2015 General Meeting

By admin, 30 March, 2022
Date of Meeting

    2015 General Meeting

    Date: Sunday 8th week, Trinity 2015 (2015-06-14)

    Agenda


    a) Matters Arising

    There are no Matters Arising from the previous GM.

    b) Written Questions for Officers

    Members of the JCR may submit questions in advance, directed to one or more Committee Officers.

    1. Could the JCR President inform the GM of steps made towards the JCR's charitable registration? [Dan Turner]

    c) Reports from Officers

    Committee Officers may choose to give a brief report on their activities since the previous GM.

    2. LGBTQ Flag [Duncan Shepherd]

    3. Intermitted Student Voting [Duncan Shepherd]

    d) Passage of Motions without discussion

    The list of motions will be read out. Those motions that do not concern amendments to the Constitution or the passing of money may be passed without discussion, if there are no objections and no requests to hear more about the motion.

    e) Amendments to the Constitution

    4. Second Hearing: Ethnic Minorities and International Students Officers [Annie Williamson & Cameron Kigonya]

    This JCR notes:

    1. That there is currently a single pair of elected JCR officers responsible for ‘Ethnic Minorities and International Students’.
    2. That the issues faced by students from ethnic minorities are often very different to those faced by international students.
    3. That the current 2014-2015 elected JCR committee will finish their term in Michaelmas 2015.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That Balliol should provide tailored support for students from both ethnic minorities and international backgrounds.
    2. That having a single pair of officers responsible for ‘Ethnic Minorities and International Students’ conflates important and distinct responsibilities to the detriment of both groups of students.
    3. That JCR officers can continue to cooperate and coordinate events together where appropriate without sharing the same portfolio.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To make the following changes to the Constitution, to take effect at the end of the current Committee’s term of office:
      1. To strike “Ethnic Minorities & International Students’ Officer” from the list of Committee Offices in Part V clause 2.5, replacing it with “Ethnic Minorities Officer” and “International Students Officer” and reordering and renumbering the list as appropriate.
    2. To make the following changes to Standing Orders, to take effect at the end of the current Committee’s term of office:
      1. To strike “the Ethnic Minorities and International Students Officer” from the list of Committee Offices that attend Welfare Subcommittee in Part IV clause 2.4, replacing it with “the Ethnic Minorities Officer” and “the International Students Officer” and reordering and renumbering the list as appropriate, and correcting “six Committee Offices” to “seven Committee Offices”.
      2. To strike Part III section 17, “Duties of the Ethnic Minority and International Students Officer (EMIS)”.
      3. To add the following to Part III, renumbering and reordering the list as appropriate:

    Duties of the Ethnic Minorities Officer

    1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Ethnic Minorities Officer shall:
      1. represent the interests of Balliol's ethnic minority students;
      2. work with the Access and Admissions Officer and the Oxford Access Scheme in order to raise the profile of Balliol among ethnic minority applicants;
    2. The Ethnic Minorities Officer has a termly budget of ÂŁ50, which shall be used in accordance with part IV, section 5 of the Constitution.

    Duties of the International  Students Officer

    1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the International Students Officer shall:
      1. provide international members of the JCR with specific assistance, information and support beyond the responsibilities of the Dr WHO; and
      2. represent the interests of Balliol's international students;
      3. manage and maintain the international storage room.
    2. The International Students Officer has a termly budget of ÂŁ50, which shall be used in accordance with part IV, section 5 of the Constitution.
    5. First Hearing: Ball Referenda [Daniel Turner]

    This JCR notes:

    1. That Balliol JCR organised a ball in 2013 and 2015.  In 2012 and 2014 balls were not organised due to a lack of interest in the positions on the Ball Committee.
    2. That in 1968 Balliol JCR abolished balls.
    3. That balls were phased back in during later decades.
    4. That as currently specified, the Constitution obliges the JCR Committee to organise for the election of a Ball Committee.  Once elected, the Ball Committee is autonomous.
    5. That there is currently no formal mechanism to express opposition to a ball except through GM motions.
    6. That this year one of the candidates for Ball president ran on an explicitly ‘anti-ball’ platform.
    7. That the key source for institutional memory are our governing documents.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That if there is opposition to the JCR holding a ball, we should provide forums in which such opposition can be expressed.
    2. That GMs are not necessarily the best forum for this.
    3. That holding a referendum on a ball at the same time as electing the ball committee allows for this opposition to be heard with minimal additional organisational effort.
    4. That it is important we recognise there is no inevitability about holding a ball every year.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To amend Part VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution, inserting the following as article 8.2 and renumbering as appropriate:

    8.2 On the same ballot paper as the Ball Committee candidates there shall be the referendum question: ‘Should Balliol JCR organise a Ball this academic year?’.  The result of this referendum is binding upon the Ball Committee.

    Amendment I [Richard May]

    This JCR notes:

    1. That elections and referenda take time and effort to run.
    2. That a Ball Committee mandated not to hold a ball is useless.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That we should be wary of placing unnecessary administrative burdens on the JCR Committee, particularly during Trinity term.
    2. That in the event of a “No” vote on the referendum, the elections will have been an unnecessary administrative burden.
    3. That individuals who have campaigned, run for or been elected to Ball Committee positions are likely to be somewhat disappointed by a “No” vote.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To strike Resolves 1 of the amendment, replacing it with the following:

    To amend Part VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution as following, renumbering where appropriate:

                8.1 At the beginning of Trinity Term, a referendum shall be held to decide whether Members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following Academic Year. 

                8.2 In the event that Members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following Academic Year, the following Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Trinity Term of the Academic Year:

    Amendment 2 (Xavier Cohen): [Friendly]

    Strike Resolves 1, replacing it with the following:

                8.1 At the beginning of Trinity Term, a referendum and a debate shall be held to decide whether Members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following Academic Year. 

                8.2 In the event that Members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following Academic Year, the following Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Trinity Term of the Academic Year:

    •  
    6. First Hearing: SAGA [Iggy Wilde & Sam Gibb]

    This JCR notes:

    1. There are groups within the LGBTQIA+ community which are often erased or are offered little visibility.
    2. The acronym ‘LGBTQ’ fails to represent these groups.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That all parts of LGBTQIA+ deserve to be represented.
    2. That the acronyms representing the JCR’s officers should be as representative of their respective groups as possible.
    3. That a more generalised acronym protects members of the community feeling pressure to out themselves as belonging to one particular group in said acronym.
    4. That SAGA, standing for Sexuality and Gender Awareness, is wholly representative of LGBTQIA+ people.
    5. LGBTQIA+ is a mouthful.
    6. SAGA slides out of the mouth and also sounds like you’re about to go on a quest or something, which is really cool.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To amend Part V subsection 2.5(l) of the Constitution, replacing ‘The LGBTQ Officer’ with  “The Sexuality & Gender Awareness Officer”.
    2. To amend Part III section 19 of Standing Orders, replacing “The LGBTQ Officer” with “The Sexualities & Gender Awareness Officer”.
    3. To amend Part IV subsection 2.4 of Standing Orders, replacing “The LGBTQ Officer” with “The Sexualities & Gender Awareness Officer”.

    Amendment I (Duncan) [Friendly]

    Strikes resolves 1-3. Replaces with resolves 1:

    To have a working group, led by the LGBTQ reps, to draft a motion to bring to the first GM of Michaelmas term. This group would decide on a name.

    f) Amendments to Standing Orders

    There are no amendments to Standing Orders.

    g) Amendments to Standing Policy

    There are no amendments to Standing Policy.

    h) Main Agenda

    7. Student Film Funding [Suzy Shepherd & Ben van Leeuwen]

    This JCR notes:

    1. ‘Heaven Knows’ is a major new student short film, being produced by students across the University. Suzy and Ben are involved as Assistant Cameras.
    2. The film is a dark comedy that asks the question: do you have to be unhappy to be an artist? The film challenges the stereotype of what it is to be a creative, and satirises the pervasive romanticisation of ‘artistic suffering’.
    3. Oxford filmmaking is smaller than it should be, but it is currently expanding rapidly.
    4. Independent shorts are an important, exciting art form. They are also essential to students that want to work in film. Getting enough experience at university making films is vital to launching a career in the hugely competitive industry.
    5. Funding independent student shorts is notoriously difficult, because their production to a high standard is expensive - equipment hire, insurance, transport, catering, accommodation - and they are usually unable to make a return. The costs can be prohibitive to all but the very richest. Funding for films allows people to get involved in filmmaking, even if they can’t afford to self-fund the production.
    6. ‘Heaven Knows’ is being made on an ambitious scale. It is aspiring to professional technical standard, shooting on high quality equipment with the best lighting available, and hopes to distribute to large festivals both in the UK and internationally. To achieve this, the film will be produced by a crew of approximately 30, allowing an unusually large number of students to get involved in the film.

    The JCR believes: 

    1. Allowing the opportunity to all students to get involved in high quality filmmaking is important. There is a lot of funding in Oxford to help students in other careers or hobbies - theatre, sports, law and business to name but a few.
    2. It’s fair that, where possible, students interested in filmmaking should receive support, regardless of whether they are personally able to afford the costs of film.
    3. Independent film created in Oxford will reach beyond the university: it will be going to numerous film festivals and be building a large presence on social media. This is an opportunity to show an alternative side to Oxford life, alongside activities that are traditionally associated with the University. In a small way, it may contribute to positively altering the University’s public image, and thus to access.
    4. Balliol should support filmmaking, and donating to ‘Heaven Knows’ is a great way to do that. The donation will allow a number of students to get important experience on set, and broadly support the growing filmmaking scene within Oxford.

    The JCR resolves:

    1. To donate £300 to the budget of ‘Heaven Knows’, via tinite films, who are producing the film. In return, the JCR will be thanked in the film’s credits.
    8. Scholars’ Gowns [Rose Hadshar]

    This JCR notes:

    1. That Oxford students must wear sub fusc to matriculation, graduation and examinations.
    2. The existence of scholar’s gowns and commoners’ gowns.
    3. That after prelims, first years who obtained a First have the right to buy scholars’ gowns.
    4. That scholars’ gowns are more expensive than commoners’ gowns.
    5. That scholars’ gowns indicate that the wearer obtained a first in prelims.
    6. That scholars’ gowns are worn to final examinations.
    7. That a motion on scholars’ gowns was brought in a recent GM.
    8. That this motion failed.
    9. That Xavier Cohen recently ran the No campaign on the OUSU sub fusc referenda.
    10. That the Yes campaign won the referenda.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That given recent debate, some JCR members may have new opinions to express on the sub fusc issue.
    2. That some JCR members think scholars’ gowns are ‘a good thing’, while other JCR members think scholars’ gowns are ‘a bad thing’.
    3. That scholars’ gowns are therefore a divisive issue.
    4. That publically wearing one’s prelims results during a final examination can be uncomfortable for some scholars and non-scholars alike.
    5. That scholars have a choice on whether to buy scholars’ gowns.
    6. That currently, some scholars buy scholars’ gowns more out of peer pressure than choice.
    7. That some scholars regret buying a scholars’ gown come finals.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To add the following to Standing Policy, under the title “Scholars’ Gowns”:

    This JCR believes:

    1. That scholars’ gowns are a divisive issue.
    2. That scholars have a choice on whether to buy scholars’ gowns.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To promote a sense of choice in the buying or not buying of scholars’ gowns.
    2. To mandate the Secretary to email out this standing order at the end of every Trinity term.

    Amendment 1 (Hugo) [Failed]

    Strike Believes 1 of the item added to Standing Policy, replacing it with:

    1. That people have differing opinions on scholars' gowns

    9. Jowett Walk [Lorin Samija]

    This JCR notes:

    1. College provides accommodation on main site and in Jowett for undergraduates.
    2. Jowett accommodation for undergraduates is mostly for second years who are not living out.
    3. Amongst the flats in Jowett, there are flats with a 36-week lease and some with 27-week lease.
    4. The distribution of the different leases is fixed, i.e. the flats in two towers out of four offer 36 week leases.
    5. The decision procedure for who lives in Jowett and who can choose the flat first is done by a balloting system.
    6. The demand for 36 week leases varies by year.
    7. Rooms are also used for conference guests, interviewees etc.
    8. Some students prefer 36-week leases, some 27-week ones.

    This JCR believes:

    1. College should put current students and their needs first over anything else.
    2. Statement 1 of the “This JCR believes” does not always seem to be the maxim of college’s actions – this is something the JCR cannot accept.
    3. It is easier for international students to live in Jowett since the administrative process of renting a student house can be very difficult (in particular with required forms, visas etc.).
    4. A 36 week lease provides more time to spend in Oxford for academic work (in particular revision before exams) as well as leisure time.
    5. Many people, amongst them international students, have very good reasons to stay in Oxford from the beginning of the academic year until the end.
    6. For many internationals it is very expensive to fly back to their parents in vacation.
    7. In general, all Balliol students profit from external events happening in college since the money is reinvested into college.
    8. Flexibility towards the needs of current students should be implemented in all regulations.
    9. Moving in and out can be very stressful.
    10. The balloting system provides in most cases the fairest results.
    11. The number of flats offering 36 week leases should be flexible and individual needs should be more incorporated in the decision making.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. The JCR (in particular the housing representatives) should start talks with college about changing the current lease system to allow more flexibility (even if that means less conference guests).
    2. These talks should not just be informational but making it clear that the JCR wants change.
    3. Statement 1 of the “This JCR believes” should be extensively emphasized.
    4. A copy of this motion should be sent by the JCR to the suiting officers in college so that an awareness of the issues is also raised amongst the officers who are not directly involved into accommodation issues.

    Amendment 1 (Anna) [Friendly]

    Add resolves 5:

    To mandate the Drs WHO to keep a record of how many people apply for each lease type in Jowett

    Amendment 2 (Alex) [Failed]

    Strikes Believes 2

    Strikes Resolves 3

    10. Exams [Lorin Samija]

    This JCR notes:

    1. The college offers accommodation on the main site mostly for first-year students and finalists.
    2. Most of the first-year exams happen in Trinity term.
    3. The last first-year exams finish usually on Friday of 9th week.
    4. There are cases, where first years sit exams even on Saturday of 9th week.
    5. The college’s policy for students finishing their exams after the official end of the lease is that they can stay in their room until one day after the last exam.
    6. Rooms have to be vacated by 10 am of the day one leaves.
    7. Even for morning exams, starting at 9.30, 10 am of the next day is less than 24 hours after the end of one’s last exam.
    8. Not every student is picked up by car. This student needs to organize storage, shipping of some of his/her things, planning what to leave etc. Further, limitations on what
    9. Moving in and out in general requires planning, organization and packing.
    10. The vacation after Trinity term are about three months long, hence, longer than the usual ones (5 weeks).
    11. Most of the students living in college in one year live in another place in their preceding year.
    12. College expects good academic conduct, which includes good exam results.
    13. College aims to provide a good studying atmosphere for each of its members.
    14. There is traditionally a reunion of former Balliol students on the Saturday of 9th.
    15. Events like those described in 14 require rooms.
    16. 14 is often used as the reason why students who apply for vacation residence need to change their rooms on the Saturday of 9th week of Trinity although they are granted vacation residence.

    This JCR believes:

    1. Exam time is a stressful time for most of the students.
    2. Moving in and moving out can be very stressful and can occupy one’s mind.
    3. Students taking exams should be able to solely focus on their exams, revision and relaxation in between.
    4. Students during exam time should not think about the organization part of moving out.
    5. Students worrying about their departure are more likely to worse in their exams since they are occupied with something not exam-related.
    6. Less than 24 hours is insufficient to organize one’s departure after having solely focused on revision and exams for the weeks before the departure.
    7. Having one full day after one’s exam to organize one’s departure is the minimum that is appropriate.
    8. College should put current students and their needs first over anything else.
    9. A reunion of former Balliol students is less important than the welfare and needs of current students taking exams.
    10. Such a reunion can be organised at many different dates.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To urge college to:
      • reschedule the reunion for all upcoming years or finding other accommodation arrangements
      • guarantee students accommodation in their rooms until at least two days after the end of their last exam
    1. To take further steps, if college does not react.

    Amendment I [Lorin Samija]

    1. Strike Notes 5, replacing it with “College usually allows students to stay in their room until one day after the exam if the day of the last exam is after the official end of the rent period.”
    2. Add Notes 17: “In 2015, a student having exams on Saturday of 9th week is expected to move out of his room at the same time as his last exam starts.”
    3. Add Believes 11: “Having to move out on the same day as one’s exams is unacceptable.”
    4. Add Believes 12: “This way of treating students is outrageous and not compatible with College’s task to provide university education to students."
    5. Add Resolves 3: "To Request a public statement from College, firstly written, then personally delivered in a GM about college handling this issue and addressing the conflict between College’s task to provide education and their current approach, which puts people with accommodation issues under pressure."

    Amendment I [Lorin Samija]

    part a): [Passed]

    1. Strike Notes 5, replacing it with “College usually allows students to stay in their room until one day after the exam if the day of the last exam is after the official end of the rent period.”
    2. Add Notes 17: “In 2015, a student having exams on Saturday of 9th week is expected to move out of his room at the same time as his last exam starts.”
    3. Add Believes 11: “Having to move out on the same day as one’s exams is unacceptable.”

    part b):

    1. Add Believes 12: “This way of treating students is outrageous and not compatible with College’s task to provide university education to students." [Failed]

    2. Add Resolves 3: "To Request a public statement from College, firstly written, then personally delivered in a GM about college handling this issue and addressing the conflict between College’s task to provide education and their current approach, which puts people with accommodation issues under pressure." [Passed]

    Amendment 2 (Anna) [friendly]

    Add Resolves: to mandate the Drs WHO to email the JCR after this meeting reminding students that they can use the Drs WHO and other members of committee as advocates if they feel they are being treated unfairly

    Amendment 3 (Lorin) [friendly]

    Add Believes 12: “This way of treating students is not compatible with College’s task to provide university education to students."

    11. FPE and FHS Feedback [Duncan Shepherd]

    This JCR notes:

    1. There is currently a consultation on the need/desire for/of feedback after exams, both Mods/Prelims (FPE) and non-final year Finals.
    2. That the JCR was not asked to respond, but OUSU has invited us to do so in conjunction with them.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That it is important that there is a strong student voice in response to the consultation and we should accept OUSU’s invite to respond.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To support the proposal as found in Appendix 1.
    12. SSSK [Jenny Ashby]

    This JCR notes : 

    1. That SSSK is a student-run charity that raises money to help street children around the world. The money raised by the charity is divided between a number of NGOs supporting street children in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America. These NGOs are selected by past students who run the Head Office who have visited these organisations and have witnessed the excellent work they achieve with the utmost efficiency and care. 
    2. That SSSK ran a successful club night in Cellar last Hilary which raised over ÂŁ400. To raise more money and awareness for SSSK, SSSK Oxford will be hosting another club night at Cellar on Friday of 8th week.
    3. That To do this, SSSK will need to publicise the event with flyers and posters, and buy wristbands.
    4. That one of the main organisers of the event is a member of the Balliol JCR, Jenni Ashby.
    5. That If Balliol JCR supports the event, wristbands will be given to Balliol students who request them, allowing discounted ÂŁ3 entry before midnight.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That SSSK is a worthy cause.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To give ÂŁ50 to SSSK to make the club night happen at Cellar. Any remaining funds, if there are any, will be donated to SSSK.

    Amendment (Max): [Friendly]

    Amend resolves 1 to “To give £50 to SSSK from the general budget ...”

    Minutes


    The charities officers began with a brief report. They thanked everyone for their support over the past two terms, and announced that they had raised £2326.86 – about £900 of which was from the charity musical and £1200 was from the promises auction.

    1. Since the last time Duncan has spoken on this topic, he’s written about 5000 words in the document outlining how the process will work. During this process, he has discovered that a lot of the work done in previous years has been wrong or outright illegal. Next term he’s going to ask College to underwrite the legal costs of charitable registration. He’s spoken to other student unions such as Warwick, and they strongly advised us to get a lawyer. OUSU says that we are “the most illegal JCR”.

    2. Duncan had a meeting with College regarding the LGBTQ flag. College have agreed to let us fly the LGBTQ flag for one day and the trans flag for a second day.

    3. College has passed stuff allowing intermitted students to vote. The process for their voting will be the same as year abroad student voting.

    4. Two of Suzy’s friends (non-JCR members, Jacob and X) were speaking on her behalf, since neither her nor Ben could be present. They outlined the purpose of the motion and the nature of the film, and that the high level of student involvement and the tech used means that the cost is high – the total budget is £5000 (of which £2000 has been given by the Vice-Chancellor). They are bringing motions along these lines to four GMs tonight, and these should cover the remainder of their funding.

    Charlotte asked where the money will come from; Duncan clarified the money would come from general funds.

    We moved to debate.

    Matt Lynch asked whether this was really something the JCR should be supporting and whether we should be expected to fund things like this. Richard Ware responded that it was of interest to some members of the JCR, and that practically speaking we were expected to fund things (as the people with money).

    Richard May said that the JCR supported a large number of projects already, such as films, the recent Zine Fair, trips to the Edinburgh Fringe and more; Ruby Breward expressed agreement.

    Rose asked what the project would do if the motion failed; Jacob responded that they would likely have to try and raise funds via Kickstarter, which is quite difficult and unreliable. 

    Kat asked whether the project expended to make money; Jacob responded that they did not.

    Alice Farrell asked where else they were planning to get money from: Teddy Hall, Lincoln, and St Anne’s.

    It was asked what would happen if they ran out of money; Jacob responded that there was no overdraft facility. The question was clarified: if they fell a small amount short( such as ÂŁ500), what should they do? Jacob responded that the majority of expenditures had been exactly worked out in advance.

    There was a call to move to a vote. We moved to a vote.

    The motion passed.

    5. The motion passed with no objections.

    6. Dan said that there were both political and pragmatic reasons (the pragmatic ones being to ensure that there was enough interest within Balliol). Dan did not take the amendment as friendly.

    Richard May outlined his amendment. Daisy asked for clarification on Dan’s motion – would the referendum take place at the same time as the main elections, post-husts? Dan clarified that this was the case.

    It was asked whether a separate referendum was easier: Richard said that he felt this was the case, because referenda were much easier to organise than elections.

    We moved to debate.

    Chessy said that she felt splitting it would be better, because otherwise the referendum would seem too much like a judgement of the individual candidates’ vision.

    Xav said he opposed both the motions, and felt that a GM would be the best way to do this because people would have the chance to oppose it.

    Charlotte said she was worried that a GM might be unrepresentative, due to the self-selecting nature of the people that attend.

    Dan said in principle he had no opposition to a GM.

    Richard May called for a move to a vote, since the debate appeared to be about GM versus referendum rather than the question on the table (separate referendum vs election-and-referendum).

    We moved to a vote. The amendment passed.

    We moved to short factual questions on the motion as a whole. Ellie said that the College was keen that Balls should be a Balliol event rather than a JCR event; Dan responded that he hadn’t consulted College, because he felt that a referendum would be more about the JCR wishing to support the event or not.

    It was asked whether there was opportunity for a debate with a referendum; Richard May responded that the Constitution was unclear on this point and could be interpreted as allowing husts.

    Xav said that he felt the need for debate should be made explicit, and brought an amendment to that effect.. It was accepted as friendly.

    Richard May called for a move to the vote, on the grounds that we weren’t going to hear anything new. Xav Cohen opposed it on the grounds that he still had something to say. The procedural motion failed.

    Xav said that he felt this motion would allow for more low-key balls or larger ones every three years.

    There was a call to move to a vote.

    The motion passed.

    7. Iggy outlined the motion. 

    Chessy asked where else SAGA is used; Iggy responded that she hasn’t seen it used in College but that she’s seen it online.

    Izzy Williams asked if Iggy was aware that SAGA used to stand for Straight and Gay Alliance. Iggy responded that she had been made aware of this after submitting the motion, and would now like to suggest a different name as a result.

    It was asked what alternatives to SAGA were available. Duncan suggested GSR (Gender and Sexuality Reps), GSM (Gender & Sexuality Minorities) and GSD (Gender and Sexuality Diversity).

    Duncan brought an amendment striking all resolves and replacing them with a motion to create a Working Group, which would bring a motion to the first GM of next term. He said that he felt it was important to change the name, and that a WG was the best approach to finding a new name.

    The amendment was taken as friendly.

    Izzy said that she felt that the fact that LGBTQ was a recognisable ‘banner’ was important, and helped foster connectivity with movements elsewhere.

    Char said that she felt it was worth discussing, and that the motion as it currently stood was a good approach.

    Annie said that she felt the acronym would quickly become clear, like E&E and EMIS. Daisy Pearson expressed agreement.

    Chessy said that she felt the freshers’ week Committee introductions were a good time to clarify whatever acronym was chosen.

    8. Joe Spearing said that he had worn a scholars’ gown in the past, and regretted doing so. Rose outlined the motion, and said that the motion was primarily about promotion choice.

    Dan asked why the motion hadn’t been made stronger. Rose responded that it was because her previous motion on this topic had failed, and she felt the JCR clearly did not share her strong views on this topic.

    Richard May requested that Joe’s rhetoric be toned down – he was concerned that people who opposed the motion or supported scholars’ gowns might feel unwilling to speak.

    It was asked whether sending an email reminding everyone that scholars’ gowns were a choice would truly be neutral; Joe and Rose said they felt this could be done in a way that was actually neutral.

    Harvey asked whether it was not an active choice when you went out and bought one. Rose said that she knew a lot of people who had bought scholars’ gowns and later regretted doing so, and that she thought further emphasising the choice students faced would help this.

    Daisy Pearson asked how the process of getting scholars’ gowns worked. The general consensus was that people received a sum of money from College if they got a First, and that they were aware of scholars’ gowns primarily through word-of-mouth.

    It was asked what specifically should be in the email, and whether it should contain points of debate. Rose said that if someone wanted to specifically mandate the contents of the email they should bring an amendment.

    Kat was unconvinced that people were not currently making a choice; Rose responded that she felt they were.

    Cealach said it wasn’t so much about being the ‘odd one out’ by not getting a scholars’ gown as it being part of the mystique of Oxford.

    Richard said that he was very surprised College did not inform students already, and that that might be the best approach. Rose disagreed and said that she felt College were extremely pro-scholars-gown; she had attended a “scholars’ lunch” during which scholars were asked to swear an oath to uphold the College. This was met with general confusion and surprise.

    Anna Hufton said that she had initially wanted a scholars’ gown as a Fresher, but that she was now strongly against them because of the elitist attitude they represented.

    Hugo Monnery suggested that the divisive issue of scholars’ gowns was separate from the issue of promoting the choice, and that perhaps the wording of the Standing Order should be changed.

    Several people said that they had or would have bought scholars’ gowns without thinking about it, because they were unaware that there was a debate over the topic.

    Chessy felt that the word ‘divisive’ in the Standing Order made clear that there was an issue here.

    Hugo brought an amendment to replace the word ‘divisive’ with ‘differing’. Max asked what difference this made; Hugo said that he felt we should not moralise, and that the word ‘divisive’ did this.

    We moved to a vote. The amendment failed.

    Harvey asked if part of the reasoning behind the motion was to encourage people not to wear scholars’ gowns; Rose and Joe responded that it was.

    Alex Potten said that he felt the motion was an attempt to ensure that Rose’s beliefs would outlast her time at Balliol. Rose responded that if Alex felt that third-years in their last term should not bring GM motions, he should bring a Constitutional amendment to prevent it.

    Dan said that he felt a stronger email would be more effective, containing testimonials from people regarding their opinions of scholars’ gowns. Cealach said that she felt such an email would be more alienating than anything else.

    Duncan called for a moved to a vote. Rose said that she felt this was a good way to keep the debate alive and ensure that the topic was preserved.

    The motion passed.

    9. Lorin outlined his motion.

    Annie asked if it was likely that College would let us have more flexible leases. Duncan said the topic had come up in College’s Welfare Committee, and that he wasn’t sure which way it would go. Lorin said that he thought the important part was to make clear that we wanted change.

    Anna brought an amendment to mandate the Drs. WHO to keep records of how many people apply for each lease type in Jowett. The amendment was taken as friendly.

    Alex McKenzie brought an amendment to strike Believes 2 and Resolves 3, in an attempt to soften the motion.

    Richard Ware asked Duncan whether he felt these parts of the motion would be more likely to help College realise the issue was serious, or whether it would irritate them. Duncan felt that it was unlikely to be a source of trouble, but we could still be cautious and remove them.

    Rose said that while she agreed completely with Lorin, she felt that it might be excessively confrontational and make it harder to reach a good solution.

    There was a call to move to a vote. The amendment failed.

    There was a call to move to a vote. The motion passed.

    10. Lorin outlined his motion and amendment. We moved to discussion.

    Richard Ware said that as far as he was aware, the Gaudy was on Saturday of 9th because it was convenient for several of the Fellows. He felt that we should push for College to move the Gaudy.

    Rose called for a move to a vote; the motion failed.

    Duncan said that he felt item 4 of the amendment was too strongly phrased and would result in an extremely negative response from College. He also felt that item 5 was excessively vague.

    Max brought a procedural motion to hear the amendment by parts (123 and 45). The motion passed.

    We moved to a vote on items 1, 2 and 3. This half of the amendment passed.

    We moved to debate on 4 and 5. Joe said that he had spoken to College, and they were unable to move the Gaudy next year because the invites had been emailed out. However, they are open to considering moving it in later years.

    It was asked whether a ‘public statement at a GM’ meant a statement in person; Lorin clarified that this was the case.

    Dan said that College Officers had in the past offered to explain serious issues at a GM.

    Harvey disagreed with Joe, and said that he felt it was unfair of College to delay moving the Gaudy until 2017.

    Cealach said that College have not dealt with her in a helpful manner, and that they responded to her concerns about not being able to get home with a curt email suggesting she “think of public transport”.

    Duncan said that while he agreed with the aims of the motion, he did not feel this was the right way to push for change.

    Dan brought a procedural motion to hear the remaining parts of the amendment by parts. It passed unopposed.

    We moved to debate on item 4 of the amendment.

    Max said that he agreed completely with Believes 12, but that he felt it was both risky and redundant. He felt that it was a slightly less tactful way of making the same points as we had made elsewhere.

    Harvey said that he felt the opposite; if College have kept promising to do something about the situation with no signs of progress, we need to make clear how unacceptable this is.

    Duncan said that he felt the motion would accomplish that purpose anyway, and that this change would both alienate our allies and provide ammunition to those that opposed us.

    Xav Greenwood said that while he agreed with the amendment, he felt the use of the word ‘outrageous’ was counter-productive.

    Ross said that his exams in first year finished just before the Commemoration Ball, and that he was then thrown out at 10am the next morning.

    Duncan said that he felt the motion dealt with the issues people were talking about, but that this part of the motion was counterproductive.

    We moved to a vote on this part of the amendment. It failed.

    We moved to a vote on the last part of the amendment. It passed.

    Anna brought an amendment to add a resolve to mandate the Drs. WHO to inform the JCR that they could ask the Drs. WHO and other members of Committee to act as advocates on their behalf.

    Lorin brought an amendment to re-add Believes 12 without the “outrageous”. It was taken as friendly.

    We moved to a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

    11. Duncan said that he had not been asked to do this, but he felt it was worth doing. He outlined the motion and his feedback, particularly the emphasis on question-level marks.

    Duncan said that he found out about this quite late, and OUSU had said we could submit a report along with theirs. Several other Colleges (Catz and Univ) have submitted reports.

    Dan asked if we could say that we felt JCRs should be individually contacted in future; Duncan said that he had included a statement to that effect.

    Rose said that some people who sit finals are going onto further study. She asked whether there was any room for extension to final-Finals or postgraduate study.

    There was a call to move to a vote. The motion passed.

    12. Jenny outlined her motions. Max said that this specifically the sort of charity the JCR had in mind with the Charities GM, and suggested that we take it out of general funds. He brought an amendment to that effect. Jenny took it as friendly.

    The motion passed.