2016 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 7th week, Hilary 2016 (2016-02-28)

Agenda

 

a) Officers’ Reports

1. Report on Jowett Buildings [Annie Williamson]

b) Matters Arising

2. Co-option of Duals: Second Hearing [Duncan Shepherd] [Passes]

c) Amendments to the Governing Documents

3. Increasing the welfare budget [Meg Peyton Jones & James Letten] [Passes]

4. Charities Online Ballot [Rivka Shaw & Sophie Conquest] [Passes with amendments]

d) Motions relating to financial matters

5. Passing Money to Support Yarls Wood Demo [Ruby Breward] [Passes]

6. Subsidizing of Varsity Boxing Tickets [Mariya Lazarova] [Passes with amendments]

7. Pool table cover and Code of Conduct [Austin Jones] [Passes with amendments]

8. Dynamic Rent Pricing System [Richard Ware] [Passes]

9. BT Sport [Hamish Hall & Darryl Braier-Lorimer] [Passes]

e) Any other motions

10. Trigger Warnings and/or Content Notes for Film Showings [Samuel Gibb & Molly Rogers] [Passes with amendments]

 

a) Officers’ Reports

 

1. Report on Jowett Buildings [Annie Williamson]

 

b) Matters Arising

 

2. Co-option of Duals: Second Hearing [Duncan Shepherd] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. Part V, Subsection 2.8: 
   ‘Committee Offices specified in subsection 2.5 may be jointly held by two individuals, provided that: 
   a) Both individuals are eligible as Committee Officers in their own right under subsection 3.3. 
   b) Both individuals are elected to that position as a dual nomination, unless one individual has left or been removed from office under subsection 3.5 and subsequently replaced under section 5’
2. That this does not reflect current practice.

 

This JCR believes:

1. That the Governing Documents should reflect current practice.
2. That people should be able to co-opt a partner if they want, providing that the Committee agrees.

 

This JCR resolves:

1. Amend Part V Subsection 2.8 to read: 
   ‘Committee Offices specified in subsection 2.5 may be jointly held by two individuals, provided that: 
   a) Both individuals are eligible as Committee Officers in their own right under subsection 3.3. 
   b) Both individuals are elected to that position as a dual nomination (unless one individual has left or been removed from office under subsection 3.5 and subsequently replaced under section 5) or the Committee has agreed that a second officer can be added, and they are appointed under section 5.’

c) Amendments to the Governing Documents

 

3. Increasing the welfare budget [Meg Peyton Jones & James Letten] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. The current welfare budget is £150 a term (£450 a year).
2. The budget per JCR tea is £10.
3. We have approximately 14 JCR teas in Michaelmas, 14 in Hilary, and 46 in Trinity (though the budget per tea goes down to £5 in Trinity)
4. We spend approximately £200 a year on condoms, lube and dental dams.
5. This comes to £710 total.
6. This calculation does not include any other events which may be run, of which there are many.
7. Not everyone reimburses themselves for running welfare events. This is far from ideal, and perhaps should be addressed in a separate discussion at some point.
8. Potential solutions to the budget issue are a) decreasing numbers and/or cost of welfare events or b) increasing the welfare budget.
9. That the JCR is not lacking in funds

This JCR believes:

1. That welfare events are an important part of JCR life

This JCR resolves:

1. To increase the welfare budget to £250 a term (£750 a year)

Amendment 1 [James Letten] Friendly

1. Strike Notes 4.
2. Amend Notes 5 to 'This comes to approximately £510 in total.

Amendment 2 [Steven Rose] Friendly

1. Add Resolves 2. “Amend the Standing Orders accordingly.”

4. Charities Online Ballot [Rivka Shaw & Sophie Conquest] Passes

This JCR notes:

 

1. That clauses 12.1 b) and c) of the Standing Orders read:

“b) at least seven days prior to the final Ordinary General Meeting of each Full Term, invite Ordinary Members to nominate charities to receive donations. Nominated charities must be registered charities in England and Scotland;

c) to organise the online ballot for the nominated charities following the final Ordinary General Meeting of each Full Term, allowing members to select up to three (3) preferences, with first preferences scoring 5 ‘points’, second 2, and third 1, and dividing the money not covered by clause…”

1. That the electronic voting system has been set up for the nomination of charities.
2. Clauses 12.1 b) and c) don’t justify the need of a GM as a deadline for charities nominations.

 

This JCR believes:

 

1. That artificial deadlines are unhelpful.
2. That the current online system is perfectly fine.
3. That people should be given seven days within which to nominate charities.

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To change clauses b) and c) to reflect this as follows:

“b) at least seven days prior to the online ballot, invite Ordinary Members to nominate charities to receive donations. Nominated charities must be registered charities in England and Scotland;

c) to organise the online ballot for the nominated charities, allowing members to select up to three (3) preferences, with first preferences scoring 5 ‘points’, second 2, and third 1, and dividing the money not covered by clause…”

       Amendment 1 [Steven Rose] Friendly

1. Amend ‘Resolves 1’ to
   “… with first preferences scoring 3 ‘points’, second 2, and third 1…”

Amendment 2 [Sophie Conquest] Friendly

1. Amend clause 12.1.c) to read: "and dividing the money not covered by clause d) of this subsection proportional to the points scored by each charity at their discretion."

 

d) Motions relating to financial matters

 

5. Passing Money to Support Yarls Wood Demo [Ruby Breward] Passes

CN: Mention of sexual violence

This JCR notes that:

 

1. Yarl’s Wood is an immigration detention centre in Bedfordshire which detains refugees (mostly women) for an unlimited period without them having committed any crime. Human rights abuses taking place in Yarl’s Wood include sexual violence, which is particularly traumatic for those escaping conflict in which rape is used as a weapon.
2. Movement for Justice, alongside a range of different activist groups, is organizing a mass demonstration outside the detention centre, which will take place at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, MK41 6 Bedford, Bedfordshire from 13:30 pm.
3. The demonstration will run under the slogan ‘Shut Down Yarl’s Wood’, and aims to force the government to close this detention centre and ultimately the system of immigration detention entirely.
4. The demonstration aims to bring together activists, organisers and asylum seekers from across the country to help build a network of campaigners and create links between movements.
5. In order to enable those who are based far from Bedfordshire to attend the demonstration, transport must be arranged, usually in the form of a coach.
6. The structure for other coach transport to the demonstration, and other demonstrations concerning refugees, has been such that when buying a ticket, you can also buy a seat for an asylum seeker, thus enabling their attendance at a demonstration that particularly concerns them.
7. Movement for Justice has been in relationship with Oxford and Balliol through the ‘Close Campsfield’ campaign which shares the aim of shutting down detention centres.
8. The JCR’s political campaigning fund currently has £570.

 

This JCR believes that:

 

1. The need to shut down Yarl’s Wood is urgent, engaging in the struggle of women and refugees at a direct level.
2. The student movement is gaining momentum in the UK, and now more than ever needs to create and build links with campaigners who have been fighting for many years against the unjust treatment of asylum seekers – the most vulnerable of whom are women.
3. Providing transport to this demonstration will show the commitment of students to supporting this cause, and enable asylum seekers who do not live in Bedfordshire to attend.

 

This JCR resolves to:

1. Donate £150 from the political campaigning fund to provide for coaches for transport.
2. Support the Shut Down Yarls Wood campaign before and after this demonstration.
    

6. Subsidizing of Varsity Boxing Tickets [Mariya Lazarova] Passes

 

This JCR notes:

 

1. That the 109th Boxing Varsity Match is happening on the 5th of March.
2. That the tickets to see the 109th Varsity Boxing Match could be too expensive for students.
3. That sports is an integral part of University life.
4. That many students in Balliol take part in Boxing and are interested in Boxing. 
5. That it is the first year that women will be competing in Varsity.
6. As an event it has been fought for so hard by multiple generations of women and is a historic moment.
7. The current women’s captain is a Balliol student.
8. It is ridiculous that it’s 2016 and this is only happening now

 

This JCR believes:

 

1. That Balliol should encourage its students to show support for their University Team and their college blues.
2. Balliol as a college proud of their liberal/equal agenda should support this new development.
3. That subsiding tickets will encourage a greater participation from students from Balliol.

 

This JCR resolves:

 

1. To pass £150 to subsidize tickets for the 109th Boxing Varsity Match
2. To delegate Mariya Lazarova with providing the tickets and choosing the right people to get the subsidy

 

Amendment [Cealach] Friendly

Change resolves 1 to ‘To pass up to £150...’

 

7. Pool table cover and Code of Conduct [Austin Jones] Passes

This JCR notes:

 

1. The pool table is extremely popular, and seemingly in constant use, particularly with competitive matches. There are around 30 people from Balliol this year who are competing in pool Cuppers events.
2. During very busy evenings, such as Bops, the table incurs the most of its damage, seemingly due to a lack of respect for the cost of the table. Notable damages during these nights are caused by people resting their drinks on the side of table or even on the cloth itself. Or by lifting the table and thereby undoing any fine-tuned adjustments to ensure the table is properly balanced.
3. That a serviceable plastic cover would cost £10 - £20.

 

This JCR believes:

 

1. A code of conduct should be placed on the walls of the pool room to ensure the table is respected, and if anyone should breach these rules they could incur a small fine as a deterrent. This code of conduct could include rules such as:
   1. No resting of drinks on the table.
   2. No lifting the table and disturbing the balance.
   3. Putting no instruments in the pockets that could block the passage of balls and thereby enable the player to continue playing for free, such as has been a problem for the table football table.
   4. And any other suggestions of the JCR.
2. That during particularly busy times when it is nearly impossible to play anyway due to the number of people present in the pool room, a cover should be put over the table to prevent accidental spillages. 

 

This JCR resolves to:

1. Purchase a cover for the table for peak times.
2. Place a written code of conduct on the wall of the pool room.
3. That the cover should be put on at all bops, or at the discretion of the bar staff.

 

Amendment 1 [Oli] Friendly

Change believes 1 to get rid of the fine.

 

Amendment 2 [Austin] Friendly

Change notes 3 to ‘…cost £60’

 

8. Dynamic Rent Pricing System [Richard Ware] Passes

This JCR notes:

 

1. The Dynamic Rent Pricing System (see appendix 1)
2. Standing Policy, Part II, 9.1c) [In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Housing Officer shall] maintain a current list of college rooms, and their prices, under the Dynamic Room Pricing System
3. That there are currently approximately 200 different room prices
4. That under the current system, rooms which are not chosen do not change in price
5. That the JCR currently has no coordinated control over the pricing of rooms
6. The keenness of the new Housing Officer
7. The Housing Officer’s proposed changes to DRPS (see appendix 2)
8. That a new rent pricing system would have to be passed by the Rents and Charges committee, which has already met for this term, and next meets in 4th week of Trinity term
9. That any changes in DRPS would therefore come into effect for the 2017/18 cohort

 

This JCR believes:

 

1. That in many areas, simplicity is a good thing.

1. That fewer room prices would be an improvement.
2. That the price of each room should reflect its popularity with students.
3. That a room not being chosen is effectively a room being chosen last.
4. That the JCR having some coordinated control over the pricing of rooms would be a good thing.

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To provisionally support the proposed changes to DRPS, so that the Housing Officer should go away and work out the fine details.
2. To review a full proposal for a new pricing system (as yet unnamed) at a later GM.

 

Amendment 1 [Tom] Falls

Strikes the resolves and then add to resolves, ‘To create a housing working group.’

 

9. BT Sport [Hamish Hall & Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes

This JCR Notes:

1. That the JCR currently has unrestricted reserves of around £55k.
2. That the JCR has a Sky TV subscription.
3. Further to notes 2, the JCR has a subscription to the Sky Sports package.
4. That all UEFA Champions League football games are now exclusively aired on BT Sport.
5. That some Barclays Premier League football games are also exclusively aired on BT Sport.
6. That some UEFA Europa League football games are now exclusively aired on BT Sport.
7. That some FA Cup football games are exclusively aired on BT Sport.
8. That the UEFA Champions League is the pinnacle of European club football.
9. That top flight football games from the Italian, German, French and Portuguese leagues are aired on BT Sport.
10. That AVIVA Premiership Rugby Games, European Rugby Champions Cup games and European Rugby Challenge Cup games are also aired on BT Sport.
11. That BT Sport also air US College basketball games, NBA, UFC MotoGP and Women’s Tennis.
12. That the additional cost of a BT Sport subscription to the JCR would be £24 per month, or £284 per year.
13. That currently students sometimes stream BT Sports from their laptops, and this results in very poor quality footage.

 

This JCR believes:

1. That getting BT Sport would be a worthwhile use of JCR resources.
2. That BT Sport airs more than just football, and therefore getting it would be of utility to more than just football fans of the JCR
3. That getting BT Sport is a good way to run down our reserves, which is a long-term objective.

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To add BT Sport to the current Sky package.
2. To mandate the JCR Treasurer to oversee the implementation of this addition.

 

e) Any other motions

10. Trigger Warnings and/or Content Notes for Film Showings [Samuel Gibb & Molly Rogers] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. The contents of films shown in the JCR can be triggering for some people.
2. Trigger warnings/content notes can be fundamental to some peoples’ health and welfare.
3. The potential risk of someone walking into the JCR while a film showcasing triggering content is certainly present.
4. There are easily-accessible lists and explanations of trigger warnings and content notes online.

This JCR believes:

1. The potentially harmful contents of what is going to be shown should be explicitly communicated before entering the JCR/film showing.
2. Trigger warnings and content notes are a good step to achieving the above.
3. That the wellbeing of the members of the JCR should be considered.

This JCR resolves:

1. To mandate any people showing films in the JCR to disclose trigger warnings and/or content notes (format example: ‘TW: sexual assault’) when advertising film showings to the JCR, be that on Facebook or by email.
2. To mandate the above stick a sign on the JCR doors while a film is being shown with the appropriate trigger warnings and/or content notes on it.
3. To hold a briefing event for anyone planning to show films in the JCR outlining the purpose of trigger warnings and content notes.
4. To mandate anyone holding a film event to contact an SDO in order to ensure appropriate trigger warning and/or content note coverage.
5. To include links to the lists and explanations of trigger warnings and content notes mentioned above in the SDO section of the JCR website.

Amendment 1 [Flo] Passes

Add to notes, ‘Subtitles are not normally used in JCR films showings.’ ‘Subtitles are widely available on Netflix/DVDs’

Add to believes, ‘Subtitles would make film showings more accessible.’

Add to resolves, ‘To mandate anyone holding a film event to use subtitles if possible.’

Amendment 2 [Molly] Friendly

Change ‘film’ to ‘holding event’ throughout the motion except in resolves 4.

 

Minutes

Motion passes without opposition.

 

James told the JCR that he and Meg would like to increase the welfare budget due to an increase in Welfare activity such as Jowett welfare tea events, which leaves little leeway for spending on extra events (of which there has also been an increase). He noted that currently this results in the welfare officers regularly asking for more money to be passed by the Committee and the JCR, which is time consuming, and not ideal.

Meg explained to the JCR that she believes that she believes the reason that the Welfare activities haven't been creating a large deficit is because some JCR tea hosts don't reimburse themselves after welfare tea. She expressed that she believes welfare activities are important and should be supported.

James noted to the JCR that other colleges spend more on welfare than we do (though noting that typically this is an amalgamation of funds).

Amendments both passed without opposition.

Tom Posa asked if Welfare teas definitely come out of the Welfare budget rather than a separate budget. James replied that the welfare tea funds come from the Welfare budget. Ste noted that Darryl supports this motion, implying the facts are correct, Meg noted this was also true of Denise.

It was asked how much extra this would cost students; James replied that this motion does not affect levies.

It was asked how much more the Welfare activity costs this year than last year. Tom replied that his understanding is that the purpose of this budget is Dr WHO events, rather than Welfare teas. He expressed his belief that there was not any over-spending last year. He noted that often other welfare officers would – if they had used their budget – use this budget for other events.

Cealach offered the point of information that if the Drs WHO end up under-spending, this doesn't mean any money is spent.

Tom asked how much money is in the welfare fund. Meg replied that it is £700. Tom responded that last year it was £800.

It was asked why the Drs WHO intended to add money to a fund that isn't depreciating. James responded that this is a long term solution to a recent rise in Welfare budget spending, as well as providing a 'buffer.' He also explained that he hopes there would be an increase in the reimbursement of hosts of Welfare tea.

Motion passes.

 

Sophie told the JCR that the Standing Orders currently contradict practice (at least concerning that last year). She told the JCR that the online system was put in place last year, and a GM was not held. Annie told the JCR that this motion was to update the governing documents.

Richard told the JCR that his recollection of the conversation previously was that a GM would be available to strike charities. Rivka replied that the discretion of the charities officers proposed is to address this.

Hugo asked what the mechanism would be in cases of contentious charities. Rivka replied that the discretion is largely to address 'joke charities' which should result in much contention.

Motion passes.

 

Ruby told the JCR that most people in Yarls Wood are women, and that it has a capacity of four hundred. There have been attempts to shut it down for several years now. She noted that Yarls Wood is in an isolated area and hence is hard to demo, with the upshot that demos are quite expensive. She told the JCR that the motion is partially to fund Balliol students who intend to demo, but that the money would also go to funding the movement, such as funding other people who intend to demo, but cannot afford to.

Xav C asked what the coach would be. Ruby replied that there is currently one Oxford coach. She explained that the money passed would be distributed according to need, so some would be paying for tickets in full whereas some may be free.

James asked what the official national position is on this. Ruby says she's not sure. She said that it's quite an objectively terrible place, noting that there have been many alegations of sexual abuse, hunger strikes since 2001. Xav C told the JCR that it hasn't been shut down as it is a part of immigration policy.

Motion passes.

 

Mimi told the JCR that the town hall has been rented out for the Varsity boxing matches, and hence the event is ticketed, noting that the tickets are not particularly cheap. She noted that she is fighting in the match, but also because it is a historic event (and that Varsity is great) since it is the first time women are competing in the event. She also noted that at least four other colleges are subsidising tickets for the event. She told the JCR that she believes the £150 figure given will likely be able to subsidise tickets by approximately £5, but is not an overly large figure.

Cealach brought the amendment to change resolves to pass “up to £150.”

This motion was taken as friendly.

Meg asked how much tickets cost. Mimi replied that the cheapest are £9, next are £14, then £19, £20, and higher.

It was asked when it was. Mimi replied the 5th of March. It was confirmed that this would be in Oxford.

Motion passes.

 

Austin told the JCR that the pool table has deteriorated over the last year. He noted the enthusiasm of the college for competitive pool, and hence the poor quality of the pool table can frustrate competitive efforts, and hence suggested some a code of conduct with some deterrent such as a fine, and to restrict use of the table so that it couldn't be used during bops.

Hugo asked why there isn't anything regarding the suggestion of a fine in the resolves. Austin replied that this is for the JCR to discuss.

Daisy asked what disturbing the balance meant. Austin replied that small changes in the 'balance' of the table can affect shots significantly. He noted that Hugo had recently had it levelled. Hugo told the JCR that re-levelling the table isn't something the company seems to mind doing.

Richard expressed the perception that the pool table is not just for serious players, but rather patrons of the bar, and hence the idea of a fine or deterrent is a bad idea, and impossibly difficult for Hugo to manage.

Oli offered the amendment to amend Believes 1 to remove any reference to a fine, noting that he appreciated the intent of the idea, but does not believe that it is for the JCR to fine its members.

Cealach offered the point of information that the Standing Policy contains an item against fines.

The amendment is taken as friendly.

Austin asked the JCR if they have any suggestions for a code of conduct. Annie suggested that people discuss this with Austin individually.

Meg asked what the nature of a pool table cover was. Austin replied that it is similar to a bike cover in terms of material. Meg asked if people would then be likely to use the pool table as a table. Austin asked if the JCR would want a hard cover.

He brought the amendment to increase the amount of money to be around £60 to facilitate this purchase. This was accepted as friendly.

Xav G noted that there is currently only one cue in the bar, and asked how much they would cost. Richard told the JCR that in his experience, it was £15 for a cue.

Hugo asked what was intended by the phrase “during all bops,” noting that if it was just during peak time, it would be at the discretion of the bar anyway. Austin agreed with this. Hugo agreed to implement this in practise without amending the motion.

Motion passes.

 

Richard told the JCR that his motion is long and boring, and he is also boring, which this humble Secretary feels is an unfair condemnation of a relatively interesting character.

Annie ceded the chair to Cealach.

Richard began a story about rent. In the beginning there was college, and that college put rooms into price bands which people then chose from according to a ballot. He noted that this doesn't mean the prices of rooms reflect what students think of the quality of the room. He told the JCR that this resulted in the creation of the dynamic rent pricing system, which was designed to over time better reflect this. He told the JCR that the position on the ballot would affect the price of the room, using the appendices for his example. He told the JCR that this system is positive due to its mechanistic approach. He said that the problem is that the quality of the room is not the only influence in how rooms are chosen. He explained that there are a couple of ways to get around this, such as suspending some rooms from the DPRS, such as the freshers rooms (which is what he is proposing). This means that the system is then rejigged so that any room not chosen is effectively chosen last. He expressed the opinion that this alleviates the problem somewhat, however the large variety of prices is unfortunate. He also expressed that this means that the current system doesn't allow the JCR to discuss price changes, or to proactively change rent prices, as the DPRS only reflects long term trends in room popularity. He hence has proposed a new system. This has a longer appendix.

This involves taking many rooms out of the DPRS and put them in their own price size. The rooms would be scores proportionate to their current price. The Housing Officer would then use this list to create price bands. This discretion would allow much more flexibility, and allows room scores to not be affected by short term affairs in the long run, however could affect prices in the short room (by moving rooms between bands or the DPRS). He told the JCR that there may be problems with pricing affecting popularity.

He told the JCR that the cons of the system are its complexity and the work it puts in the hands of the housing officer, which could potentially lead to someone making a mistake.

He expressed this opinion that this solves many problems.

Matt asked how Housing officers would choose prices. Richard replied that it would be entirely discretionary (pending the introduction of a limit of a 10% change year-on-year).

Xav C asked to clarify that the difference between the proposed schemes are largely how the market influences the prices of the room, and that appendix two outlines a system where the market is a guide rather than a decider. Richard confirmed this that was the case.

Meg asked what the worst case scenario for someone creating a mistake. Richard responded that creating price bands that people don't agree with and general feckless behaviour, or apathy and hence inactivity on the part of the Officer.

Hugo asked if the maximum 10% change was for rooms or for bands. Richard clarified that the motion is to gauge JCR opinion. He then replied that his idea was that it would affect bands. Hugo responded that this interacts with the ability to affect the number of bands badly. Richard agreed and suggested another limit.

James asked how this would affect welfare rooms. Richard responded that welfare rooms would  be handled in the same way. James asked if they'd still exist within the pricing system. Richard seemed to confirm that this was so. He also offered that this system allows us to discuss how we price accessible rooms.

George asked if bands introduced difficulties regarding appropriate pricing. Richard responded that he believes not, as this would allow people to better specify the price they were aiming for.

Tom asked how it would be decided which rooms are and are not dynamic year-on-year, and what measures of scrutiny there would be for this. Richard responded the the non-dynamic rooms would be the core of the freshers rooms, specific welfare rooms, and then special cases such as building works and whatnot. He responded that this would be then discussed at a GM. The band would then be submit to scrutiny at rents and charges committee.

Matt asked why the system has gone from prices, to ranks, to prices. Richard offered that there is a middle-option to round room prices to the nearest £100. He responded that the system proposed gives an element of active control, as an automated price bands system. Matt asked if rooms could not just be slotted in and out of the dynamic system. Richard said he couldn't remember, but it was to do with slotting in and out of things. He expressed the opinion that either of the two optional systems are.

Meg asked what Keeley's opinion was. Richard replied that the college desire is to reduce the number of prices.

Tom asked how possible it would be for a GM to influence the price bands chosen given that any changes have to be zero sum, resulting in a very difficult scrutiny process. Richard responded that the creation of a dedicated Housing Officer is likely to be sensible in changes that they make.

Tom told the JCR that he believes any effort to formulate objective pricing for the rooms is impossible as the desirable qualities vary between rooms with similar pricing. Richard responded that he understands that the DPRS is intended to eventually achieve an equilibrium to achieve desirability, not for rooms to change year on year. He told the JCR that the initial intention was for DPRS to run for a limited period. He asked the JCR what their thoughts of this are.

Matt replied that he hasn't heard objections to the DPRS, and expressed his belief that it accurately reflects the desirability of a room, and that the DPRS allows people to have their decision motivated by a variety of factors.

Richard responded that the price bands would be motivated by ideological grounds. Matt asked if this would be possible in a system in which rooms could be moved in and out of the DPRS.

Xav C suggested that people agree that the dynamic element is generally agreed to be good. He noted that the room choosing does not exist within a market as people are given balloted positions. He expressed his support for allowing a Housing Officer to employ discretion to deal with short term factors. He asked if there would be a possibility for a DPRS for the freshers rooms. Richard responded he can't imagine doing this. Xav C suggested that this could be simulated by a Committee for information to be given to the Housing Officer. Richard suggested that the ability to move rooms from non-dynamic to dynamic would allow this to occur.

James asked if this would affect this year. Richard said that it would not, and that the introduction of such a system would likely be a long term effort, affecting the 2017-2018 cohort at the earliest.

Tom expressed the opinion that the number of room prices is not a problem.

He also suggested that disruption at rooms is not something the Housing Officer will be likely to judge appropriately.

He gave the suggestion of a change to the system that we set aside a fund to allow us to easily change rent prices, and to subsidise the pricing of rooms affected by works. Richard replied that it is much harder to change things year on year, and emphasised that the system proposed is proactive rather than reactive.

Tom replied that the choices of rooms year-on-year are consistent. He suggested that the idea of a 'true value' is flawed as different people purchase differently given different budgets.

He gave the amendment to strike resolves and to set up a housing working group.

Richard suggested that the resolves don't have to be struck for this to occur.

Richard takes the amendment as friendly.

There was opposition to this.

Tom explained that the motion is very complicated and one which only a small number of people are interested and motivated to discuss it.

Xav C spoke in opposition that the motion is vaguely defined purposefully to gauge opinion for the system.

Amendment falls.

Xav G asked what the basis for setting the initial DPRS prices and asked Richard what he thought the influence of this has been. Richard replied that they were the pre-standing college room prices. Xav G asked how the amount added or subtracted from room prices was decided. Richard replied that college decided it. He noted that other colleges don't have dynamic room pricing, but some do have pricing bands. Xav G asked is the dynamic system achieves a fair pricing, noting that people have different budgets and other factors influencing room choice. Richard responded that this was a question of macroeconomics, and then wasn't certain what the distinction between micro and macroeconomics was.

Xav C said the dynamic system reflects something vague and unhelpful, due to year-to-year variables in a system that is intended to treat the room renting as a free market. He also noted that the sample size of people is not large enough to justify modelling it as a proper market, and hence a system which gave the Housing Officer greater discretion could only be a good thing.

Tom explained that the system was designed to not create an objective pricing, but so that people would have better possibilities for choosing rooms. Tom clarified that the alternative to not accepting this system was not to revert to allowing College to choose room prices, and that he believes objections based on the room choosing not occurring as a proper market was a misrepresentation of his objections. He gave the opinion that it was unfair to demand the amount of time this would require to institute from a student.

Richard explained that the proposed system still has DPRS running in the background.

Daisy called a move to a vote.

Motion passes.

 

Lewis told the JCR that he wants to get BT Sport. He noted that there's a lot of sport on BT Sport. He also noted that we need some money for it. He told the JCR that it would amount to £284 over the course of a year. He told the JCR that it is “needed” because there's a lot of sport on there that the JCR doesn't currently have.

Xav C asked what Sky Sports has that BT Sports doesn't that we want. Lewis replied that it has other sports. I don't know any of them. Cealach offered the point of information that BT Sport shows a lot more women's sport.

Matt Lynch asked if the JCR would be able to watch some particular sports thing with which this humble Secretary is – predictably – unfamiliar. The JCR will.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Sam explained that he and Molly brought the motion because there is a current inadequacy with regards to JCR practice, in that people who can be triggered by external content may not find the JCR accessible due to the possibility of walking in on the JCR when such content is showing.

He told the JCR that he is therefore proposing the mandate of the motion (noting that he would like to ask the JCR if he feels all of the committee should be mandated to attend a briefing about content notes and film showings).

Cealach explained that the amendment given by Flo was to mandate people to use subtitles when possible to increase accessibility.

The amendment passed.

Xav C noted that the JCR shows the Simpsons daily, which may sometimes contain triggering material, however back-watching episodes would be unfeasible time-wise. He suggested that under the proposed motion, the only feasible solution would be to specify trigger warnings that are likely to not be relevant. Sam replied that there exists online lists of triggering episodes of the Simpsons, however that the Simpsons wouldn't fall under the definition of 'films.'

Molly told the JCR that she believes that all screened media should be considered 'film' for the purpose of the motion.

Alice noted that there are resources online to find content notes and trigger warnings pertaining to films, and hence the extra effort is very minimal.

Hugo asked if the motion should refer to media rather than film. Xav C noted that it might be beneficial to extend the motion to all events. Sam replied that discussions and other events can be less predictable. Xav C suggested that the resolves be to endeavour to give content notes as best as possibile.

Molly brought the amendment to replace the occurrences of the word 'film' to the word 'event' throughout the motion. Alberto asked if this would still apply to resolves 4. Molly replied that there exist many events where there is no need for a content note. Sam explained that resolves 4 existed as there is no guarantee that everyone who would ideally attend a briefing event would. Molly included in her amendment an exception to resolves 4.

The motion is taken as friendly.

Lorin asked for clarification regarding resolves 2 and 4.

Matt asked if this motion would apply to the Simpsons or not. Molly replied that the Simpsons could be handled 'in bulk.' Matt asked what was entailed by 'signs' in the motion. Molly replied that it would be possible to install whiteboards during the JCR renovations that would be able to be used. Sam suggested that this would necessitate mandating the use of black pens for clarity.

Hugo noted that it would be impossible to provide content notes for live events, giving the example of Game of Thrones. Molly replied that this could be handled on a case-by-case basis via resolves 4. Sam also noted that a lot of the time, content notes for ongoing series can be anticipated.

Oli asked for elucidation of the difference between trigger warnings and content notes. Molly replied that trigger warnings are to flag things that may be harmful, whereas content notes are to provide a general overview of potentially negative things.

Aidan asked if this would apply to the TV room, and also asked what the distinction between a JCR screening, and someone using their laptop. Molly replied that the TV room is distinct from the JCR as the screen is smaller and hence less likely to trigger someone. Sam noted that the TV room is used much more regularly which would make the motion infeasible with regards to the TV room. Molly also explained that when the TV room was used for a 'formal' event, people would hopefully act in a similar way as they would be mandated to with regards to film screenings in the JCR.

Ellen asked if this would include the age rating for films. Molly replied that we're not able to show over-18 films due to under-18 students.

Rivka asked what the nature of the briefing event would be, particularly regarding people who are uncertain to show a film in the JCR, and regarded whether it would be easier to simply have an online event. Sam replied that this is largely the motivation for resolves 4.

Molly told the JCR that they had discussed mandating all of Committee to a briefing event, but suggested that encouraging attendance would be preferable.

Austin noted that JCR members may bring younger siblings with them to the JCR. Molly replied that the responsibility for the sibling would then be the JCR members, and that the motion is meant to address the safety of JCR members, noting that we can't foresee everyone who will ever enter the JCR. Austin suggested that adding the age of the film on the sign would satisfy his concern.

Oli called a move to a vote.

Motion passes without opposition.