third of it away to a ball that failed. It’s ridiculous.
Move to vote
CG: Summary: A 3% deficit is fine for three years, why not six? People pay into entz for fun stuff, not to prop up a ball and for future balls to pay for suits and stuff. It’s not fair for it to come out of entz; that’s for great things not to save balls basically.
RGJ: It ignores the point about joint accountability. The JCR Committee has a lot of responsibility for last year’s failure. A lot of procedures that wern’t enforced that led to us being completely unaware of what was going on. Recognition that it’s partly the JCR’s fault as well as the ball committee. There’s a difference between a deficit of three years, which is length of the review, and a deficit of six years where there’s no-one who remembers. Balls are very popular — only 30 have opted out. Overwhelming support. To say it’s not as important as a bop isn’t fair or valid. Vote for the original motion and not this amendment.
The amendment passes
GL takes the chair
IT: Two points. It’s kind of unfair for the ball to face a deficit now when it’s done most of its budgeting. It’s not fair to do it on a ball half-way through. It’s okay if they think they can absorb it. Can we loan it from the general savings into the entz account? We are the ones who’ve been paying into entz for the last three years. It’s our £5k that’s been taken. Especially first years, they’re missing out. A really small entz account for whole time of their degree, won’t get big exciting things they might want to spend the money on. Yes we will look to longterm, can spend whatever they want from entz, really damaging potential fun that people can have while they’re here. They’re paying in but not getting anything out of it.
GL: Bring an amendment or keep debate on the motion.
AT: Greig, please sit up there?
IT takes the chair
Move to vote
AT: We’ve debated on where the money should come from. The fact is we have to pay this back .
There’s no reason to vote against this. We have to pay back [for the failed] ball, that’s a fact — if you want a ball in future, vote this through.
Motion automatically passes with no objections
Result: Passed
Motion: Backing up the Ball by Seb Fassam
This JCR notes
1. That the Ball Committee intend to hold the Balliol May Day Carnival on Sat 0£th TT.
2. That the vast majority of JCR members will attend the event.
3. That the JCR has more than £60,000 in assets; with £20,000 deemed so unlikely to be needed that it can be invested on the stock exchange.
5
4. Traditionally, JCR money has been given to the ball.
5. That events that have a larger budget tend to be more enjoyable.
6. That the Ball Committee are working under difficult circumstances due to the failure of last year’s ball.
This JCR believes
1. That where possible, JCR money should be spent such that it will benefit all members.
2. That no other event brings the whole JCR community together as effectively as a ball.
3. That whilst prudent to save and invest for the future, some of our money should be used for our own enjoyment.
4. That more than £50,000 in assets is more than adequate to cover the JCR for unexpected expen- diture and losses.
5. An additional £5000 in their budget would allow the Ball Committee to throw an exceptional ball that will benefit JCR members and rebuild Balliol Ball’s reputation for the future, whilst still leaving the JCR in a financial position that is the envy of every other JCR in Oxford.
This JCR resolves
1. To, pending legalities, pass £5000 of JCR money to the Ball Committee.
Minutes: AT takes the chair
Seb Fassam (SF): This motion is just to pass JCR Money to the ball committee for this term for us to actually use. In contrast to the previous motion to pay back a debt that will have an impact on us as a ball committee. This motion just frees up the enormous capital that the JCR has got that never seems to be used. It would be quite good given that 90% of the JCR plus will be going to the ball. It’s quite good that some of our money should be spent on us. It has happened in the past. It happened the first two years I was here. It’ll be quite nice if it happens again. AT: SFQs.
6
RGJ: Isn’t it the situation that MCR does this every year for their garden party?
AT: Yes, as part of their enormous annual surplus because their membership has doubled in four years and therefore [so has their] money from college.
CG: Resolves says pending legalities — say what that’s about?
SF: I can’t guarantee that it’s possible. I wanted to include that. It’s probably possible given that we just passed £5k to the ball in a previous motion — I don’t see where the distinction lies.
AT: There are not enormous legal problems. If there are, it’s because the charitable objectives may clash with it. Not a strict legal problem.
SD: I see the event as a glorified welfare night.
CG: If college can’t give[/lend] money to the ball then how can we?
AT: We have different charitable objectives. Having a party might not actually be included. It’s tenuous to interpret that. College have specific things about education and religion. It’s a completely different situation.
SF: We can argue that this is a service for students. 360 out of the JCR of 400 will go. It’s not a niche event.
Holly McCluskey (HMc): Traditionally how much is given?
SF: Normally £2.5k. Asking for more but we have a much more difficult framework. We have to market an event that has traditionally failed. We already have to pay back some money straight away.
We’re getting less than £5k effectively. A specified marquee company. Already restricted. We won’t need this money every year. We’ve made it cheaper to try and attract more interest. A successful event this year, a one off cost. Future ball president will not have to do this.
Ben Marshall (BM): If we’ve passed money in the past, charitable objectives haven’t changed, so no additional difficulty?
SF: I assume not but I am not a lawyer. AT: After talking to Denise, any money that balls have had [in the past] has come from entz.
SMW: Is this just for Balliol people? Will tickets be for general university?
SF: We hope to sell out to the JCR and MCR, but that won’t occur. It’s not a fixed number. The minimum is 499; [we’ll] sell 420 tickets. If interest is there we’re likely to extend it. The more people you get — a lot of costs are fixed — so it makes it a much better event.
Sally Murray (SM): Where does the rest of ball committee money come from?
SF: Ticket sales.
SM: In advance?
SF: Yeah. If we don’t get this we need a place to loan from. That’s why ticket sales are a term earlier than usual.
SS: If you don’t get £5k, what would the difference be?
SF: A similar question to a ball that costs £50 and £80 per ticket? It’ll be better. More events.
Wherever possible we want things for free. We want to have attractions such as a big wheel and things; all of those things cost money. That’s instantly some money that we have to spend on these sorts of things. We’re addressing sponsorship a lot more. We want to avoid paying for alcohol. It’s a relatively small event, lots of people want sponsorship so we want to try.
SS: It’s not earmarked for something, e.g. a big wheel?
SF: No. We can’t guarantee what it’s for at this early stage. It’s similar to an extra 100 people going.
It means we can do a lot more things when scaled up.
AT: Debate.
7
GL: Firstly, as Ali touched on — the JCR has never given money from its core funds to a Balliol ball or summer event. It’s always come from entz. We pretty much just said we shouldn’t give money from entz to pay for a ball. I can’t see how we can argue we should give JCR money, only one person a year opts out of [that levy], why give money from the JCR to an event we won’t give money collected for entertainment purposes? I’ve always tried to stress this year, myth that Balliol
JCR is rolling around in money, for an institution for its size that has existed as long as it has it’s a complete fallacy. We’ve existed for around about 50/60 years. That averages out about £500 profit per term. This gives 10 years of average profit to a party that’s happening in one year. It possibly benefits down the line. We shouldn’t give up such a large proportion of our savings to this one year. The ball should grow within its own limited constraints. It will grow slower but if it’s run well it will grow slowly. Spending such a vast amount that we’ve never done before on this one year is very irresponsible of us.
SF: It’s true, it’s more than one year’s profit. I would contest that we only make £500 [per year.]
We’ve expanded properly — inflation — you can’t compare figures from 60 years ago. Irrelevant.
Harbouring up a large amount of money for a large period of time. We’re not a pension fund.
Everyone who is in their 3rd/4th year has been paying into it for a very long time. If motions that are voted down that come up every five years, there will be students in 20 years time with £200k in the account, what will they do with it? We’re investing £20k in the stock market. We don’t need this money. It could go down 25% between now and the ball, and we’ve thrown away £5k.
This will free up some money. It’ll make a big difference to the event. We’re not squirrels saving for winter. What else will the money go on?
SS: Is it true that the £20k we’re investing are still emergency funds? We’ve got £20k invested in the stock market — we still need to be able to access that.
SF: Yeah you can still access it. Investing in the stock market is a gamble. It’s not much different to a roulette wheel. If we think that £20k of our money — you lose money by taking money out of it. £20k is so unlikely to be needed, we can invest it in stock exchange, so why not give £5k of that and still have £15k in the stock exchange? £55k is enough. £60k is enough to cover any eventuality. [We’re] not aksing for half of it. It will make a real difference to us and to future years.
Throwing a good event this year is difference between a ball every year and there never being one again. I will do my utmost to make sure we have a good event whatever our budget. We’ve already got to pay money out; we have to use a particular marquee company who aren’t the cheapest. We are being constrained.
Scott Carless (SC): I enjoy a knees up but the idea of spending £5k on ball given the circumstances with education and that Balliol has just made the news — it’s an improper use of our funds. Given the idea that the ball is fun, it’s great, but it’s frivolous. If JCR is seen to be spending £5k on a ball when there’s some very serious considerations coming in via funding, it will put us in a negative light. We need to consider what people are going to think.
SM: I think that this is too early to ask for £5k. Firstly, the ball committee doesn’t know how much money it will have to run the ball.
SF: We have a very good idea.
SM: You need to wait to see how many tickets you sell, look for sponsorship before you get this extra money. Work out what you can do with the first budget, come to us and tell us what the difference will be. Wrong stage.
CG: Money we have in the stock market could go down — it could and we have 5k less. If we’ve given
£5k to this, we have £10k less. We’ve decided to gamble the money because we don’t need it immediately, but we have some buffer. If the bar loses money three terms in a row, we use up the buffer and the stock market money swaps in. Need that there in case that happens. The stock market thing was sold as a really low risk investment. It’s not going to go down so it’s like a good savings account. It’s wrong to say that we assume we can lose a ball and it won’t matter. You said it isn’t like taking half — it’s taking a quarter of it.
Tom Rowley (TR): I just don’t think we should be taking this decision. THis is adding £10/head to
8 the cost of the ball. Making everyone pay for it not just on the ticket price. I might be happy paying the extra 10 — we shouldn’t be making that decision on some people who decided not to come to the ball or people contributing to general funds.
SF: We frequently take financial decisions involving, say, £1k, that will benefit less than 100 people in the JCR. £1000 on laser this evening, that will benefit a small number of people. 90% of people don’t go to bops. With people who don’t benefit from this is a very small proportion of the JCR.
Only 35 people have chosen to opt out. Welfare week is a small number of people who will go. Almost everyone in the JCR is going to go. 10% people it’s a problem but most people do. There’s no [other] way of spending JCR money in a way that will [benefit so many]. Bar renovation would benefit fewer people — not 360 will go. I don’t recognise the names of people who have opted out.
HMc: £5k is a lot of money. We’re not swimming in money. We are going to think of better uses for this. Look at the state of this place. The JCR is not particularly rich and we want to do up the
JCR pretty soon; I’m sick of sitting in vomit-stained chairs. It will benefit us for a much longer time and it’ll cost less money rather than a great night or really great night one night.
SF: If people had come with motions to suggest how we spend the money but in four years, as treasurer for almost year of that, I’ve seen the JCR accounts swell with money. I think this would be a nice thing to do with it. No-one will raise an issue for a long long time. In 10 years time they will spend the money and none of us will benefit.
Move to vote
GL takes the chair so AT can oppose the MTV
SS: I think that we’re going to know whether we think we should spend £5k on making ball £5k better or we shouldn’t spend that money. Everyone wil have made up their mind by now.
AT: We’re discussing giving away a quarter of our savings. It’s a very very big deal. We’ve heard fairly broad arguments for and against but we should keep discussing it as it’s an enormous decision.
Move to vote fails
AT takes the chair
Alice Lighton (AL): Greig said a long time ago now that the JCR made £500 profit on average —
JCR does not exist to make a profit. We shouldn’t be so tight fisted and not give ourselves a good party. I’ve been paying a huge levy. Seems fair we should spend some of that and not just keep it for future generations to lose.
SS: Only 30 have opted out has shown that people in Balliol don’t really care how good the ball is, they just want to go to a Ball. I don’t think balls are good values for money, all I do is get ridiculously pissed and go to bed at 11:30. They’ll happily pay to keep that going even if the balls aren’t actually that great. Not pass money to be sick on fairground rides, quite happy being sick on one fairground ride.
GL: Some more mythbusting, another mission. Reason we put our money into savings is so that we can generate more money to spend on services [for] students without charging students more. I doubled welfare budgets, now spending £1400/1500/year on welfare. I’d love for that to be doubled [again].
Love for womens’ officers to do four/five events per term. Idea of money being locked under the bar never to be used — complete fallacy. Are using it by having it high interest account.
Alice been paying levies for four years — paying levies for JCR, pantry, bar. She’s basically saying we should spend £5k of an institution that has existed for hundreds of years, sixth of its savings,
£30k in liquid cash, £60k in assets — spends sixth of that on a party for three years out of these hundred years that it’s existed.
HO: I can see both sides. Not fair ball committee wasn’t sure of budget and now has £833 deficit. Also recognise that Ball has to be good this year. Why not pass £833 for this year and give you a bit more to play with?
9
SF: Still have to use an expensive marquee compnay. Keep it cheaper to attract more interest. In response to Simon, Simon is our ideal ball client. If that’s what the JCR wants, I will put up a tent, fill it with vodka and let you all get plastered by 11 o’clock. But if I do that I won’t be too popiular on 1st May. Bottle of vodka is a tenner, more drunk than you will at the ball so an irrelevent argument. With regard to Greig, I don’t think that this is screwing over students for years and years to come. I can’t remember how much profit the JCR made in last three years, but it’s more than £5k, I almost guarantee it. If you look at past 10 years. No-one has given me an example of the money would otherwise be spent. Best we can come up with is screwing over future students. All we’re doing is putting money aside for a rainy day that is never going to come.
Trying to re-emphasise that point. It would be nice to make use of some of the money.
SMW: Greig said at the beginning — most of this money isn’t just sat there. A buffer in case it turns out I’m completely useless and lose £5k/term in the bar. Will be screwing us over if it turns out
I’m useless or successor or foodies or someone. Nice to have buffer. I feel more secure with as big a buffer as possible.
MH: Everyone making point 90% of people go to Ball. It’s not just Balliol. Would like as many people from outside Balliol if possible, Seb says.
SF: Marketing as JCR or MCR, unfortuantely MCR don’t pay.
MH: Will be guests of Balliol members. People who opted out, everyone who’s paid into accounts not just paying for people to go, paying for people who aren’t even in the JCR to come to the ball.
CG: “This year has to be amazing” point — last year the ball failed. This year we’re still having a ball. We’re not trying to sell to outside. Lower number of tickets so spending lower amount of money. Worst case scenario is that ball is rubbish and no-one from outside college comes in. Not marketing outside of college this year and still good.
Jack Devlin (JD): Money will keep building up and building up, Seb said. For such a large turnover,
£30k in savings, not much are savings, not a lot. If we don’t do anything, are we going to keep charging people too much money and building up savings? If that really was happening, last year we passed extra money as a recovery levy. We need to keep reviewing that. If we’re genuinely building up, we reduce amount we levy. £30k doesn’t seem like a lot to have in reserves then reduce amount in levies.
Move to vote
SF: I understand we have £20k in current account and £20k in stocks.
AT: £30k that we spend every term. We get battels in. £10k in fixed rate bonds. We can feasibly spend on chairs etc. Last £20k is for security. £7k on VAT voluntary rebate. If we have to pay legal fees registering as a charity, that’s where that money comes from. If this money goes down to zero like terms that have lost £6k. College have to bail us out and they take over the bar.
SPW: [In prop. of MTV] Almost every speech has referred back to old stuff.
IT: I think that it looks like this motion is going to fail which will make Seb sad. So do an amendment to reduce amount of money. Reduce amount of money. Do that quickly. The move to vote passes
SF: We’re being screwed over by last year’s ball comm. This would help us get out of it. Better event.
I don’t think anyone in the JCR will ever ever notice that we’ve spent the money.
GL: This motion will screw over the JCR. Removes sixth of liquid savings. Just need to lose £2k per term for next four terms and then suddenly we have £10k savings left and it’s very difficult. We may need this. Not use money to give current people in Balliol good old bloody piss up. Less money when foodies and everybody fuck everything up.
The motion fails
Result: Failed
Motion: LASERs, smoke machines and strobe lights, oh my by Simon Stewart, Stephanie Melvin & Rhiannon Garth Jones
The JCR notes
1. How awesome lasers, smoke machines, disco balls, L.E.D lighting and enormous subwoofers are.
This JCR believes
That bops would be infinitely improved by having one or more of the amazing things in Notes 1.
This JCR resolves
1. To release up to £350 from the Entz budget to make bops more awesome by purchasing one or more of the amazing things above.
Minutes: SS: How much money left in entz now?
Enough for this motion to pass
SS: Started off on basis we had a lot, we now have less, still have a lot. . . want money to buy stuff and make bops more fun.
SF: We just failed to pass £5k for a Ball, this is a grand for a fucking laser.
MD: Strobe lights plus epilepsy, good idea?
AT: Yes.
Ben Fleet (BF): We used to have a disco ball? What happened?
Will Smith (WS): One of the freshers broke it.
BF: So having a very expensive laser. . . ?
SS: We will put disco ball back, and add laser and shoot it at disco ball.
Will Smith (WS): Do you have a quote?
SS: Can get lasers for £300 or £800 depending on remote control. We’re wokring on how much money people want to spend on hilarious stuff. Send round packages for a vote.
JD: We used to have a smoke machine. then. . . Will Sharpe’s time.
What happened?
We seem to buy expensive stuff and
BF: It got smashed.
AT: Rented. I’m not sure. Open up entz cupboard and all this stuff will fall out.
MH: Already been mentioned a couple of times, as outgoing SWD, don’t get a strobe light. Two aims of bop is to include as many people as possible and not kill people.
MD: This is a genuine question. Smoke machines plus asthma. Genuine question.
DB: As an asthma suffered, depends how severe asthma is and prevailing tempratures and all sorts of other things.
SD: Can we just lock it in entz cupboard and use it as bops? SS: Yes.
HO: I thought if you got a laser you go blind?
SS: Different kind of lasers. Some lasers surgically edit eyes.
HO: I had one on a pen and got told off for shining in brother’s eyes.
CG: I saw on James Bond once there was a laser. How much in entz?
GL: £3255.55∼
SC: Less lights — get off your face and get off with the wrong people. [That’s the purpose of bops.]
AT: Amazing[ly] specific points.
MD: Do you not believe that you can make bops really fun without all this technology? Back to basics.
We used to be able to do this very well in my day.
SS: Yeah but also.
AT: Sounds like debate but whether people like it or not we’re moving into debate.
The amendment from RGJ is considered:
11
• Adds Believes 1: That bops would be infinitely improved by having one or more of the amazing things in Notes 1.
• Amends Resolves 1: To release up to £1000 from the Entz budget to make bops more awesome by purchasing one or more of the amazing things above.
SS accepts the amendment as friendly
RGJ: Makes it really obvious. Could buy £1k worth of drugs to make bops more awesome. No objections to accepting as friendly.
The amendment from MH is considered:
• Removes “strobe lights.”
There are no objections to the amendment being taken as friendly
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Amends the amount in Resolves 1 to £350. GL: We’ve just had a lot of discussion on how we spend money on events. I think that £1k — had debate with PS3. Someone wanted large amount of money without specifying how it is spend.
Motion wants to spend a lot of money, not indication on how much spend where. Very very big.
Spend 1/3rd of entz budget on bops. That’s what it’s there for but we just passed £5k out of it that we won’t get back for three years. Spend £20 on disco ball, £20 on laser, other £50 on ket and have a great time.
WS: Simon mentioned quote for laser about £600.
SS: Some are amazing. Loads different.
WS: Still get a laser for £350?
RGJ: One for £125 that has loads of lights. Get that and a bigger disco ball or something and that would be great.
PA: I would like an explanation of why lasers are awesome.
SS: Not relevant to amendment.
AT: Debate.
IT: I like idea of laser that can write hilarious messages?
SS: £800.
IT: Clearly worth it.
SS: It does say “happy party”.
Move to vote
AT: No opposition [heard] yet.
CG: You got me confused with your terrible charging.
SMW: We’re all really frustrated.
Oooo
IT: Opposition to amendment. I think it would be better to have more fun stuff than just a couple of fun things. Let’s pass more money.
Move to vote
GL: We’ve heard we can get a laser for £125, which Rhiannon says is amazing. £225 to spend on other things. We don’t need £1k, £350 more cost efficient.
12
SS: If you gave us up to £1k, we’d invest it in the best value for lasers laser. Don’t want to be really tried down to a budget laser in case it’s shit. Spend as much as we can for laser.
The amendment passes
AT: Motion as a whole.
MD: I think it’s a bit silly. We should remove a lot of the stuff that’s up there, smoke machines as well.
I no longer oppose this motion it is £350.
GL and AT simultaneously call “move to vote”
AT: MTV! Oh — I’ve heard a MTV!
SS: We want a laser.
DB: Not convinced that lasers are awesome. In this meeting we have cited that 90% [of people don’t] go to bops. Lies damn lies and statistics. £350 on a laser seems a bit opulent.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Domus Charge by Ali Travis
This JCR notes
1. The annual deficit of £2.5 million with which College currently operates, and has done so for the past ten years.
2. Prudent withdrawal from the endowment (i.e. 4% of the three year average value of the endowment) currently, along with annual giving, just covers this deficit.
3. The ‘critical spend’ projects, including electrical testing an re-wiring of Staircase 20, improved fire alarm systems for Holywell Manor and the re-flooring of Hall to meet hygiene and safety requirements, are currently unaffordable without withdrawing further from the endowment (and seriously damaging income, and consequently the long-term financial sustainability of the College).
6
4. Balliol has one of the largest Fellowships in Oxford, with a comparatively low Endowment relative to Colleges of similar Academic resources.
5. College initiated a Wage Freeze, which took effect last year, extending from the Master to the scouts, which saved approximately £100,000 per year.
6. The efforts of the Domestic Bursar to reduce expenditure in College, including reducing the Cater- ing Deficit by £100,000 per year.
7. The efforts of the Academic Committee to reduce academic expenditure, such as the decision not to replace two librarians who retired last year (leaving only two).
8. The, so far successful, efforts of the Domestic Bursar to increase income through Conferencing.
9. The successful efforts of College to increase income through Annual Giving and Visiting Students.
10. The intention to increase Balliols Hardship & Bursary fund, which remains the largest in Oxford, having grown 283% over the past 10 years.
11. That College intend to introduce a charge of £300 per year, the Domus Charge, to students who matriculate in 2011 onwards.
12. This charge will affect both Undergraduates & Graduates, both those living in, and living out.
This JCR further notes
13. That £300 represents as much as 30% of a students available income.
14. That an increase in rents + charges of over £263 would make Balliol the most expensive College
(overtaking Brasenose).
15. The income currently received from room rents and expenditure in Hall makes up for Residential costs (those associated with domestic utilities, domestic wages, Hall etc.) 16. That annual losses are principally Academic (which is subsidised by income from the Endowment
& Annual Giving), and those associated with Premises (works department, gardens and critical spending).
17. Under Section 24 of the 2004 Education Act, College are currently allowed to charge students for
‘Board & Lodging’.
18. Current students will not be subjected to the charge, as they applied to Balliol under the premise that the Domus charge would not be present.
19. Higher education funding will very likely change dramatically and irreversibly in 2012, as the fee cap is raised from £7,250 (including input from the Government) to £9,000 per year.
20. The efforts made in 2009 to avoid the introduction of a ‘College Fee’, when faced with Colleges intention to reduce the subsidy for each student including the extension of the Kitchen Amenities
Charge to those living out, and elimination of the 20% discount on Bod Card purchases in Hall.
This JCR believes
1. College’s financial position is severe, and worsening — and effort should be made to protect the long term financial sustainability of Balliol.
In addition, this JCR believes
2. That a large, upfront fee (representing up to 30% of an undergraduates available money after rent) is far more dissuasive to a candidate considering applying than (as advocated in the Browne
Review) an income assessed charge after graduation, particularly when this charge will make Balliol the most expensive College by some distance.
3. The Domus charge is very regressive, as it does not distinguish between use of services, or of the financial status of students.
7
4. That the introduction of a Domus Charge would therefore have severe consequences for both Access and Admissions.
5. Candidates for 2011 admission (who by now have selected, and committed to a college) have no prior knowledge of the charge, and therefore (for exactly the same reasons College are not considering introducing this charge to current students) should not have to pay the charge.
6. That by October 2012, only one year’s worth of candidates will be paying the Domus charge
(amounting to no more than a total of £100k).
7. That Higher Education funding will change dramatically and irreversibly in 2012, leading to an increase in the academic income from students (the best estimates at this stage suggesting that income from students will increase by around £1,000 per year after some has been distributed around the University).
8. That this charge will therefore impose an unfair levy on the successful 2011 candidates, for the sake of £100,000, after which the financial income of College will change dramatically, and likely for the better.
9. That a Domus charge should therefore not be implemented in 2011.
In addition, this JCR believes
10. That a charge will essentially be used to subsidise ‘Premises’, i.e. critical spend (urgent capital expenditure on Hall flooring, critical electrical works and updating fire alarm systems), rather than
Residence or Academic funding.
11. That should the subsidy of ‘Premises’ be shown to be exempt from the definition of ‘Board &
Lodgings’ (i.e. the two categories that College can legally charge for), this charge will be legally challengeable.
12. That the JCR should appeal against the implementation of the charge should it be shown to be legally contentious.
In addition, this JCR believes
13. That although College have demonstrated successful efforts to increase efficiency and have intro- duced cuts to Academic staff, the Domus Charge is being introduced on the premise that students should support the Domestic side in its current form.
14. That students would rather accept a decrease to the quality of domestic service (reduced scout hours, decrease in Hall etc.) than lose such a significant portion of available income. 15. That should a charge with the characteristics of the ‘Domus charge’ be introduced, it should be renamed a ‘Premises Charge’ for clarity; the clear legal justification of such a charge should be made unambiguously clear by College.
16. That the concessions made to avoid a charge last year that have proved to be unfair and inconvenient, and should be withdrawn should a charge be implemented.
This JCR resolves
1. To mandate the JCR President to campaign the items in Believes 1–16 at Executive Committee in 8th week, and College Meeting in 9th week.
2. To add Believes 1–16 to Standing Policy.
3. To investigate the legality of the Domus Charge with reference to the Education Act 2004 paragraph
24.
4. To Mandate the President to advocate voluntary alternatives to this charge (such as a reduction in the Hall subsidy)
5. To encourage those interview helpers and critical helpers over the Christmas Vacation to refuse to help if College do not concede the point made in Believes 9.
6. Adds to Standing Policy “This JCR supports any student matriculating in
2011 who refuses to pay the additional fee called the “Domus Charge.”
7. To also mandate the President to campaign against replacing or substantially supplementing the Domus charge with increased rent, should either be suggested.
8. To mandate the President to create a document outlining and explaining the
JCR’s position on the domus charge in a persuasive manner, to be distributed to all fellows.
Minutes: SS takes the chair
AT raises a procedural motion to allow David Barclay, OUSU President, to speak at the meeting
(see SOs 3.6.3(iv)). There are no objections and so David may speak
AT: You all got the Master’s e-mail. College it currently in a very severe financial situation and it’s only getting worse. I’ve quoted the statistics quite a few times but I’ll go through [them] quickly now. Annual deficit of £2.5m. Endowment went down £11.5m 2007/8. Interest just cover this.
£3.1m waiting to be spend in critical expenditure. External audit says we have to spend it quickly.
Reflooring Hall, £750k, to meet hygeine requirements. 2 star H&S rated thing. Now plastic all over the floor. Temporary measure. College need to spend £3.1m soon — if they don’t it’ll get more and more expensive. Currently income just meeting expenditure. Amendment to update some details. Proposal that every student be charged £300/year. This measure is one of quite a few to get us up to a good financial position. Wage freeze from scouts to the master. Domestic
Bursar reduced expenditure in Hall. Hall subsidy £100k less than it used to be [through] efficiency savings and laying people off. Academic comm. — only two librarians instead of four. [I’d like to] stress — College is doing a lot of stuff. In a very tight poition, not something random that’s been thrust upon us. However, I oppose this enormously because there are a number of problems with it.
Two reasons why College should not introduce a charge at all. First of which — access & admissions.
Makes us the most expensive college in Oxford. £263 would do that. £300 will do that by no short distance. Balliol don’t provide fantastic domestic service — only 2 years living in, no kitchenettes.
Effect on admissions drastic. Only college that charges for premise, maintenance — enormous for potential applicants. When you consider that this charge is only raising £230k a year to fill £3m gap, when inherently large structural problems financially this doesn’t seem sensible at all. 20% of students income, when they need to ask, can we afford: scouts, to charge people less in Hall than it costs to have money, afford to have as many tutors per student and subjects. Answer is that they haven’t properly reviewed this. Charge like this, regressive charge, enormous impact on welfare of students. Access, don’t need me to tell you that if 20% available income taken away, people inhibited from coming here, that’s obvious. Huge price to pay for a small plaster to cover a very big problem.
Second one is legality. Under 1994 Education Act, can only charge students for board and lodging.
Income from residence just over £2.5m. Expenditure £2.5m. Make £50k profit on residence. Money you pay in rent makes up for electricity, scouts, wages of domestic bursar, price of food in
13
Hall. Rent money is making a profit for college in housing students. If we look at academic side,
£3m expenditure and £2.5m income. This is made up throuh annual giving. Hardship funding goes to academic side. Money donate money straight to academic side. Endowment income goes straight to academic side. Illegal for College to charge money that would go to academic side — illegal for Oxford to be more expensive than bristol; cannot charge for tutorials. If you look at where is College making other losses, it’s premises. Works department, fire alarms, floor in hall, masonry, roofs. Castle in middle of Oxford, very expensive. Doesn’t fit with definition of board and lodging — [we’re waiting to] hear back from NUS and HEFKEY — illegal. [Should] never come into effect.
Now why [it should] not come in for next year. 2011 entrants, for same reason charge isn’t being charged to current students, unless people in this room want to do a PhD [sic] not in medicine — when we chose Balliol we chose it on its merits, we knew the cost and how much we’re getting and it’s then not fair to lump us with this charge. Students interviewed in a week or so, they’ve not had notification of charge at all. College proposing they do face this charge. Incredibly unfair. Same reasons they’re not doing it to us. Very very strong argument against it happening this year. In my motion I’ve added a recommendation that interview helpers don’t help if this point isn’t conceded.
Talking to Master and Finance Bursar, there isn’t an argument against this. Appropriate response is that interview helpers will refuse to help. A lot of people helping have a problem doing that.
Another reason not do it this year is that HE funding is changing in 2012. Fee cap raised to £9k.
College get around £7500k from academic income. Half students half gvmt. Raised to £9k. £1000 increase per head. Why the hell we talk about extra £300 when this is happening in 2012? If they brought in charge next year, only one year’s worth will pay the charge. Out of £230k, they’ll see a third of that. £60k is price against delyaing it, which doesn’t seem right. Final one — lack of notice. Not due process. Not unlimited access to accounts. Not comntemplate alternatives reasonably. So not accept it this year. I’ve given breakdown of arguments in motion but not properly explained it here.
HMc: This is written down but clarification — we don’t know it’s £300, could well be more than that.
AT: Amendment will change everything that says £300 to £300–500. £300 is final figure. It’s going to be £500.
JD: How much hall subsidy?
AT: Not sure. Haven’t been told.
CG: Overall there is none. They make up money from conferences in hall what they lose from us.
AT: Amount pay for meal in hall covers cost of food and a little bit more. Hall as an institution loses money and I’m not sure how much. I have asked and haven’t been told.
NiS: Just to clarify about interview period. They’re showing people how great Balliol is, knowing that person has to pay charge, but interviewee doesn’t know anything about it — that’s what we’re saying is unfair? Clarify about interview helpers. Awkward position. Other person might be paying and not allowed to say.
SMW: Point is not saying something. Point is that it seems very disingenuous to be ambassadors of college that is sending them an acceptance letter saying pay £300 or don’t come to Oxford. Not an option to go somewhere else that won’t charge them this.
Max Deacon (MxD): Have College said how they think this will affect various bursaries and hardship stuff that goes on at the moment?
AT: Yes they have. Balliol has best hardship provision out of Oxford Colleges. £3/4 million, not all from alumni. Grown by 300% over 10yrs. If you make everybody pay £300, people at bottom will have £300 to pay who don’t get help, they anticipate 25% of money raise from this charge will go straight back into hardship.
SM: Please explain Believes 16.
14
SS reads Believes 16
AT: This refers to last year. In 2009, Iain was at a financial strategy day. Faced with ultimatum that students would have to cough up around £50k as part of broad thing — need money from fellows, staff, students. In response to that, students made a series of compromises to avoid college charge.
E.g. kitchen amenities extended to people living out. Also 20% discount on bod cards gone. If a year later we have to pay a college charge, it makes sense that these annoying unfair irritating charges should be taken away. I have another amendment coming which changes Believes 16 to say that some concessions — some quite sensible. Tweak it slightly.
Alex Walker (AW): Notes 5, what does wage freeze entail? Affect incentive of workers to keep working for Balliol?
AT: Wages of Master, Scouts — rise per year. Wage freeze cut them off so they didn’t increase that year. Effective wage cut. Scouts meant paying less. Fellows 1–2–3% of annual wage percent back to college and all of them did. That was harsh. No organisation wants to do that. College thing it’s bad — not sustainable. Really don’t want to do it again. Would cause severe problems if they did it again.
MH: Should College refuse to back out on extended thing to interviewees, people refuse to help at interviews, what happens to interviewees? System or just told to find their own way around?
Backup plan?
AT: Fair point. Not sure what they do. Not been discussed with College.
HMc: What information have College provided about what they have done to deal with this so far? Is the information sufficient to convince you that this really is the last resort?
AT: I have information on what they’ve been doing, wage freezes etc. and what they think they can do further. There hasn’t been much elaboration on why they think they can’t reduce, say, domestic expenditure. Not much analysis. No breakdown of what they can do and what they can’t. Reason behind that: initiative initiated by finance bursar under premise that College should continue to function as it is. We’re refuting that assumption. College need to go back and rethink about what they can do. Just charge £300 and back where we are is something that students just don’t accept.
Fact that we don’t have enough informatoin so far is a problem.
GL: I sat on most of meetings with Ali before this was announced publicly, and we were given nothing other than what you can get from Google. Completely unclear and not helpful at all in my opinion.
Not given accounts, only what they show to everyone.
JD: College gives money directly to JCR? How much?
AT: About £35k per term.
JD: About £100k per year otherwise JCR levies much higher.
GL: Feeds down through university as provision for student common room.
MxD: Some of money raised in telephone campaign last year went to JCR?
AT: Yes. Annual fund does go partially to JCR. Money would be taken from endowment anyway.
Shreya Sinha (SSi): How is this different to the College fee? Gvmt pays if we get student loan.
GL: Years and years and years ago when loads of new unis started up, gvmt had to figure out how to give Oxford and Cambridge more money without being seen to favour Oxford and Cambridge.
Old building allowances, gave millions. Recently, in last 20 years, they [thought they] should stop conning the tax payer. As a compensation, all colleges get a college fee. That’s been reduced dramatically. Nowhere near covering extra costs. Supposed to cover academic expenditure.
NiS: Do College have a rough idea how much moneyu will come directly out of hardship money from students? Fair to think of this money just been shifted from hardship to premise charges? Say I was applying next year, what would happen College would give me bursary and take it straight back as premise charges. Fair to see charge as way of College shifting money?
15
AT: As I said before, College anticipate giving 25% back into hardship. If we charge everyone £300 we get £230k per year. Quarter of people can’t afford to pay that at all, only raise £170k.
NiS: Bottom end self-sustaining.
AT: Raise less, not dodgy.
Anna Comboni (ACo): You say in Notes 9, College’s increase income from visiting students — how many do we have? I haven’t met any, other Colleges seem to have loads. Just get more?
AT: They’re trying to. They pay £20–30k. Even if we get 5 it’s a huge amount of money. They’re actively looking to do that. They’re trying to get people over from the US. WS: If last year the money needed to pay for college disguised as kitchen amenities etc., this year they go all out and say pay this as undisguised sum when this will get negative publicity from whole country that we’re charging students outright, they’re being honest but why change of decision/policy from kitchen amenities to this? Still taking money from students but asking for it in a differnet way.
AT: Not asking for this on rent because they realise they make a profit on the domestic side. Not justifiable. They think this is the most fair way of doing it. I sort of agree with Ian’s amendment.
More representative of where money is gong if block charge rather than increase.
WS: Helps legality?
AT: Not sure. Done it for sake of fairness they say.
Arabella Currie (ArC): Can JCR just give money to students being used for Balls and stuff?
AT: Students giving money to College, opt-in — talked about this year — long term negative effect on development. As for JCR giving money, our endowment is £20k, there’s is £70m. If we give all our savings to them we ease a tenth of one years worth of what they want and cripple an orgnanisation that students get a lot out of. Haven’t looked into it but not realistic alternative.
ArC: JCR giving money to students to pay battels.
SS: JCR starts paying bursaries?
AT: We just don’t have enough money. We could refund 60 of these charges once.
RGJ: Am I right in saying that this charge only applies to people who matriculate in 2011? First year this will only be paid by 200 people. Second year 400. Doesn’t make them that much money. Then
Browne review comes in.
AT: Perfect point, I agree.
Tom Heaton (TH): Have they said who pays it, can people afford it?
AT: No but that doesn’t mean they’re ignoring issue. Probably decide it later. No plans to rehaul hardship and bursaries other than that baseline bursary increase by £300. In College’s interests to make sure everyone can pay. Make change way hardship stands. At moment you have to apply for everything. Way to extend it is by puting things in people’s pidges. College wouldn’t sacrifice aim of providing harsdhip to everyone who wants and needs it.
GL: Isn’t a way of moviung hardship money — College puts loads of money in it. Hardship isn’t a locked fund, active choice on College’s part. Not going to hand out aid to everybody. Quite clear they want at least 70% of this to come from students and not financial aid. If they are taking more than 30% of charge, might as well not divert 40% from general funds to financial aid.
SM: Have you mentioned to College problems of people interviewing at the moment? What was their initial response?
AT: I don’t want to cause enormous difficulties for College, I mentioned it, their answer was “well situation is quite urgent. Unfair but necessary”. That was the Master. I think that encouraging people not to help is a suitable response to this. Such an important issue. So unfair. Make it as uncomfortable for College to do that as posisble.
16
Jack Moreton-Burt (JMB): Is College on its own? Every College hit by crisis. University level accommodation? Why come to us first?
AT: We have a very very large fellowship and a comparatively small endowment. Inherently loss making.
Two colleges don’t make a loss year on year — Keble and Catz. All other colleges make a loss.
Balliol makes as much of a loss as New or Merton except they have an endowment at leat twice the size. Problem not unique to Balliol but exacerbated. First College to consider charge like this.
May not be the last, but one of the poorest Colleges.
CG: PoI: Not first to do this. First JCR to tell the College to fuck off.
AT: Need to see how true. Tenth college to have a charge not attributed to rent in place. Some have been in place for at least 5 years. I don’t know how many colleges have something that isn’t kitchen amenities. Unusual going to premises. National newspapers have been picking up on that.
CG: Some colleges have living out charges.
AT: Can’t comment cos I can’t see how they justify that.
RGJ: PoI: Brasenose have something like £648. JCR kicks off every single year. College go it’s necesasry so fuck off. Everyone accepts situation.
MxD: Have you requested financial data?
AT: I have bottomline figures but details about how much they spend on domestic wages etc. was hidden. Everything not public has not been provided.
MxD: Why are they being uncooperative?
AT: I can guess. They’re worried that if they provided a complete breakdown it’d be circulated imme- diately.
GL: Official line is [that it’s] commercially sensitive.
Brook Hewitt (BH): Interest rates, lost a lot of money. If interest rates go up does that solve it?
AT: College look at three year average of how much in endowment then they take 4% of what that average is. Assumption that size of endowment will increase 4% above interest. College withdraw
4% per year. That’s sutainable forever if you invest it wisely. They can rely on £2.5m per year. If interest goes up it gets more complicated.
BH: Short term problem?
AT: I’d argue not. 2007/8, down by £11.5m. Our income dropped. We have an inherently loss making system though — fellowship. Short term bandage.
IT: Have College discussed implementing American system. When people leave they pay £100/year.
Implementing charge on alumni rather than undergrads.
AT: Intresting point. Would seem more fair. Bigger barrier to access to pay while undergrad, but who will go to college that taxes you after you leave. College won’t initiate that.
IT: Have to get whole of Oxford to do it.
AT: Not on [the] cards.
CG: Can’t just charge people. Charge membership fee to be part of membership club (Harvard) — pay them x amount and go to dinners. That’s how it works.
AT: In Cambridge, they charge £400 per graduation. Get round legal problems. In education act you can charge for graduation. Not related but interesting.
MH: Finances — £2.5m deficit every year — does that include alumni contributions? From what I understand that makes up a large amount of Oxford’s funding?
AT: It does, yes. Fundraising. Amount included. Increasing rapidly; they’re doing very well.
MH: They have numerous peoplre giving like £10m.
17
AT: THey have about £25m in pledges when people die but they’re not dying.
IT: Kill ’em?
AT: Fundraisers are inherently optimistic. A few people who could give £10m, it’s not imminent. Not part of a sustainable long term financial strategy.
Steven Boyd (SBo): Instead of going to alumni, go to alumni for small donations to cover what they’ll charge students?
AT: Anyone who’s been on telephone campaign can answer this. They use everything at their disposal.
Every student pay £300 — great argument to get money. They’ll use every trick in the book.
They’re trying their hardest in development office.
ACo: Mass JCR volunteering of phoning up alumni?
AT: They plan to extend telephone campaign to every year.
MxD: Main expense is not wages it’s the employing the people who teach students how to do it.
RGJ: PoI: You said Keble doesn’t make a loss — they have at least three standards subjects they don’t provide. That’s partially why they’re so good. Point worth making that one of the only colleges that doesn’t make a loss.
AT: Keble and Catz are fully-fledged conference centres. Balliol very late entering conference game.
New contract this year but late into game. Keble gets millions a year, so they’re in the black.
Max Goplerud (MG): What will College do if tuition fees don’t go up enough?
Tom Rowley (TR): Key point we’re not covering — Balliol don’t levy tuition fees. Comes through university and then redistributed through a very complicated funding formula, weights dependent on endowment, supposed to be progressive. Won’t just affect Balliol, however it works out.
AT: Master said “if income from gvmt drops off a cliff as it has done, if it disappears and tuition fee cap doesn’t [rise], entire HE system in crisis.”
CG: How is draft coming along?
AT: Had a fun weekend, done most of it, MCR done too. Deadline tomorrow.
TH: Suppose we pass this and they implement charge, got a plan of action?
AT: Strong arguments against doing it this year and the thing we can threaten is interview helpers. If
College ignore our arguments and our requests rather than weedling around them, I dunno.
SMW: On admissions front, through lack of funding or foresight, from talking to other admissions offi- cers, we’re the only college where students entirely run open day process. Bruce [only] photocopies
— literally. Organises tutors, but front of hour entirely done by student volunteers. Aren’t paid anything beyond four meals and two nights accommodation, not even travel costs. Same for inter- views. Most people there through own good will. Entire Balliol admissions system based around students good will. They’re very aware of that. When arguing about alternative prospectus, I barely hinted that it wouldn’t be great if charge us more in terms of good will, very quickly on defensive and very very apologetic. They’re very aware they’re in a weak position. Have allowed
College to cut money down. Can pay four people and pray that we help. We have such strong bargaining power. They understand that’s one of their major weaknesses.
SS: Would like to move into debate, got quite a lot of amendments.
The amendment from AT is immediately taken as friendly:
• Changes all references to a £300–500 range to £300.
AT: £300 is actually the figure [College want to charge].
The amendment from AT is immediately taken as friendly:
• Amends Believes 16 “Concessions made last year that have proved . . . ”
18
The amendment from GL is considered:
• Amends Believes 15: “... the clear legal justification of such a charge should be made unam- biguously clear by College.”
GL: Recognise very convincing argument why this is illegal. Seems to go up and down. One minute it looks fine and one minute from NUS it looks terrible. Try to put onus on College to show that it is legal. Point specifically as why it is — if not they shouldn’t introduce it.
The amendment is taken as friendly
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Adds to Resolves: Adds to Standing Policy “This JCR supports any student matriculating in
2011 who refuses to pay the additional fee called the “Domus Charge.””
CG: Lots of students in 2011 if fee goes through they won’t want to pay it. We say we support them if they decide they don’t want to pay. Confidence JCR will stand by them and keep arguing with
College. Not pay for them but have solidarity with them.
The amendment is not taken as friendly
MxD: If called Domus Charge, somewhere else should be named premises charge.
AT: Greig’s amendment changed name changing one.
MxD: You said earlier today that it should be called [a] fee instead.
MG: What happens if people refuse? What will college do?
CG: They keep charging you interest and eventually they kick you out. Very very scary prospect. If they make political choice we should support them in that. Doesn’t encourage people to do it.
AL: [Three] years ago £3k up front, we [just] dropped something from standing policy that we support people refusing to pay it. What happaned to them?
TR: Denise collected fees in protest.
AL: Better to do that? People not under some sort of pressure about being kicked out?
CG: That’s how general rent strikes work.
AL: Word it better to that effect.
SS: If JCR supporting students, we say we work out a system.
AT: PoI: Could be decided at a later date. If they ignore our objections we can start talking about that sort of stuff.
JD: Strike all this, whatever happens at this meeting, if things don’t go our way we’ll need another motion. We’ll want other protests. Save for a later GM. SS: Sounds like debate. We just slid into debate.
Ian Jones (IJ): What does support mean?
SS: We back them and do something similar to rent strike [sort of] thing I imagine.
HMc: We should put this in now because it’s another thing that will let College know that this is a longterm plan to oppose this charge and we absolutely oppose anyone matriculating in 2011 having to pay. Not abandon it just because say they’re gonna do it anyway. We shouldn’t be terrified of
College kicking anyone out. If we pass this, support, strong argument that when they applied they weren’t told they were going to have to pay this. Other people have that argument as well, if JCR behind them, not just doing to get kicked out.
MH: I support this going in now. People coming here in a week or so’s time. They could e-mail college but probably interviewees will find out when they come up.
19
DB: Really strongly agree with this. Gives very strong grounds for ordering strike on admissions side.
Clear signal to College that we will not brook charge for specifically 2011 entry.
GL: Intresting things about this, guy from NUS social policy unit said, what happens if you don’t pay?
They can’t kick you out cos it’s not rent. Not kitchen amenities. They either stop you rubbing yourself up against the masonry.
Applause/laughter
GL: Very strong arugmnet that we all write cheque for battels minus £300. College probably couldn’t do anything.
Move to vote
AT: Greig [raises a] very good point. Although they could stop you walking on the grass.
Ooooh
Move to vote
The amendment automatically passes with no opposition
The amendment from IJ is considered:
• Adds to Further Notes: – The President’s comment to the Cherwell that “It would be better to just increase rent over a few years” than to have the Domus charge.
– College rent is currently tied to the Van Noorden index to prevent harsh increases in rent.
– There are 210 people living in College and the Domus charge as suggested by the Master would affect 800 people.
– Replacing the Domus charge (£300–£500) with increased rent would require charging everyone living in College (£1142.86–£1904.77) more per year on average or, if extended to include those in Jowett (there are 89 currently), (£802.68–£1337.80).
– That incoming freshers would all essentially be charged the Domus charge (increased to
£802.68-£1904.77, see above) if it were replaced with increased rent, as they automatically live in college for their first year.
+ The precedent set by the motion which passed a fortnight ago which excluded people who had already based their decisions on an old system as it was acknowledged by the JCR that including them would have been unfair.
+ People have similarly chosen to live in College under the current system (where rents have not been increased to cover the Domus charge).
• Adds to Further Believes:
– If such a charge is imposed it should be shared between many people so as to lessen the impact on individuals
– (£802.68–£1904.77) is too much to increase current rents by.
+ Our decision-making should be consistent.
• Adds Resolves 6: To also mandate the President to campaign against replacing or substantially supplementing the Domus charge with increased rent, should either be suggested.
IJ: Not endorsing charge at all. I wrote this because of comment in first Notes. Idea came up in emergency meeting on Tuesday. Not discussed well enough at all. Really bad way of doing it. Two arguments running through this, lead to same Resolves. [Marked] with pluses, minuses [on the agenda] other argument. Two things aiming at this Resolves. Hoping to convince with just pluses, important enough I have backups just in case. If you disagree with both pluses we can take it in
20 parts. I don’t see justification for moving domus charge onto rent. Especially when it will affect about 4x as many people and therefore cost a quarter of cost as it stands.
CG: Can you explain that again? Actually no don’t I’ll just read my agenda.
IJ: Van Noorden index says we agree rents shouldn’t rise harshly. Got some stats. “£300–500” because we do not know the exact charge yet. That’s the format for all the little brackets. First number if
£300, second number £500. Mimumum and maximum formatting error. Explains min and max.
SS: Idea of this is to add we don’t think add £300 to rent?
IJ: Making sure that Ali can’t act on his comments to the Cherwell basically.
GL: It was Ali Jarvis, it doesn’t matter.
RGJ: 110 rooms in Jowett if you include grads. Sorry for my wrong figures. Think about Dellal and
Holywell.
IJ: We can’t campaign for rent increases on their behalf.
RGJ: Only JCR’s accommodation that we’re talking about.
IJ: Jowett thing, I took some rooms off, shouldn’t throw it off too much.
Connie Loud-McGowan (CLMG): Pointless. Ali not take report to meeting to say put it on rent.
IJ: Just so it doens’t happen.
SS: We’re on SFQs. Anyone here got questions?
Susie Deedigan (SDe): Ali said something to newspaper, does it say anywhere in motion that he’s going to do this?
IJ: In meeting on Tuesday. As a given that it’s a viable alternative that we might go for. Not so much official report but what we might campaign for generally. I’m making sure we can’t campaign for a rent increase. Means nothing if the suggestion doesn’t come up.
SS reads it out
MH: Presumably your comments have been over-simplified. Were you implying increasing rents or increasing all [charges for] services? AT: I am against amendment, I agree with Ian, [but] we shouldn’t add all this stuff to the motion because
I want to provide what was passed at GM in original form and this has calculation elements. I don’t think rent increases appropriate given that it won’t be for rent. I think that, to answer a different question, an amendment with just Resolves 6 would be a good amendment.
IJ: If it comes to that we can take it in parts.
MxD: Rent currently tried to Van Noorden index. In what way? Can they get out of that?
AT: We made an agreement in 2004 to be tied to Van Noorden for three years. Expied but we’re kept doing it but they could change their minds.
MxD: Can they just up the rents?
AT: Yes, presumably.
HMc: If we put first Believes in, does it affect argunent of flat rate or means tested?
IJ: Doesn’t say anything about means testing. It’s fine.
JD: Interests of saving time, not even into proper debate, if people broadly in favour of Resolves 6 can we just vote that through.
AT tables a procedural motion to takes the additions to Notes and Believes separately to the addi- tions to Resolves
There is no opposition to the procedural motion
21
Move to vote
Resolves 6 passes automatically with no objections
Move to vote
AT: I want to present Notes and Believes as they are in the motion that the JCR has passed, quorum has agreed with that. This would clutter it slightly, don’t mean to say arguments wrong. Prefer if not in.
IJ: I don’t care.
Notes and Believes automatically fail with no support The amendment from SM is considered:
• Amends Believes 9: That a domus charge should therefore not be implemented in 2011.
• Adds to Resolves: To mandate the President to create a document outlining and explaining the
JCR’s position on the domus charge in a persuasive manner, to be distributed to all fellows.
• Strikes Resolves 5.
SM: Purpose of amendment is to get rid of part of motion that is about interview striking. Instead saying that we should as a JCR put our positions forward and explain to the fellows and try to win support. Master is already convinced of what he wants to do but fellows less sure. They do want to know what our problems are. Open to considering things that we can bring forward. Students’ perspective. Still have chance to have fellows on side and that’s important. Keep them on board, don’t threaten to strike before we’ve had a full discussion. Just put fellows off. Confrontational and aggressive. Try to bring them round.
AT: I won’t accept it as friendly.
SS: SFQs.
AL: Have you asked any fellows what they think of this?
SM: Only spoken to one. They said they have read master’s e-mail, looks necessary. Master already presented, fellows voted through. Phrase “it wouldn’t have got this far if fellows not behind it.”
As soon as I brought up objections, really interested. Should come forward to fellows and tell them that. We should try to work with them to start with.
TR: If this in addition to the argument that Ali is already going to create to circulate to all fellows at exec? Exec decide whether they want to do this, if they do we go on strike, or opposition to strike. . .
SM: Exec this week?
AT: Yes. On Wednesday. Exec will talk about this and make a recommendation to College meeting
[scheduled for] Monday 9th. JCR and MCR will come to Exec. Paper I’ve been writing.
SM: [Paper will] go to all fellows?
AT: Unclear. I plan to [send it round], if College try to brush under carpet, I will see what will happen. I don’t know.
SS: Exec agenda says “to all fellows” on it.
GL and AT discuss logistics of circulation
NiS: Procedural: hear this in parts. Strikes Resolves 5 a lot more contentious.
AT: Does this take all three in parts?
NiS: Hear Resolves 5 separately.
SS: Add Resolves but keep Resolves 5 as well? Okay, fine. We go on the “adds” first.
SM opposes the procedural motion
22
SM: It makes sense as a package.
The procedural motion passes
SS: Hear “Amends Be lives 9” and adds Resolves together.
HMc: Is Ali allowed to takes parts as friendly?
SS/SPW: No.
HO: Can’t Ali just make document on Monday, send it to us, get us to send to all our fellows? Read it before meeting [of] Exec. Can we do that?
AT: I’m not too sure that this amendment is necessary. I’m going to do all I can. It’s important that people are involved with their fellows. Report thing vague and not in Resolves. Unclear what’s going to happen. If they sing over us on Wednesday then we contact all fellows.
HO: Do it [to] all [of] them. Anticipate college. Give fellows more information before College do?
AT: I guess.
Move to vote
SS: We should take it in three parts.
AT: Maybe just don’t.
SS: Okay fine.
MxD: Procedural to split it into three parts rather than two.
SS: And that’s why Max proposed it [explains]. The procedural passes automatically with no objections
SM’s changes to Believes 9 are considered
SM: Changes this, really small change. When I read original wording, it just seemd pointless. Already being considered. Appears we’re not up to talking to College about it. We just think it should be implemented. Just seemed like a more reaosnable way of putting it. Doesn’t change it that much.
Passes automatically with no objections
SM’s addition to Resolves to create a document is considered
SM: It’s going to happen already if they don’t accept opposition on Wednesday. Put in document of overall strategy of what we’re going to be doing.
AL: If it’s happening already, why do we need to add it to the motion? Motion is something to be presented to fellows and to meeting. Doesn’t add anything to our argument.
SM: Describes what’s going to happen, not changing [anything]. Make sense to have it in there.
MxD: How far does this Resolves affect your flexibility in your dealing with College?
AT: Changed mind, this is a very good idea. Explicit things designed for fellows, explaining reasonable arguments, not knee-jerk reaction.
IT: PoI: Fellows are completely against paying more, they think education should be free.
SS: Debate.
Passes automatically with no objections
SM’s wish to strike Resolves 5 is considered
SM: I’ve argued the point already. We want to win with college. We have leverage to cause problems, but we lose leverage in winning over fellows. We have a chance of doing that at the moment. We’ll lose the bigger issue.
SS: Debate.
23
AL: I’ve only spoken to one tutor, but he said I should protest to gvmt and that direction action is a good thing. Direct action that won’t affect fellows themselves is not a bad thing. Will make
College listen. Will cause a hassle for College. After College have decided they’re going to charge a load of people. I was in Schu the other day. Person thinking about applying to Balliol, saw my jacket. I couldn’t say stupid charge she’ll get. College putting helpers in unfair position, we support them not being nice to them because it’s not a nice place to be.
David Barclay: Having been to many JCR meetings, this is an incredibly well organised, powerful and effective JCR. Flattery will get you anywhere.
Applause
SCR–JCR relationship at stake over this issue. No more important issue than College’s making arbitrary charges. All of the arguments you’ve put forward of carrot aspect — alternatives, fund raising etc., doing more to provide different options, saying you’ll be a productive partner and look at figures — stick aspect, open days, interviews, rent strikes. Really important to responsibly but seriously present both of those options. Carrot and the stick. One way to do that is at Exec, put forward all arguments. Don’t just send Ali an Greig, get students to turn up outside. Literally entire JCR cares about this. Should not be more important. One way to ram it home. About relationship as a whole.
WS: If you’re so serious about preserving welfare of 2011 students, and aren’t just having a knee- jerk reaction to being charged, why fuck them over by providing no welfare during interview period?
On other hand, if we don’t strike them, where can we exert pressure on college so effectively?
SD: Worth noting that in many ways, College haven’t been accommodating to us. Why giving them such good will? Really vital tool we should be using.
Scott Carless (SC): Go for nice Ciceronean compromise. Amend slightly. In the event that our goodwill gesture to the fellows is ignored, we will strike and show the fuckers that we mean business.
AL: That’s what it says.
GL: We should pass interview strike as it’s the last chance that we will have to strike this. Don’t need this in document we circulate to fellows. We do want it to go to Exec. Doesn’t mean we’ll put it round fellows.
CG: We’re threatening it if they make decision so we have to tell them. Not worried about ruffling feathers. Worried about coming across as bloody revolutionary lefties.
HO: College meeting window very small. Need a second option. Use first option but we can’t do much after.
Move to vote
SM: We should talk about it a bit more.
GL: Everyone put their hands up, lots of opposition to this, everyone with hand up is opposing so we know how we’re going to vote so let’s.
The move to vote passes
SM: Main worry is that even though meeting is on Wednesday, not all fellows are at that meeting. Only a week until interviews start. Can we get them all on board by that time? Otherwise what will happen to interviewees, what is backup plan so they are welcome and happy? Might give wrong impression to some fellows as wrong sort of direct action because of vulnerability.
SMW: If we strike that Resolves, we have no stick as David put it. Part of reason they’ve left it so late is that middle of 9th week we’re getting ready to go home. Two weeks off. Trying to do it to stall us having any organised resistance. This is a perfect place to have some resistance. Not as good an opportunity to resist for quite a long time. I agree with Alice that I personally don’t feel comfortable talking to people about how wonderful how Balliol is when the first thing that College is going to do is fuck them over.
24
The amendment fails
Finally, the motion as a whole is considered
JD: We should debate it even if there’s no opposition.
JD: I know that everyone agrees with what Ali has brought. Covered all bases. One thing that hasn’t been said is we shouldn’t just go in there saying no no no. Give Ali of what feeling of JCR is in areas of where we would be happy College cutting expenditure. How would people feel for instance about having tutes in larger groups than two. Taught in classes more than tutes. Pay a fiver to go to Hall. All these other things. Looks immature if we go to College saying you’ve done all these efforts but we’re not going to help.
AT: As it stands in draft report I’m arguing for a review. Not to vote in 9th week, discuss the things you’re talking about. We don’t want to say “whur we don’t want to pay” — we stress it isn’t that. It’s people saying that we have sreious objections to this. I’d like to stress — I’m principally arguing we at least postpone this until next term so we can have these discussions. Not enough information to contemplate alternatives. Catering deficit for example. I agree with Jack — allow for more time to talk about these things.
Move to vote
The motion is passed unanimously; there is no need for a vote
Result: Passed
Motion: Balliol-Trinity by Simon Stewart
This JCR notes
1. The scene in Mars Attacks! where the humans invite the aliens into their society, and they kill everyone.
This JCR believes
1. Gordouli has a face like a ham.
2. Bobby Johnson says so
3. He should know!
4. Bloody Trinity!
5. Bloody Trinity! 6. Bloody Trinity!
This JCR also believes
7. Menaites once
8. Menaites twice
9. Holy jumping Jesus Christ!
10. Flim
11. Flam
12. Wham
13. Bam
14. Oh, shit!
15. Bloody Trinity!
16. Bloody Trinity!
17. Bloody Trinity!
In addition, this JCR believes
18. If I were a Trinity man, I would I would
19. I’d go into a public weir, I would I would
20. I’d pull the chain and disappear, I would I would!
21. Bloody Trinity!
22. Bloody Trinity!
23. Bloody Trinity!
Further, this JCR believes
24. I don’t give a fuck or damn who the hell or what I am, as long as I’m not a Trinity man.
25. Bloody Trinity!
26. Bloody Trinity!
27. Bloody Trinity!
10
This, too, this JCR believes 28. I’m a bastard, yes I am.
29. I’d rather be a bastard than a bloody Trinity man.
30. Bloody Trinity!
31. Bloody Trinity!
32. Bloody Trinity!
This JCR also believes the following
33. Trinity’s burning.
34. We should fetch the engine.
35. Fire, fire! Fire, fire!
36. Pour on petrol.
37. Bloody Trinity!
38. Bloody Trinity!
39. Bloody Trinity!
Finally, this JCR believes
40. Goodnight Trinity, we’ve got to leave you now.
41. Before we go:
42. Bloody Trinity!
43. Bloody Trinity!
44. Bloody Trinity!
This JCR resolves
1. To add Believes 1 through 44 into Standing Policy.
2. To mandate Ali to send a letter to Trinity’s JCR President including the phrase “we still have beef with you.”
3. To mandate Ali to sign off “peace blud a-pain jarvis”
Minutes: AT takes the chair SS: I don’t know why I’m bringing this motion. One of the first things we introduce freshers to is singing mean songs at Trinity for no reason that anyone can remember other than they used to be a bit mean. They’re not anymore, they’re fine. We have all this entz money, good will and a laser to show off. Throw a Balliol/Trinity party next term. Celebrate newfound realising that it’s not 200 years ago anymore.
WS: DO you distinguish singing gourdiuli drunkenly or ultra traditional event in the Summer?
SS: I don’t care. Just say we’re not that much bothered about Trinity anymore.
MxD: Do you know anyone who has been in any way negatively affected by this tradition?
SS: Creates an atmosphere of gooniness.
AL: Do what at end [of bops]? Dunno.
SS: I don’t know.
MH: PoI: Goudoulli refers to name of ex-student, could stil be called Goudoulli.
ArC: Spoken to someone in Trinity?
SPW: THey don’t care, they don’t care.
SS: Ali say let’s have a party,
IT: Traditions fun, any others [as replacement]?
SS: No.
AT: Proposed because we’re one up because we killed all of their fish?
SS: Yes.
WS: In the papers we’ll be rebranded as a poor, expensive, friendly and apologetic college — something we want?
25
SS: [Well I’d] rather rich and friendly.
SC: Repercussions for [the drink] Bloody Trinity? Change it before inviting them.
SS: I guess. Or something.
The amendment from SS is considered and immediately taken as friendly: • Changes Resolves 3: . . . by inviting Trinity to come to a bop next term.
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Strikes Resolves 1.
CG: If people want to sing they can. They have a song — “Balliol Balliol Balliol, cunts cunts cunts.”
In my first year Wadham and Trinity invaded us. Horrific snowball fight. You’re right. Ali should send them a letter with formal heading we don’t really have any beef. Saying not sing goudoulli.
SS: Something we should stop doing cos it’s lame.
SS does not accept the amendment as friendly
SDe: What are you trying to do?
SS: Chris doesn’t want to resolve not singing Goudoulli and I want to drop it cos it’s lame.
RGJ: We’re not mandated to sing it as it is. We shouldn’t mandate ourselves not to do something.
SS: I’m not mandating anyone. Can’t mandate JCR. We can resolve to do stuff.
AT: Slipping into debate.
HMc: PoI: This mean not printing out lyrics?
SS: Yes, for example.
CG: You did bop cleanup a lot. Best people to get them out of a room is to tell them to sing at a wall.
Even if it’s just for that reason it’s quite good.
AT: Not a question to yourself, that’s debate.
SS: Move to vote!
AT: Everybody. Please. SHUT UP.
SS: We either reoslve not to do it or we resolve to do it. Let’s just decide.
MD: We haven’t confirmed whether this is in the power of the JCR.
The move to vote passes
CG: Quite fun, gets people out of JCR. Not malicious, let’s just keep doing it.
SS: Lame. Stupid. Could go outside and do a giant snail hug instead, much more fun. Do better things after bops than sing a stupid song at some people who aren’t listening.
The amendment passes The amendment from NS is considered:
• Strikes all Notes.
• Strikes all Believes.
• Strikes all Resolves.
• Adds Notes 1: The scene in Mars Attacks! where the humans invite the aliens into their society, and they kill everyone.
• Adds:
This JCR believes
26
1. Gordouli has a face like a ham.
2. Bobby Johnson says so
3. He should know!
4. Bloody Trinity!
5. Bloody Trinity!
6. Bloody Trinity!
This JCR also believes
7. Menaites once
8. Menaites twice
9. Holy jumping Jesus Christ!
10. Flim
11. Flam
12. Wham
13. Bam
14. Oh, shit!
15. Bloody Trinity!
16. Bloody Trinity!
17. Bloody Trinity! In addition, this JCR believes
18. If I were a Trinity man, I would I would
19. I’d go into a public weir, I would I would
20. I’d pull the chain and disappear, I would I would!
21. Bloody Trinity!
22. Bloody Trinity!
23. Bloody Trinity!
Further, this JCR believes
24. I don’t give a fuck or damn who the hell or what I am, as long as I’m not a Trinity man.
25. Bloody Trinity!
26. Bloody Trinity!
27. Bloody Trinity!
This, too, this JCR believes
28. I’m a bastard, yes I am.
29. I’d rather be a bastard than a bloody Trinity man.
30. Bloody Trinity!
31. Bloody Trinity!
32. Bloody Trinity!
This JCR also believes the following
27
33. Trinity’s burning.
34. We should fetch the engine.
35. Fire, fire! Fire, fire!
36. Pour on petrol.
37. Bloody Trinity!
38. Bloody Trinity!
39. Bloody Trinity! Finally, this JCR believes
40. Goodnight Trinity, we’ve got to leave you now.
41. Before we go:
42. Bloody Trinity!
43. Bloody Trinity!
44. Bloody Trinity!
• Adds Resolves 1: To add Believes 1 through 44 into Standing Policy.
SS tables a procedural motion not to hear this amendment
SS: In support of procedural: This completely and utterly changes the motion. Incomprehensible. [We shouldn’t] discuss it. Just vote on thing and go to the bar.
SMW: In opposition to procedural: It completely and utterly changes the motion.
The procedural motion fails
NS: Holly made a great point, if you’ve seen Mars attack, aliens are friendly, invite them again and they kill everyone again. Believes is self-explanatory and I don’t need to read them. All come out on Thursday and sing them at the wall and enter all of them into Standing Policy.
SC: Mars Attacks a song where heads explode. Get it on the jukebox.
Yes.
MxD: How does the song go?
NS: Would take grandeur out of singing it on Thursday.
WS: Implicit to have a bop to lure Trinity students?
SS: Does anyone know the tune?
NS: Different for each verse.
GL: How do you pronounce Believes 7?
NS: Pretty sure this is a mis-spelling in the official lyrics. Sort of demn?
SC: Yes.
AL: Most of different verses based on songs from different times. They do all have tunes.
SC: Replace all of this with modern song lyrics, I suggest Bruce Springsteen to start with. AT: No.
MxD: Simon have you ever sung at the wall?
SS: Yes. I thought it was weird.
MD: If we stop the rivalry and don’t pass this amendment, all matches in freshers week, Balliol/Trinity, not longer just rivalry matches.
28
SS: That doesn’t mean anything, I don’t know.
ACo: Whole point of this motion is that it’s childish and stupid. Yet this amendment is really childish and stupid.
CG: Why didn’t you guys think of that before?
NS: I don’t give a fuck or [a] damn.
MD: As admissions, I’ve seen a lot of prospectives pass by, we talk about the friendly rivalry. Bring up something to talk about. Fun item of tradition.
BH: St Hildas friend of mine hates lack of rivalries there.
SPW: It’s more exciting to talk [to prospective applicants] about how mature we are in getting rid of this.
Oooh
DB: At home my vicar is an ex-Trinity man. It’ll be really disappointing to go back and say we’re not enemies anymore. We have great conversations.
SS: PoI: Direct [something] stop wearing nappies and loving the goudoulli.
AT: We’re still in debate. Oh, I’ve heard a move to a vote.
Move to vote
NS: This.
SS: I thought it’d be nice for us to say we are bored of our historic weird rivalry where a load of people get in a room — just for goons shouting at a wall. [Fun] parties. Seems everyone is a massive goon possibly. The amendment passes
MH amendment. Changes Resolves, to add sign off e-mail to Trinity man saying “peace blood a k jarvis”
Drop this as has been removed.
MH tables an amendment to changes Resolves to add a sign off to the e-mail from AT to Trinity saying “peace blood, A. K. Jarvis”. The amendment is disregarded by AT, as chair, as this is no longer in the motion
AT: You can bring a procedural motion to overthrow my decision.
Move to vote
The amendment from CG is considered:
• Adds to Resolves: To mandate Ali to send a letter to Trinity’s JCR President including the phrase “we still have beef with you.”
CG: Amendment to get Ali to send letter saying we’re still rivals.
NS: I’ll take it as friendly.
SPW objects to the amendment being taken as friendly
DB: How poetic such this letter be? How long?
CG: Should say words that turn around whatever it was before. “We still have beef with you guys.”
RGJ: Still signed A P Jarvis?
AT: Amendment to say that.
MxD: What are the words of the amendment?
29
CG: To send a letter to the president — by post — JCR is saying must include words “we still have beef with you.”
AT: Into debate.
MD: This is all really funny and everything. If we add insult to injury by sending a letter. A tiny bit much.
Move to vote CG: We’re not adding insult to injury. No injury if we don’t tell them. We mandated Ali to send a letter to the King of Norway and he didn’t do that.
“Shame” is heard
AT: PoI: I did fulfil my mandate.
SPW: If we send the letter then they’re gonna say “what is up with those people on the other side of the wall?”
The amendment passes
The amendment from MH is considered:
• Adds to Resolves: To mandate Ali to sign off “peace blud a-pain jarvis”
HO takes the chair
MxD: How do you feel about the sign-off being grammatically incorrect?
AT: It’s fine.
DB: For benefit of a fresher who doesn’t have all the facts, what on Earth does that mean?
MH: There is no history. We all know Ali’s rapping pseudonym.
MD: Resolves to mandate to sign off but not to that letter. He’ll have to sign off like this for everything.
MH: I sincerely hope so.
AT: Are we in debate?
WS: Mike, could you possibly provide an impression of what a Trinity man reading this statement will sound like? Can you predict what will happen?
MH: “Oh guys we’ve got a letter from that friendly Ali Jarvis fellow. Dear Trinity,” — crossed out
Bloody Trinity — “we still have beef with you guys, peace blood, A. K. Jarvis.” He’s a straight talking young man.
HO: Into debate?
AT: This is a fantastic amendment becasue they won’t know who the fuck sent it.
Applause
NS: We want to know who the fuck sent it, make Ali embarass himself. Move to vote
HO: I’ll take those as summing up speeches.
The amendment passses
AT takes the chair
AT: Motion as a whole.
Move to vote
NS: Summary: It speaks for itself.
30
SS: I wanted to share doing things like join bops and move onto a joint ball. Now we’re just sending them an arsey message.
The motion passes
Result: Passed
Motion: Haiti cholera epidemic donation by Ronan McDonald
This JCR notes
1. The current cholera epidemic in Haiti.
2. That the Haitian government says at least 1,500 people have died.
3. That UN staff in the region estimate that 200,000 could be infected in the next three months.
4. That the next Charities GM is in March.
5. That teams from Medicins Sans Frontieres have treated over 16,000 people since the epidemics outbreak in October.
This JCR believes
1. That the situation described in Notes 1–4 is simply dreadful. This JCR resolves
1. To donate £150 to Medicins Sans Frontieres from the Charities account.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed
Motion: In the Newzz by Stephen Bush
The JCR notes
1. That Balliol Bulletin elections are held in Michaelmas.
2. That Scrawl elections are held in Trinity.
3. SOs 5.14: Elections for the JCR Arts Festival Coordinator (by Alternative Vote) and Comrade
Shakespeare (by Alternative Vote) shall be held in conjunction with elections for Ball positions
(outlined in Standing Orders 5.12). The successful candidates shall take office on the next Saturday following the day of elections.
This JCR believes
1. It makes sense to elect both publication editors at the same time.
This JCR resolves
1. To add ‘and John de Bulletin’ to section 5.14 of Standing Orders.
Minutes: Passes nem con.
Result: Passed