2017 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 2nd week, Trinity 2017 (2017-04-30)

Agenda







Trinity Term 2nd Week Agenda

1. Matters Arising

2. Amendments to Governing Documents

3. Motions Relating to Financial Matters

   1. Sanitary fund levy

   2. Repeal movement

   3. Common Ground

4. Any Other Motions a. Mastership

5. Appendices

1. Matters arising

- Officers' Questions 

2. Amendments to Governing Documents

3. Motions relating to financial matters

a) Sanitary fund Levy - Monique and Laura

This JCR notes

1. That currently the sanitary fund pays for sanitary supplies for all those who need them at

   Balliol, and all members of the JCR can benefit from it, regardless of gender

2. That the womens officers are currently mandated by Standing Orders to “manage the

   provisions of emergency contraception, tampons, rape alarms and pregnancy tests”.

3. That previously about £600 on average has been spent per term on sanitary products

   provided in staircase 3, 16 and Jowett.

4. That currently the optional “tampon fund levy” stands at 1p per term, to which it was

   lowered having been too high for many years.

5. That presently sanitary items are taxed as a luxury item by the UK government.

This JCR believes

1. That it is morally important that the JCR is supplied with free sanitary items.

2. That since free sanitary products are not provided by the government, the JCR should

   provide them itself.

3. That the best way to ensure provision of free sanitary supplies without overcharging students for future supplies is to maintain the fund so it can go two terms without sustenance.

This JCR resolves to
1. To tie the sanitary fund levy to £1200, the level at which the fund can be used for two

terms without sustenance

b) Repeal movement - Monique This JCR notes

1. In the Republic of Ireland the constitution has what s known as the 8t​ h​ amendment stating: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

2. The UN has condemned Irish abortion policy

3. The Irish state then does not afford women bodily autonomy.

4. 12 women a day travel from the republic to the UK for abortions

5. There is a large movement in the republic to repeal the 8t​ h​ amendment, but the

   government has put the issue on hold until 2018.

6. In a recent survey 55% of people said they believed the 8t​ h​ amendment should be repealed

   for limited abortion

7. Recently several “family planning clinics” have been shut down for propagating lies to

   pregnant women about the dangers and after effects of abortion

8. JCR standing policy currently states “That everyone has a right to impartial and neutral

   advice on abortion” and “That people who are pregnant should be assisted in making the

   decision that is right for them”

9. That at the end of last term £34.50 was raised by selling cocktails in the bar, the profits

   from which are to go to Repeal.

This JCR believes

1. That a constitution should not hold authority over any person’s body

2. The eighth amendment is unjust, and should be repealed

3. The Irish government should not be allowed to ignore this human rights issue

This JCR resolves to

1. Condemn the acts of the Irish government in ignoring its peoples wishes.

2. Support the movement to Repeal the 8t​ h a​ mendment of the Irish constitution.

3. Donate £35 pounds more to Repeal, doubling the money raised in the bar

c) Common Ground - Shreya This JCR notes:

1. That the objects of the JCR are to advance education and to advance citizenship and community development.

2. That Social Responsibility is a core principle of Balliol. The website states: “Balliol generates ideas and educates people who seek to change the world for the better...Balliol is a college that is accessible to students whatever their background.”

3. That Common Ground is a student movement that examines Oxford’s colonial past in the context of its present-day inequalities and interrogates Oxford’s imperial legacy.

4. That Oxford admits disproportionately low numbers of lower income and BME students and is still overwhelmingly middle class and white, both demographically and in terms of its curricula.

5. That Common Ground are organising a symposium entitled, ‘Imperial Past, Unequal Present’, to discuss Oxford’s relationship with the British Empire and its ideology in the context of racism and classism in the present day.

6. That there will be talks, panel discussions, screenings, art and performances by over 40 speakers held all across Oxford over the weekend between 7t​ h​ and 8t​ h​ week (10t​ h​-11t​ h​ June).

7. That all symposium events are open and free to all students.

8. That Balliol JCR member Shreya Lakhani is a symposium director, treasurer and in charge of

   funding for the event.

9. That Common Ground need funding for speakers’ travel expenses, some of their

   accommodation, printing costs for posters and promotional materials, paint for banners,

   etc.

10. That college representatives of the symposium are applying to their JCRs for funding, OUSU

    funding is being explored and Shreya is in contact with Bruce about college funding.

11. That Common Ground would really appreciate funds from the JCR of £300 to support their

    event.

12. That this JCR passed £200 in MT16 and £200 in HT17 for Panoptica Magazine, which is

    focused around opening us similar spaces for discussions about racial inequality, and has regularly passed similar amounts for other publications like Cuntry Living.

This JCR believes:

1. That it is important to support this movement and contribute to helping normalise discussions of race and class within Balliol and Oxford at large.

2. That it is important to support the initiative of Common Ground in providing a mechanism of solidarity for BME students to organise such conversations in collaboration with university staff and academics, and make events open to and free for all members of this JCR.

3. That showing solidarity and support for this movement would significantly benefit from all members of the JCR and be in line with Balliol’s core principles and beliefs.

This JCR resolves:
1. To support Common Ground and donate £300.

4. Any other motions

a) Mastership - Hubert (Postponed to next GM - 7th May 2017) 

This JCR Notes:

1. That a Mastership Election is upcoming this term.

2. That the President will meet some of the candidates, and give feedback to the Election

   Committee.

This JCR Believes:

1. That, as far as is possible, the best candidate should be chosen for students. This JCR Resolves:

1. To discuss what key qualities we wish to see in a Master

2. To mandate the President, or delegates should the President not be able to make meetings,

   to recommend the candidate that best fits the criteria in Resolves 1. to the Election Committee.

To be discussed In Camera.

5. Appendices 

Minutes





Trinity Term 2nd Week GM Minutes 

CN: Discussions on sexual assault and violence

CN: Contains highly sensitive information- not to be shared

Officers’ Questions 

Request to delay minutes of Officers’ Questions being released until after JdeB-related matters are discussed and resolved later in the week. 

Hubert - Request that minutes are readily available following further discussion with the involved parties.

Cealach- The incident took place on the 11th of March, it is now late April, so it has dragged on a long time. We have had lots of problems getting things answered, getting stories straight and I would prefer the information to be released honestly and straight forwardly immediately. 

Caitlin- Publishing the minutes straight after seems the most reasonable option, means that they are open to wide swathes of people and can be accessed by everyone in the JCR. 

Will- Is everything else related to the incident ready to be released? What else are we waiting on?

Freddy- We are currently waiting on a mediation meeting sometime this week.

Cealach- I would like all the facts to be released and heard in the minutes. 

Julia- Could we released the minute for the questions after reports are released?
Caealch- This has already gone on too long, we have finals in fifth week, I don’t want this to be delayed any further.

Will- Why don’t we release reports in their original form? 

Monique- Reports are not released perhaps because they contain allegations rather than facts, it is not fair to put this out to the JCR. 

Ste- Request a move to vote 

Move to a vote.

Minutes release not to be delayed. 

 

Cealach requests that with many questions to ask, laborious to ask people to ask at front. It is agreed that people may remain seated where they are as long as they can be heard.

Ceaalch- Could the Drs. Who provide an accurate versions of the events of the 8th week bop? We have heard many different versions. 

Ele- Alex and I have different versions, initially they are the same but we were apart whole night and so saw different sides of the event. We had the vetting session in the JCR office a bit later than usual, 7.30-8, where everything went as usual. Normally, all of welfare sub and the JdeBs are there, the JdeBs go outside and the document is read through by welfare, after which it is printed.  This night, we looked at the word document, which was a 2-page spread. Everything seemed fine. Monique asked if there was anything else, since the JdeB is normally spread over different documents. There was a picture thing on John’s laptop which had died, and we were able to describe to everyone else that it was a redacted photo series. There was a small discussion about this and it was decided it should pass. We did not think any other stuff on Stephen’s laptop was relevant. 

Alex- Just to add, I changed the wording of something, a small joke that was later unopposed and the JdeBs were happy to do so. 

Ele- For the rest of the night, I just did bop stuff, I came to bop and saw this extra page and took it down. I later took down others by the toilets. On the night, I had a drunk chat with JdeBs about this but cannot remember exactly what was said. 

Alex- I have a very similar experience of the welfare sub meeting. I was aware of the extra page in question but did not get to ask about it as I thought it all had been looked at. I accompanied the JdeBs to the printer room. Here I have made clear that I did have the opportunity to view the page in question but underwent a personal crisis at time, and was distracted. I did see the page but failed to see the specific quote. I am very sorry and apologise for those affected. I did not accompany Stephen and John in putting up the publications in the bar as I have sometimes done. 

I later heard that there may be harmful content on the publication, it was confirmed that the quote in question had consent, but I did not know its specific wording. In the night, I tried to find Stephen and John welfare sub to establish what the quotes were. 

Cealach- I did not consent to my part in picture series in the JdeB publication.

Ele- We did have a discussion about this, and it was assumed that there was consent. We generally assume consent would be given since it was given in a similar situation previously for a similar publication. 

Cealach- I was not asked for my consent to the previous publication either.

John- Ele asked us why we hadn’t sought consent for certain pages. I did not know who had torn down previous pages, perhaps it is not our place to know. It was not possible to seek consent, we resolved thinking we had not done anything wrong.

Cealach- Procedurally, if the name of target is unknown, is it okay to publish a page without consent?

John- I did not think it was our right to enquire. In general, it is not appropriate. I don’t feel there were specific individuals targeted with the picture publication. They were put up in the bar, welfare saw the pages and passed them with no objections. Later, Ele asked if we had asked consent, I said no, and was unsure as to what was referring to. It was not made clear to us who it was we needed to ask.

Caitlin- If individuals have felt targeted by the JdeB previously, how did you not feel individuals would not be targeted following the second bop JdeB?

John- We did not necessarily feel that tearing down meant that people felt targeted, it simply may have felt that they disagreed or that it was inappropriate to show. It was not made clear to us that people who had torn down were known to have done so within the wider JCR. It was not evident at all that it was about targeting. 

Caitlin- So, being unaware of the impact of the previous picture series, in hindsight, what is your opinion about your second joke about it? 

John- It is upsetting for us to know that people feel upset or targeted by our work. No, it was not the right thing to do, with hindsight, since people became upset. I don’t think Stephen and I have used our position as JdeBs as a platform to target individuals. 

Caitlin- You don’t think it is a platform to target and upset people but you did think it was appropriate following the initial tearing down to make a further joke? 

John- There was no indication that this was a demonstration of people being targeted and there was very little communication with us by welfare about its impact. The redacted images were approved by welfare sub, and so the lessons to be learnt are very much bound up in the flaws in the vetting system.  

Zach- I request that to improve procedure, specific questions to specific officers are asked. 

Caitlin- After the second bop, which contained jokes about women speaking out and sex workers, I contacted Ele and asked about the vetting process and how the jokes went through, knowing that Oxford Women Speak Out is taken very seriously, which I found very upsetting. The welfare officers assured me there was a long discussion but it still passed, and I was told the result was a welfare sub meeting to improve vetting. You said you improved the vetting process which didn’t work. I am interested to know if this meeting actually went ahead.

Were the Women’s Officers present at meeting allowing women speak out, if not why not and why was it allowed to pass?

Alex- It was made very clear to the JdeBs that there was a welfare meeting about the vetting process. Some decisions made on 8th bop by myself were misjudged, but also I had hoped for greater awareness of the JdeBs. 

Ele- The mistakes made at the second bop were based on our personal bias and misjudgement. In the follow-up meeting we gave a reminder to act as JCR reps and think as they would in vetting.

Stephen- I am prepared to take Alex at his word that the meeting took place and we were told about it. 

John- I can’t remember anything about it, which suggests that we were not told about the meeting. The conclusions and amendments were not described to us. 

Monique- I was there (at the second bop vetting), I regret that it went through. I would act differently now and I am very sorry to those who were harmed or affected. 

Caitlin- At the time did you think it should go through?

Monique- I personally didn’t but I didn’t feel too strongly about it. 

Caitlin- Your role as WO is to protect the most vulnerable and be sure about parts of the JdeB. Why wasn't that your concern at the time?

Amy- As a point of information, there should be no such thing as having an opinion/ debate on welfare sub. If someone is uncomfortable with it, it should not go in. Someone may not be able to explain their reasons against it and people should not have to give reasons. 

Will- Is this a fact-finding exercise? It is taking too much time and some of these questions should be saved for later. I would like to ask John and Stephen what their version of events were.

Laura- I was not there at the vetting, earlier I had returned from women’s march in London and went back to Cowley. I knew Monique would be there and there were many other members of welfare sub not there. 

John - Requests to read from notes. 8th week bop. We went to the JCR office at 5pm for vetting. We briefly described the content of the publication, including a brief outline of the profile torn down. We left our laptops in office for vetting as is usual.  Some minutes later Alex contacted us saying the welfare vetting was over, one joke was slightly changed (not torn down.) Alex, Stephen and I went to the print room. All material was then printed together. Alex looked through the printed material, and we then displayed it on walls. Alex messaged Stephen later asking how bad is ‘Matt Smith stuff’,i.e the send nudes bit. Alex and I met, Alex raised concerns about the profile, but expressed consent. At 10:20 the profile was torn down. Welfare sub met next day without informing JdeBs of their conclusion or events.

Julia- As a point of information, Matt did not know what the used quote said, just that his quote was included. 

Juliet- There is a welfare vetting motion going through currently, from now on there will be no argument if one officer is concerned or unsure about some piece going through. 

Richard- As a point of information, the committee lunch after the second bop demonstrated that people are unsure about the vetting process. It showed confusion and that people didn’t realise it was a veto system. It does not excuse welfare sub but does show people had lost sight of the purpose of vetting.  

Will- I have a question for Alex and Ele. Why did you send out email to the JCR giving impression that John and Stephen had hidden page from vetting process?

Ele- At that point, I did not know Alex had seen the page, according to version of events from earlier. I agree it was poor wording, and know now that it was not deliberately hidden from us. We were not shown all documents explicitly, but we may have missed it.

Will- How quickly did it become clear that Alex had seen it? Why did it take so long to send apologies, in the period in between giving the impression of blame to John and Stephen?

Alex- I went to a family event on the Saturday which delayed events. I had not seen the quotes on the page since I was distracted by a personal crisis, although I did have the opportunity to view the page. My later message to Stephen shows that I was unaware of offending profile.

Ele- I had been badly affected by the event which affected me the morning after as well and I was not clearly thinking about wording. I did not intend to imply their intentions although I realise this was silly. My email was not supposed to imply this.

Alex- Our immediate priority was reassuring the JCR since the event came at an unfortunate time when many were away. There should have been a full meeting of events first before an email was sent out. This has since been reviewed. 

Cealach - Questions for Drs. Who, Women’s Officers and the wider welfare sub: 

Why has it been turned into gender issue rather than class issue, and why have sports  teams been focused on?

Are you aware of how relationship with OUSU works, particularly regarding the relationship with the Dean?

What are the reasons for inconsistent information given out?

Caitlin- Clarified that when I spoke to Drs Who, they had not got in contact with OUSU, so I did it. 

Ele- The welfare sub committee responded to the events in a few different ways since there was far too much to do as a pair. We are not just looking at it as a gendered issue. We felt one of the main problems with stuff being said and not recognised as an issue does come from a place of privilege, so it is not just a gendered issue. 

Good lad workshops were suggested as something we could do straight away since event involved members of sports teams. 

We also are looking generally at wider issues involved e.g alcoholism, gender, mental health 

Alex- We have made people aware of counselling services and peer support and given contacts should they be needed. 

Caitlin- I directly informed Ele of things OUSU has done in the past to help specific groups with similar issues. 

Ele- These applied to situations which had gotten really bad, I was unsure if this was the case here. I did inform WO about them, taking the steps of talking to the Dean. I have been more focused on wider workshops. I apologise to you two for the amount of things you have had to do. The second time you asked me, I had not contacted OUSU since I had been looking into specific workshops. 

Monique- We are concerned about all issues and their wider effect e.g women of colour affected disproportionately but the main issue is gender. Some of the culture filtered through to JdeB from sports clubs but I know it is not just this. I did contact the President of Oxford Women and met with her last week about running a workshop about privilege and I am looking into running more of their events in Balliol, especially to set up as a first-responder training as of next term. We are also contacting OUSU. We did meet with the Dean before contacting OUSU to let her know what was going on. We wanted to be able to book rooms and so had to speak to Dean to be able to do so. We have been in discussions with Orla about what we can do e.g. proxy so that people can submit anonymised comments.

Caitlin- OUSU has specific rooms on site so that college involvement is not necessary. 

Bessie- It is interesting that Alex used words ‘my immediate prioirty’. Why could welfare not admit to the JCR that an honest mistake was made? I do not look to welfare to keep us safe, I look to police, why do they need to say to keep us safe?

Ele- We want the JCR to be a safe space, we do not want to argue about under vetting and over vetting and we want people to be comfortable and not be upset by anything that goes up in JdeB. Our involvement in vetting is so that people do not feel unsafe and find a safe space in the JCR. 

Many people were upset immediately, everyone thought we had seen the page before and allowed it through. For fear of negative feelings and lack of trust of welfare, I sent the email.

Bessie- You made it sound like the mistake was on their part. Why didn’t you feel could give a more objective stance? Should you have stepped back and let someone else write the email?

Ele- I do feel that I was responding as someone greatly affected in a way to help and reassure others who may have been affected. It was a very personal piece. I did retract my statements with apologies made later on. Yes, a more objective person could have written the email better. 

Alex- A better recognition of fault and blame came later in the day.

Caitlin- Question mainly for welfare but includes WO: 

Do you all feel that you have handled this well? Do you believe that you have dealt or are about to deal adequately with this problem? 

I understand that it is welfare’s job to protect and prevent people getting upset, but there are people in this JCR who sent it in and who felt it okay to do so, which needs to be dealt with.

Ele- I very much don’t feel that enough was done over the vac concerning immediate damage caused, it was very difficult to do since many people were away. I feel welfare sub did not do enough there but actions taken have dealt well with the general atmosphere.

Alex- I very much agree. I have been at fault for missing particular opportunities and was affected by a particularly rough term. 

Cealach- To clarify the question, which referee to dealing not with the immediate event but later problems, keeping people up to date, preventing panic attacks etc. 

Alex- This became a lot better with clarification of events over later days. I feel that I did much better towards the end of the vac. 

Ele- We have not done well enough in addressing individual cases, not wanting to involve people that might be upsetting. We often have to go through a neutral platform, though Hubert, before we can release information. 

Caitlin- No one has contacted me despite me articulating this as a problem and coming out as a survivor. Do you believe you have to go through a neutral platform to support me?

Ele- After that night, I did not feel like I would be seen as a comforting or approachable figure. I should have asked other people not involved in the events like peer supporters to do that and regret that people have not received the needed help.

Monique- Anyone who has approached us, I have tried to point them on to peer support and help them any way we can. I am very sorry to anyone affected and am happy to help anyone who wants to come to us. 

Cealach- Do you consider me one of those people? I did contact you.

Laura- This has taken a very long time to resolve itself and many accusations have been made. 

Monique- We have found it very difficult to to bring in people externally without a specific allegation of harrassment. 

Laura- In the future, we hope to address the culture of making these comments generally. 

Laura- I think we have tried our best, with the limited powers that we had.  

Monique- We have acted in a way to try to help people of the JCR and looking back on it, I don’t know what we could have done differently.

Bessie- Point of clarification: What is the appropriate response to deal with these people who have different opinions? 

Caitlin-  Statistically 1 in 4 women are survivors, including myself. This is not an issue of people whose sense of humour differs to me, that attitude contributes to a rape culture and to people getting away with rape. I am hurt that this is being trivialised to that level. In terms of dealing with this issue, I don't think the JdeBs should be in their roles any more. They are supposed to provide a source of entertainment but it seems that they don’t have an understanding of JCR, since they have insulted women, people of colour and others. I personally don’t think welfare officers responsible should be in their positions, since they failed to help people who reached out to them. 

Making and putting through this piece could be considered as harassment and we need to do as much as possible to stop this ever happening again. 

I don’t know the exact way to deal with this. I have worked on these issues for 4/5 years and this was more impactful than any previous experience. I have struggled throughout the whole vac and am still hurting. I don’t think that just some reports coming out would be enough. In other universities, the people responsible may even be kicked out. I don’t know how to fully deal with this, though.

Will- I propose a motion to wrap up the Q and A session. It has gone on too long, many people are upset and it has reached the point where those individuals can deal with issues in separate situations. This is close to GM-what-shall-we-do territory which should be saved for next week. Some officers are being publicly shamed and it is not right to carry on. The officers were acting to help the JCR and this is not going to be resolved tonight. 

Caitlin- I have been having conversations with people affected. This Q and A sessions allows transparency for people who are affected without having to come out as a survivor. 

Will- Can we try to prioritise factual questions? Discussion and debate should be for next week. 

Barney- Question for welfare sub:

 Is there some part of the constitution to veto parts of JdeBs with any opposition whatsoever?

Ele- No, but we are constructing this. We hope to improve this for this and next term. 

Cealach- 3 years ago there was a motion to get rid of JdeB, the same amendment was concluded and passed down but this is no longer in action. 

John- Stephen and I completely regret the things that were put in our publication, we are not welfare trained. We do not stand by the things that were put in at all, do not support these in any way. 

Ele- We do think this is finalised as soon as possible. We will be holding an open welfare meeting soon about how to move forward considering what are the best actions to take. There will be opportunities in the future to talk about this. 

Ellie- What is happening next? 

Ele- A no-con motion against the JdeBs is being brought to this week’s Committee Lunch and GM and the proposed welfare vetting will take place at the next GM. There is an open-welfare meeting and bystander workshops coming up and we are working to give access to students here, hopefully by end of Trinity.

Caitlin- What was the mix-up about the no-con motion?

Also, is anyone stepping down because of this?

Ele- The mix-up was purely constitutional. A motion requires 20 signatures before it can come to a committee lunch, it was our fault for not realising this. 

Alex- I have already begun discussions regarding stepping down and soon will start looking for co-options. This will be after the resolution of all these motions regarding the JdeBs and welfare. 

Ele- I feel like I have let people down but it would be bad timing for both of us to step down. I am hoping for a chance to make amends in some way.

Monique -  We are trying to run workshop about intersexual privilege in Trinity term and communicating with GE officers of other colleges and looking to run similar things with them next term. 

Juliet- No one in welfare sub believes they have handled their role to the best of their ability, but not stepping down is not an indication of this. It shows that members are willing to do things to make amends. 

Ellie- This discussion has been distressing, who can affected people go to should they need to?

Juliet- They can go to any member of any welfare sub, Bruce, college nurse, OUSU, can find info online, other college welfare officers and peer supporters.

Caitlin- Also, there are rape and sexual assault centres, advice and hotlines available for women, men and non-binary. vpwomen@ousu.ox.ac.uk

Monique- Also there are supporters at other colleges.

 

No more questions.

End of Officers’ Questions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanitary Fund Levy- proposed by Monique and Laura

 

Laura- We want to sort out sanitary fund so that it stays level. 

Monique- 

Currently we spend £600 per term on tampons. We have spoken to Zach and the levy has been at 1p for a few years. Before it was far too high, with huge reserves, but now it is much lower. We have discussed with Zach that would be best to have always 2 terms’ reserves in the funds, i.e to always have £1200 in the funds. 

 

No short factual questions.

No points of debate

No opposition

Motion passes 

 

Repeal- proposed by Monique

 

Monique- 

It is part of the Irish constituiton, the 8th Ammendment, which puts the foetus and women put on same standing. It is only very rarely, occasionally when the mother’s life is in danger that there can be any discussion of abortion. 

Repeal is the movement against the 8th Amendment, which argues against the Amendment in personal and human rights grounds. 

We believe that no state should have control over the body of women.

Also, a recent survey said 55% disagreed with the 8th Amendment. 

However, any discussion of the 8th Amendment has been postponed by the current government until at least 2018. 

Recently, Balliol bar sold cocktails to raise money for Repeal and managed to raise £34.50. 

We want to donate £35 on top of £34.50 already raised to Repeal. 

Repeal co-ordinate and work in every way possible to end the Amendment.

 

No short factual questions.

No points of debate

No opposition

Motion passes 

 

Common Ground - Shreya

 

Shreya- 

Aims of Common Ground are similar and compliment those of Balliol JCR, such as social responsibility. 

Common Ground is a student movement which is organising a symposium in 7/8th week, which will discuss racism, classism and decolonisation with academics coming from all over UK and world. It will be a huge movement and is hoping to have great media coverage. 

I feel Balliol’s thoughts and aims are very much in line with CG, one aim of the JCR is to ‘advance education and to advance citizenship and community development’ which is greatly synonymous with that of the symposium. CG needs money for the travel costs of speakers, their ability to stay overnight, promotion and printing materials and to support some transport from abroad. They have  no budget but need to raise as much as possible. I have suggested that Balliol donates £300 to support the event. It is really important for Balliol to support this to open up discussion for marginalised people. 

 

Short factual questions: 

Barney- Is there a centralised goal of funding?

Shreya- Four of us are directors, all are applying to our JCRs for money but we need as much as possible. Some speakers are still waiting to see if we can pay for flights.

Cole- Is there any way for individuals to contribute financially?

Shreya- Yes, no platform as such but any way they can e.g Paypal. All events are free for everyone to attend. 

Felix- Where would the money come from?

Shreya- The general JCR fund

Felix- Do we have so much money?

Zach- Yes

 

No points of debate

No opposition

Motion passes.