2016 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 1st week, Trinity 2016 (2016-04-24)

Agenda

a) Matters Arising

1. Date for 2nd Trinity Term GM [Ste Rose]

b) Amendments to the Governing Documents

2. Submission & Distribution of Termly Reports [Darryl Braier-Lorimer]

3. Updating the Constitution to Reflect the Online Charity Ballot [Rivka Shaw & Sophie Conquest]

c) Motions relating to financial matters

4. Contribution to Cuntry Living [Iggy Wilde]

5. June Jamboree [Darryl Braier-Lorimer]

6. Purchase of a TVCR Microwave [Xavier Greenwood]

d) Any other motions

7. NUS Disaffiliation [Darryl Braier-Lorimer & Tom Posa]
 

---

 

a) Matters Arising

1. Date for 2nd Trinity Term GM [Ste Rose]

Rescheduling the 2nd Trinity Term GM which would otherwise clash with the Garden Party.

 

b) Amendments to the Governing Documents

 

​2. Submission and Distribution of Termly Reports [Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. Part V Clause 3.1.f) reads
   “f) All Committee Offices shall, no later than Sunday of the Seventh Week of each term, submit to the Secretary a report detailing their activities for that term. These reports shall be compiled by the Secretary, who shall:
   (i) present it to the last General Meeting of the term; and
   (ii) ensure that they are preserved at least six years after their creation.”

 

2. Many Offices continue doing work in the last two weeks of term that would be worth reporting to the JCR in their termly report.

3. In practice, termly reports are not presented at GMs and they are not typically submit by the last GM of term.

4. Committee Officers do work relating to their Offices and degrees during term time.

 

This JCR believes:

1. It is more useful to the JCR to have the activities of the entire term reported to them.

2. It is more useful to the Committee Officers to allow them time in the vac to write their reports.

3. The Constitution should reflect practice.

This JCR resolves:

1. To amend Part V Clause 3.1.f) to read
   “f) All Committee Offices shall, no later than Sunday of Eleventh week, submit to the Secretary a report detailing their activities for that term. These reports shall be compiled by the Secretary, who shall:

1. distribute the reports to the JCR before Sunday of 0th week of the following term; and

2. ensure that they are preserves at least six years after their creation.”

 

​3. Updating the Constitution to Reflect The Online Charity Ballot [Rivka Shaw & Sophie Conquest] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. That Part VII Clause 1.4.b) of the Constitution reads
   “b) Charitable donations may only be made at the final Ordinary General Meeting of each Full Term, excepting motions brought under clause 1.4 c).”

2. That Part VII Clause 1.4.c) of the Constitution reads
   “c) charitable donation to a cause which would suffer if the motion were delayed until the the final Ordinary General Meeting of each Academic Term, they may bring the motion to the next Ordinary General Meeting at the discretion of the Chair.”

3. These clauses reflect the outdated practice of voting to pass money to charities at the last GM of term after conducting a ballot, which has since been superseded by the practice of employing an online ballot, and hence contradicts current practice.

This JCR believes:

1. That the Governing Documents should reflect current practice.

This JCR resolves:

1. To amend Part VII Clause 1.4.b) of the Constitution to read
   “b) Motions to make charitable donations may not be brought to a GM, excepting motions brought under clause 1.4.c).”

2. To amend Part VII Clause 1.4.c) of the Constitution to read
   “In the event that an Ordinary Member wishes to propose a charitable donation to a cause which would suffer if the motion were delayed until the online charities ballot as arranged by the Charities & RAG Officer in accordance with Part III Clause 13.1.d), they may bring the motion to the next Ordinary General Meeting.”

 

c) Motions relating to financial matters

 

4. Contribution to Cuntry Living [Iggy Wilde] Passes

This JCR Notes:

 

1. Cuntry Living (zine) needs urgent help with funding in order to continue with publication.

2. Iggy meant to ask for help from the JCR to go towards last terms zine but was really disorganised and busy and in many a pickle so tragically forgot.

3. This means Cuntry Living is +1 term ahead of itself in debt

4. We really want to carry on making our zine and distributing it freely across all colleges and JCRs, including this one

5. Cuntry Living will be forced to cease publication if they run out of funding and lose out on JCR support.

6. All supporting colleges are allocated ~50 zines for the enjoyment of their associated JCRs.

7. This JCR has, on multiple occasions, successfully supported financing the publication and printing of Cuntry Living in the past.

8. Past funding has been in the region of £200.

9. Because Iggy forgot to ask last term, she would like to request almost-double this amount to make up the difference.

 

 

This JCR Believes:

 

1. Cuntry Living is a great source for both educating on and platforming radical artistic feminist discussion both Oxford-wide and globally.

 

This JCR Resolves:

 

1. That the JCR donate £350 to the publication of Cuntry Living TT16.

 

5. June Jamboree [Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes

 

This JCR Notes:

1. That last year the JCR held a free Garden Party towards the end of Trinity Term (‘The June Jamboree’) at Jowett walk.

2. That Standing Policy refers to the Treasurer’s role in organising the June Jamboree in Trinity Term.

3. That the June Jamboree was a success last year, with pantry selling burgers and ice creams, a bouncy castle, pole jousting, rounders, and other games.

4. That the total cost for the bouncy castle and games last year was around £500.

5. That insurance will be included in our current policy.

6. That a temporary event licence, which allows us to run a bar and play music, will cost £21

7. That the Treasurer is planning to work with the Entz officers, VP, President and Lindsay, as well as other interested JCR members, to organise such an event again, and has booked Jowett fields for Friday of 8th week.

8. That the event will only be organised with the permission and cooperation of the SCR (pending next meeting of College Exec in 2nd week).

 

This JCR Believes:

1. That holding a June Jamboree is a good thing, and that the way the event was run last year was largely a success.

2. That the June Jamboree should be free to attend.

3. That the June Jamboree can be a good way to unwind after finals or take a break before prelims.

4. That the June Jamboree, as open to all, should be subsidised from JCR resources, and thus can make a small loss.

5. That the June Jamboree should be held on Jowett fields.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To mandate the JCR Treasurer to organise the June Jamboree along the same lines as last year, in consultation with the relevant college officers.

2. To provisionally pass up to £550 for the June Jamboree, to pay for games, events licences, insurance, and other expenses.

3. To mandate the JCR Treasurer to keep the JCR informed of the plans by email and at the next GM.

4. To encourage anyone who would like to get involved in organising the June Jamboree to email the JCR Treasurer.

 

6. Purchase of a TVCR microwave [Xavier Greenwood] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. Up until last year there was a well-used microwave in the TVCR, which has since disappeared;

2. A Cookworks EM717 Standard Microwave is currently in stock at the Oxford Argos for £44.99;

3. The microwave markets itself as enabling users to “get hot meals in minutes”, which is all one could want from a microwave;

4. Most of the kitchens are closed over the vacs, or are otherwise up many flights of steps, creating a gap in the market for a TVCR microwave;

5. The TVCR is also a social hub during term-time, with hordes of JCR members congregating for conversing, televisual consumption and general frivolity;

6. Xavier will go and buy the microwave tomorrow if money is passed.

 

This JCR believes:

1. A microwave would be an enriching and practical addition to an already thriving TVCR;

2. You can never have too many microwaves;

3. It’s a long way from the TVCR to Dicey;

4. That the microwave can be placed above the safe, where the former microwave once stood in all its electromagnetic glory.

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To pass up to £50 in order to purchase a Cookworks EM717 Standard Microwave for the TVCR.

 

d) Any other motions

 

7. NUS Disaffiliation [Thomas Posa and Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes

This JCR notes:

1. That NUS National Conference 2016 elected Malia Bouattia as its President, who has been accused of anti-Semitism by over 50 JSoc Presidents.

2. That as Black Students’ officer, Malia Bouattia spoke against condemning ISIS on the grounds that it promoted Islamophobia.

3. That as Black Student’s Officer, she has used many anti-Semitic tropes, including reference to a “Zionist-led media” and describing the University of Birmingham as a “Zionist outpost in higher education (with) the largest Jsoc in the country.”

4. That a unanimous statement from the OUSU sabbatical officers read: “If these allegations (of anti-Semitism) are true, we believe it makes her unfit for the office of National President.

5. In response to these allegations, Malia described them as “right wing media smears”

6. That Malia Bouattia was elected by 372 votes, less than 0.005% of the UK student population, a standard turnout for the NUS.

7. That at the most recent National Conference, the Nus voted overwhelmingly against adoption of One Member, One Vote.

8. The passage of motions at the conference including one seeking to ban Yik Yak, one seeking the end of mandatory GCSE English and Maths, and people applauding a speech against commemorating the Holocaust.

9. That the NUS has faced continuous criticism, increasing over previous years, about its unrepresentative nature, and its continuing inability to engage with other students.

 

The JCR believes:

1. Numerous Oxford students are now questioning whether OUSU should remain affiliated to the NUS.

2. That, as the last referendum was held in 2014, most Oxford students have never had a chance to vote on this issue.

3. That, therefore, OUSU should hold a referendum on potential disaffiliation from the NUS.

 

 

The JCR resolves:

1. To mandate all Balliol JCR representatives at OUSU Council to vote for any motion bringing a referendum on OUSU’s membership of the NUS.

2. To mandate all Balliol JCR representatives at OUSU Council to vote against any procedural motion to hold a vote on bringing a referendum by secret ballot.

3. That this motion also constitutes a formal request for a referendum under Section 12.1 of the OUSU Articles of Association.

 

Amendment 1 [Saad Hamid] Friendly

Strike ‘resolves 1’ and add to resolves:
“To mandate the Balliol JCR representatives at OUSU Council to vote on any motion bringing a referendum on OUSU’s membership of the NUS in the following:
Should the vote in favour of this motion be under 10%, all votes cast to remain in the NUS;
Should the vote in favour of this motion be over 10% and under 40%, two votes shall be cast to remain in the NUS;

Should the vote in favour of this motion be over 40% and under 70%, one vote shall be cast to remain in the NUS;

Should the vote in favour of this motionbe over 70%, all votes shall be cast to disaffiliate from the NUS.”

Amendment to amendment 1 [Saad] Friendly

Change ‘disaffiliate from the NUS’ to ‘to have a vote to disaffiliate from the NUS’

 

Amendment 2 [Xav C]

Scrap note 2. Friendly

 

Scrap notes 6 and 8.

 

Scrap believes 3.

 

Scrap resolves 1

Scrap resolves 2. Passes

 

Add Notes:

 

1) Malia voted to continue commemoration of the Holocaust, commemorated the Holocaust in events she held as NUS Black Students Officer and in her Presidential Speech applauded the NUS for continuing to do this.

 

2) Malia has the support of various Jewish groups like the Jewish Socialist group and Jews for Justice for Palestine.

 

3) That whilst some Jews who have politics similar to Malia's have been satisfied by her comments and apologies for her uses of language in the past, other Jews who share Malia's wider politics have been disappointed and angry about what they perceive as insensitive use of language when talking about Zionism, and have been further disappointed by the way she has dealt with the allegations.

 

4) That Malia said in a Guardian article published today that:

 

"There is no place for antisemitism in the student movement, or in society. If any of my previous discourse has been interpreted otherwise, such as comments I once made about Zionism within the media, I will revise it to ensure there is no room for confusion. I was being critical of media outlets that unquestioningly support Israel’s actions and maltreatment of Palestinians, I was not talking about the media as a whole, or repeating despicable antisemitic prejudice. The first thing I did on being elected was to hold a meeting with the Union of Jewish Students, and these meetings are set to continue."

 

5) The Union of Jewish Students President has emailed the membership urging Jewish students to stay in the NUS and 'hold the leadership to account.'

 

6) The government is currently writing a white paper on higher education to determine higher education policy for the government which is widely expected to contain a removing of the cap on tuition fees.

 

7) An NUS referendum takes up a lot of time and energy of OUSU, meaning that OUSU officers and employees have to devote time to organising the referendum rather than doing OUSU work to support us, the students.

 

8) Work the NUS has done in recent years includes successfully campaigning against government plans to scrap millions of pounds from undergraduate access funds.

Add believes: Passes

1) That because OUSU liberation campaigns depend greatly on work with the NUS and strongly support membership of the NUS, NUS referenda make liberation campaign spend all their time campaigning to stay in the NUS rather than actually doing liberation campaign work.

 

2) Holding a referendum in Trinity Term is not ideal. Many students who would want to campaign on either side of the referendum have exams and would have to campaign to the detriment of their exam results, only for a significant proportion of the student body to leave weeks later.

 

3) The NUS is key in fighting reactionary government policy on higher education

 

4) The most significant movement against the government/government policy in the last 10 years has been from the student movement

 

5) That the perceived strength of the NUS on the part of the government will affect the policy they think they can politically afford to bring through in higher education.

 

6) Malia is the NUS's first black Muslim woman president and attacks on her - such as that in the original form of this motion (original Notes 2) - have been racist and politically motivated.

 

7) Malia hasn't addressed accusations of insensitive use of anti-Semitic language as well as she could have and we hope that she will continue to listen to Jewish students and actively look to learn more about how to avoid using language clumsily and in potentially anti-Semitic and anti-Semitic ways when condemning Zionism.

 

8) An NUS president - at the very least when they are president - shouldn't be using problematic language of any kind.

 

Amendment to amendment 2 [Alex] Falls

 

Scrap all notes.

 

Amendment to amendment 2 [Xav C] Friendly

 

Scrap striking resolves 1 and 2.

 

Procedural Motion Passed

 

Vote in parts.

 

Amendment to amendment 2 [Xav C] Friendly

 

Scrap as in notes 2

 

Amendment 3 Passes

 

Scrap resolves 3

Minutes

Annie welcomed the GM.

 

Ste told the JCR that the date would have to be changed as it clashes with the Garden Party. He outlined the possibilities as changing the week of the GM and changing the days of the GM.

Meg suggested Saturday of third week. It's an exciting change of pace. Everyone agreed.

 

Darryl told the JCR that he was bringing the motion on behalf of Ste. He told the JCR that reports get sent out during the vac, as opposed to the constitution's prescription.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Rivka told the JCR that this motion also tidied up the Constitution. She told the JCR that the Constitution currently reflects the practice of passing charities money at the last GMs of term, whereas we currently use an online ballot.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Iggy was not present, so the motion was delayed.

 

Darryl told the JCR that he intends to bring a paper to the College about June Jamboree. He told that the motion asked for £550 for the June Jamboree.

Alex asked where the figure came from. Darryl replied that it was the cost of the bouncy castles and jousting games and other general funs.

Richard asked what was planned. Darryl told Richard that he was a boring person who therefore had no ideas. Richard asked how large the bouncy castle could be. Darryl replied that he didn't know, Duncan replied it was 20ft by 20ft. Richard asked for a bouncy castle with a slide. Darryl responded that this would be more expensive; Richard is cool with that. He noted that the money isn't currently ring-fenced; Darryl also pointed out that he could always bring another motion should the budget be insufficient.

Annie encouraged the JCR to talk to Darryl about helping out; he agrees because he doesn't want to fail his finals.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Xav G told the JCR that until last year there was a microwave in the TV room that has disappeared. He would quite like a microwave in the TV room, and hence was asking for up to £50. He noted that during vacs, the JCR is closed, so a method of cooking in the TV room would be useful.

It was asked if there was an intention to secure the microwave to prevent future loss. Xav G replied that he did not.

Cealach asked who would be responsible for cleaning it. Xav G replied he didn't know; the other one probably wasn't cleaned at all. He noted that it's possible there exists a microwave not used, so the motion may cost nothing.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

The GM heard Iggy present her motion.

Iggy told the JCR that this motion has precedent, except the publication is now in debt as she forgot to ask the JCR for money last term.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Tom told the JCR that the NUS national conference was held the week of the GM, he noted that there have been many calls both nationally and within Oxford due to claims of anti-semitism on the part of the new president. The motion was to bring a referendum to the next OUSU council on the coming Wednesday. He expressed the opinion that the motion should not stand or fall on the merit of the notes, as it is clear that there exist people who believe their voices have been marginalised, and this is the best way to go about addressing this.

 

Saad told the JCR that Balliol has three votes in OUSU council, and the proportioning of the votes is outlined in the Standing Orders. He expressed that when he wrote the amendment, he had misunderstood the motion.

Saad proposed the amendment to reflect that the votes are to be cast on the basis of a referendum, not to disaffiliation.

Both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment passed without opposition.

Xav C told the JCR that the amendment is based on the idea that the motion is factual. He proposed striking “notes 2,” which he described as racist, and factually incorrect, and was 'perpetuating Islamaphobic lies' part of a wider right-wing political attack on Malia. He explained that a motion was brought to condemn ISIS, which she had delayed as the wording of the motion was such that ic could be perceived as condemning the wider Muslim community, and hence the notes has lost meaningful context.

He proposed striking 'notes 6,' as he believed it to be irrelevant, and the current system was democratic in the same way that the Parliamentary system of Government is democratic, which 'notes 6' suggests otherwise.

He told the JCR that 'notes 8' was “factually incorrect.”

He proposed striking 'believes 3.' He told the JCR that OUSU votes on reaffiliation on an annual basis, and that it would be more productive to

He proposed striking 'resolves 1' and 'resolves 2' and adding notes to reference that Malia had voted to continue commemoration of the Holocaust and has acted in Holocaust Commemoration events; and that various Jewish groups have supported Malia. He told the JCR that he is aware that Malia has said some problematic things, however the debate was inaccurate and unhelpful. He also wished to add a notes regarding Malia's open letter in the Guardian in which she clarified her previous statements. He proposed adding references to the president of the Union of Jewish Students emailing the membership to urge students to remain in the NUS and hold leadership to account; the white paper the Government is writing on higher education to determine higher education policy for the Government which is widely expected to contain a removing of the cap on tuition fees and that the NUS is strong in influencing higher education policy; and that a referendum is timely and costly.

He proposed adding to the believes section points referencing that the NUS is important to liberation campaigns, and told the JCR that a referendum campaign would detract from their work; that a referendum in Trinity is not ideal as students are preoccupied by exams, and hence students cannot act in the campaign as they would like; that the NUS is key in fighting government policy on higher education, noting that a sign of division within the NUS was weaken negotiating position for the NUS; that attacks on Malia have been racist and politically motivated; that Malia hasn't addressed claims of anti-semitic language adequately; and that an NUS president shouldn't be using problematic language of any kind.

Tom asked how this affected the resolves of the motion. Xav replied that it didn't.

Meg asked if a referendum would exist within the university or OUSU council; it was responded that it would be the university.

It was asked how voting would occur for a referendum. Annie explained amendment 1.

Meg asked to clarify that OUSU council reaffiliated anually; Xav C reaffirmed that the JCR could pass a motion to affect how our representatives vote on that, rather than a referendum.

Tom surprisingly didn't take the amendment as friendly. He told the JCR that it was not his place to determine what is and isn't racist in this context and hence he is willing to adopt more sensitive language. He explained that he believes that the fact that Malia was a black students' representative at the time of her comments is relevant to the motion as she was speaking on behalf of black students. He re-expressed the view that the notes are not overly relevant to the question of a referendum. He expressed the opinion that the system of delegates in the NUS is undemocratic, and this is a relevant criticism of the NUS for this motion. He noted that the NUS conference is very time limited, and hence what he perceived as unimportant motions waste time, and hence is a relevant criticism.

Darryl told the JCR that Malia's support for Jewish groups is irrelevant given that 50 Jsoc Presidents have condemned Malia's language, in an open letter signed by over 250 Jewish students as opposed to the two societies cited by Xav. Darryl told the JCR that it was important that she described a large Jsoc as problematic due to it's size.

Duncan expanded upon the quote to give it greater context; he thought the quote was problematic but the abbreviated form is unhelpful. Tom responded that the juxtaposition of the sentences used in the quote definitely imply anti-semitism; it was agreed that this would be debated in the discussion of the motion.

Richard noted that there had been media coverage of Oxford's response to the NUS student, and that a decision for a referendum would not be portrayed as neutral, but as a condemnation of Malia on behalf of Oxford.

Duncan told the JCR that he would like to add further facts to the motion: he noted that Parliament constitutes a very small proportion of people. He had a number. It was predictably very small. Presumably around 650 divided by 64.1 million.

He expressed his agreement with the irrelevance of the kind of motions discussed at the NUS conferences. He also expressed the opinion that it is important to distinguish between criticising the leadership and the body.

Xav C told the JCR that he does not believe that Darryl and Tom have been racist, but rather misjudged the use of their language in the motion. He expressed that it was unfair to paint Malia as “Jew hating.” He reiterated Richard's point that the media would seize upon a referendum as condemnation.

Nicky commented that the motion asks and addresses different questions. He noted that the issue of Malia's presidency is not uncontroversial, but this was distinct from the question of the necessity of a referendum. He commented that it would be worth asking what specifically this has revealed about where student governance in Oxford.

Oli reiterated that there are two separate things going on in the motion. He addressed that the comparison with Parliament is unhelpful due to a higher voter turnout for general elections which thus supplies members of Parliament with a democratic mandate, and that some candidates are elected to reflect student's apathy towards the NUS. He expressed the opinion that the controversial presidency is symptomatic of flaws within the NUS that he believes could be considered grounds for disaffiliation; not that disaffiliation is in protest to the leadership.

Duncan responded that NUS delegates are mandated on what they vote, and hence are not free agents, as he believed Oli was suggesting.

Meg noted that if OUSU were to leave the NUS, it would lose influence within the body, and asked about it's current influence, and whether this was worth risking for one statement.

Duncan replied that there are over three-hundred student bodies affiliated with the NUS. It was commented by a former NUS delegate that the NUS was typically hostile to Oxford delegates.

Tom emphasised that the important question was that of a referendum. He noted that referenda had been discussed across the country. He expressed that a referendum is important symbolically that sends a stronger message that regular channels such as not reaffiliating. He expressed that leaving carries more legitimacy if it is done on the back of a referendum. He also told the JCR that he believes that a referendum is the most accurate way to assess the students' preferred response to the NUS.

Annie reminded the JCR that the discussion is currently relating to the amendment rather than the motion.

Tom told the JCR that voting for a referendum is not equivalent as voting for disaffiliation. He expressed that for a lot of people the events that have happened have highlighted structural flaws of the NUS. He told the JCR that it was important to note that the conference refuses to discuss reforms to increase democratic action in the NUS in favour of discussing Yik Yak, which he believes is a waste of time. He told the JCR that what he intends to see is a broader debate on the matter of the NUS. He told the JCR that one of the few ways of expressing discontent is by disaffiliation due to the vast size of the NUS.

Xav C responded that with regard to the NUS status of democracy, the view of a referendum as symbolically addressing that was flawed. He told the JCR that the NUS has typically been controlled by center left; the election of Malia is symbolic of far left control. He told the JCR that he would prefer reforms such as one member one vote, however OUSU can only push for such change within the NUS as part of the NUS. He commented that as a Jewish student campaigning for Palestinian causes (and as a president of the Palestinian society in his 1st year, during which the society was described by the president of the Israel society as anti-semitic) he agreed with Malia's broader politics. He agreed that Malia has said some problematic things that have to be addressed. He expressed that he supports Malia's wider politics; this does not constitute an approval of all of her behaviour.

Cealach asked Tom what the message a referendum sends to the wider community, noting that Oli has commented that it would not be a comment on Malia's presidency, when all of the notes are referencing Malia, suggesting that if the intended message was to address the structure of the NUS, then neither set of notes is helpful. Tom responded that the NUS does valuable work; he explained that his experience as Welfare Officer in the previous Committee exposed him to a lot of valuable work done by OUSU, and hence believed typical criticisms of OUSU to be unfair, and he imagines this is true also of the work done by the NUS. He then noted that disaffiliation is not permanent. He said that the election of Malia reflected failures within the NUS, and told the JCR that in general change he believes should occur within a group, however this is impossible within the NUS owing to its vast membership. Cealach asked to clarify that the motion is a condemnation of Malia in addition to the NUS. Tom responded that the motion was written in the form that it stood to reflect the strength of feeling behind the motion, but the notes should not affect the resolves of the vote. Xav C asked if he would take the notes as friendly; this humble Secretary believes that this was asked somewhat tongue in cheek. Xav C responded that a lot of notes survive through his amendment.

Xav C reminded the JCR that the amendment only addresses notes and believes, not resolves, to attempt to resolve the issue that the motion is a “political attack.”

It was asked why this specific event has prompted the calls for the referendum, and how this is substantively different to previous issues with the NUS. Tom responded that it has shown the NUS to be unrepresentative, and that the reasonable way to respond to this is through massive student participation. Tom also noted that while we can vote to affect how our OUSU officers vote, we cannot ask the wider OUSU body to do the same without calling for a referendum. He also expressed that he believes there is a time constraint as events have been happening quickly, noting that Exeter are due to have a referendum the week following the GM. He believes that disaffiliation through regular means would not represent the views of individual students in the way that a referendum would.

Xav C called for a move to a vote. This procedural motion fell.

Tom agreed with Xav that 'notes 2' is unfair and suggested compromising language. Tom and Darryl told the JCR that they would be happy to strike 'notes 2.'

Tom called for a procedural motion to take the amendment in parts, splitting the striking of notes 2 from the rest of the amendment. The procedural motion passes.

'Notes 2' was struck without opposition.

Alex proposed striking all of the notes and adding a point to the believes section that there is a debate regarding the NUS. Richard responded that a motion must begin with notes to evidence the motion. Alex responded that the notes are inherently politically influenced, which is unhelpful to the debate. He expressed that the political discussion could be avoided if the motion was directed towards the prospect of a referendum solely.

Xav C told the JCR that the motion is inherently politically charged which should be noted. He expressed that the notes are not controversial, and are objectively accurate.

Alex's amendment falls.

Duncan called a move to vote. Xav C agreed to remove amendments to resolves in his amendment in light of Saad's amendment.

Duncan believed that it would be important to discuss the heart of the motion.

Darryl spoke that it would be nonsensical to add believes that contradict the motion.

The move to a vote fell.

A procedural motion was called by Alex to split the amendment between notes and believes. This was taken as friendly by Xav C.

Xav C asked if Darryl would accept the addition of notes without removing notes. This was agreed to be friendly.

Xav C proposed the amendment to amend believes six to remove references to notes 2 which has been struck. He noted that Malia has taken steps to apologise for her comments that have been badly perceived.

Ste told the JCR that he does not believe that contradictory believes reflects that the JCR has had a discussion, and it was therefore not problematic.

Xav G commented that he believes that the wording of notes 6 is ambiguous and should be amended.

Alex called a move to a vote.

Xav C raised the point of information that he mistakenly struck his changes to 'resolves 2.'

Tom spoke against moving to a vote. He expressed the view that changes made to notes were to remove any perception of political charge, and the believes proposed readmit political charge to the motion.

Jacob asked for clarification regarding the language of the proposed 'believes 7' and 'believes 8,' in particularly with regards to its perceived lack of strength. Xav C noted that he had described comments as “potentially anti-semitic” and “anti-semitic.”

Xav C replied to Tom that the motion is inherently politically charged, as is his motivation, and that it would be disingenuous to suggest within the motion that it was not politically charged.

Tom responded that the vote of the motion should express a neutral judgement about a referendum, which the proposed believes section would negatively affect.

Amendments to believes passes.

Xav C told the JCR should have further debate the prospect of an open vote at OUSU council.

Darryl replied that the resolves exists so that the representatives were accountable to the JCR who had mandated their votes.

Duncan gave the opinion that secret ballots are incredibly contextual and should be decided in the room, and hence the JCR should not enforce this, as secret ballots exist to protect people within OUSU council. He also expressed that the opinion that an open ballot would not lead to accountability if the votes weren't recorded.

Cealach reiterated that representatives are being sent on Balliol's behalf – whom she believes to be trustworthy, and also believes these resolves to be somewhat offensive in questioning that – and that it was possible to want to protect the JCR's views.

Ste responded to Duncan's point about accountability, suggesting that as there is a number of delegates of Balliol at OUSU council, it seems unlikely that an open ballot wouldn't prevent voting against how the representatives were mandated.

Oli retirerated the view that secret ballots are qualitatively different within a vote in which people vote in their own interests rather than in votes on behalf of bodies represented.

It was expressed that it was important that accountability existed within OUSU.

The amendment passes 26 votes to 20.

We then actually started discussion the motion. Only like, an hour afterwards. Efficient.

Annie proposed the motion be interpreted to vote for the motion and then vote regarding the referendum.

Tom proposed striking resolves 3 as it has become redundant as it was discovered that a motion calling for a referendum on NUS affiliation had been put on the agenda for the next OUSU council meeting.

The amendment passes without opposition.

Nicky proposed an amendment to have two votes: one on the motion, and following that, a vote to bind our delegates at OUSU council, arguing that it was very possible for a student to disagree with the believes section but agree with the resolves section, or vice versa.

Duncan made the point that the JCR had already voted on the believes section by voting on the amendment.

Nicky withdrew his amendment, believing it to be more problematic than it was worth.

One vote was agreed to be cast, presupposing that it is binding on the delegates to OUSU.

Meg asked to clarify that the vote was to vote either for or against a referendum. This was clarified to be the case.

Jacob told the JCR that a large group of Jewish students have a problem with Malia. He expressed the belief that it is immaterial whether some Jewish students disagree. He told the JCR that the vote was on whether you would listen to the students who have been offended; not whether you agree with them. He expressed his confusion with the objection to a referendum.

Xav C said that believing things are anti-semitic does not imply leaving the NUS, and noted that a referendum would become costly to the NUS.

Thirty-one voted in favour of the motion.

Twenty-one voted against the motion.

Five abstained from the vote.

Two delegates were bound to vote in favour of a referendum; one was bound to vote against.