2016 General Meeting
Date: Sunday 7th week, Michaelmas 2016 (2016-11-20)Agenda
To be added when I'm on a real laptop and not just Daz's macbook that I don't really understand.
Minutes
Elliot explained that his motion addressed an asymmetry in the accountability of the committee and non-committee members.
Motion passes without opposition.
Darryl told the JCR that the motions address ordinary expenditure which is entirely at the Treasurer’s discretion. He wants a tank. His motion therefore mandates the maintenance of a list of ordinary expenditure which restricts the treasurer apart from in cases where expenditure is time sensitive.
Richard asked how coarse the list would be. Darryl responded that he didn’t have a definite answer; he imagines it would be hard finding a balance, but imagines some categories such as “ping pong maintenance.”
Richard asked what would happen if a JCR was to disagree with retroactive expenditure. Darryl responded the JCR would have to determine whether this would be a case of no confidence.
Ste asked Darryl if we should get a tank. “The world is a scary place now.”
Darryl noted it put more power in the hands of the JCR and much more going through JCRs. Richard emphasized the importance of fine graining the list appropriately, but he trusts Darryl’s judgement.
Daisy asked if there was a point in the motion if we trust treasurers given the effort that would be put into it.
Hubert asked if he considered an ongoing reviewing process. Darryl said he had considered it, however ultimately determined that an ad hoc approach would be more reasonable given the time of the expenditure.
Aidan asked if anyone would be able to access the list; Darryl said any JCR member should be able to view it.
Motion passes without opposition.
Darryl described this motion as similar but for entz. He noted that entz have three main sources of income, freshers tickets, boptails, and levies. Expenditures are paying wages, decorations, freshers tickets, and everything basically cancels out apart from ticket sales and boptails. He noted entz had been overspending historically of around fifty quid per bop so entz had been running a loss. His solution was to therefore average recent spending to set a budget.
Saad asked about a thing that I didn’t hear. Darryl responded that the motion only affects bop expenditure, rather than a wider expenditure.
Richard asked if this meant that the last bop of every term would be bad. Darryl responded that he imagined some level of foresight.
Motion passes without opposition.
Annie ceded the chair to Hubert.
Richard noted the motion was Hugo’s doing; he was just taking the credit. Hugo told the JCR that this motion was similar to the others but is more specific because it needs to be. He thinks it would be bad if the bar was to shut. He has split expenditures to capital expenditures and mandated that capital expenditures should be authorized by a GM if it put reserves below a certain figure. He noted other expenditure such as wages and stock costs and things. The formula spits out a value by which prices should be increased, noting the motion itself was not a price rise.
Richard supported the motion as Lindsay’s have an incentive to kick the can down the road, and this motion encourages Lindsays to think about prices more. He also noted that the price rises would be very small and would not disincentivise bar attendance, and Lindsay’s will still work to increase footfall, just not at the expenditure of the sustainability of the bar.
Aidan asked what about if they were to have amazing bar social secs. Were we to have good bar social secs, revenue would be good, so profit should be good; the motion just exists to counteract unusual costs. Richard determined that price rises would be the fault of the bar social secs.
Motion passes without opposition.
Zack noted that his motion was similar to the bar motion but less complicated. He noted that the Pantry historically lost money, and this amount tended to fluctuate. The motion was therefore written to prevent unsustainable losses. He calculated that losing more than £1200 would mean Pantry started affecting the other runnings of the JCR. The motion therefore mandated a projection of losses, and should this be more than £1200, prices would have to rise or a paper presented to the JCR; if the loss was sustained by the end of the next term, prices would have to go up.
Darryl brought an amendment to change the standing orders to reflect this. The amendment was taken as friendly.
Aidan asked why the JCR didn’t mind subsidizing Pantry use but bar use. Zack responded that subsidizing eating is good, subsidizing drinking is bad. Darryl noted that the JCR already subsidises eating as pantry accounts are within the JCR accounts and aren’t separate. This lack of separation also partially explained why this motion was relatively soft compared to the previous motion.
Aidan asked if it was possible to calculate what the subsidy currently is. Zack responded it could probably be worked out but would likely be small.
Alex asked if it would be worthwhile considering expenditure rather than price rises, such as considering the hours people work. Zack responded this has been catered for in the motion. Cealach added that Pantry isn’t just a food service, it also allows people to make money, which is a positive service. Richard noted that there are issues in anticipating how busy times and days would be.
Motion passes without opposition.
The meeting was adjourned.