2017 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 5th week, Trinity 2017 (2017-05-21)

Agenda



Trinity Term 5th Week Agenda

 

 

1. Matters Arising

2. Amendments to Governing Documents

3. Motions Relating to Financial Matters

   1. June Jamboree

4. Any Other Motions

1. Class Affiliations Officer

2. Welfare Vetting

1. Appendices

1. Matters arising 2. Amendments to Governing Documents 3. Motions relating to financial matters

1. June Jamboree - Zachary Leather 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 total cost for the bouncy castle and games last year was around £500

4. That insurance will be included in our current policy

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

6. 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

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.

 

This JCR Resolves:

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

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

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

  4. Any other motions

1. Welfare Subcommittee Role of a Class Affiliations Officer (Calum Holt, Izzy Howden, Isis Kearney) passes

 

1. This JCR notes:

   1. In 2015/16 55.7% of the intake of undergraduates at Oxford University attended state schools; this is the lowest it’s been in five years.

   2. Students at Oxford are 1.4 times more likely to achieve firsts if they haven’t been flagged at application, than if they have. Students who were flagged at application are also less likely to complete their degrees on time. Flagged applicants include

      • Applicants from schools which have low Oxbridge admission rates.

      • Applicants from postcodes which are considered socioeconomically deprived.

      • Applicants who currently live or who have lived in care.

   3. Balliol college has a welfare subcommittee, which provides support and representation for a diverse group of students – including students with disabilities, BAME students, suspended students, International Students, LGBTQ+ students, students who identify partially or fully as women.

   4. Social mobility is a topic people in the UK are becoming increasingly aware of, with the gap between the poorest and the richest widening, rising housing prices, and increasing strains on public services due to austerity.

   5. As residents of the UK, there will be students at Balliol (and other colleges in Oxford) whose welfare in and outside of Oxford is affected by these broader problems in society.

   6. This term, OUSU have launched its ‘Class Act’ campaign which seeks to campaign on behalf of, and provide resources for, students who self identify as working class, low income, state comprehensive educated, and/or a first generation.

   7. Self identifying working class, first generation, low income, state educated students have reported a range of welfare concerns which are directly associated with their social class. These concerns include, but are not limited to

      • Feelings of isolation

      • Classist comments

      • Difficulties regarding their cost of living

      • Confusion about personal identity

2. This JCR believes:

   1. Balliol JCR is lucky to have students from a diverse range of social backgrounds.

   2. It is good that Balliol JCR provides support and representation for many students who are vulnerable to experiencing discrimination, and identity specific welfare concerns.

   3. Balliol JCR should provide support and representation for students from all marginalised and disadvantaged groups.

   4. It would be advantageous for there to be an obvious point of contact who can act as a liaison between Balliol students and those involved in current and ongoing OUSU class campaigns.

   5. In accordance to its friendly and inclusive ethos, Balliol college provides excellent financial support to students who require it.

3. This JCR resolves:

   1. To introduce a welfare subcommittee position of ‘Class Affiliations and First Generation Officer’, following a precedent set by St. Hilda’s (Class Liberation Officer), Corpus (Socioeconomic Rep) and Regent’s.

   2. The Class Affiliations and First Generation officer will have the following aims:

      • Create an awareness, particularly during Freshers Week, of the common experience when transitioning to Oxford, i.e. through events/emails/resources

      • Providing peer support for students who encounter any negative issues as a result of their socioeconomic class. Including but not limited to the issues addressed in i.7 above.

      • Providing support for students who have difficulty transitioning between home and university environments because of their socioeconomic background.

      • Representing the interests of working class or first generation students or those who have lived in care or who feel that their socioeconomic background has affected their experience at Oxford University, in committee meetings and to college.

      • Raising awareness of existing financial support that the college provides, and helping students to feel comfortable to ask for it if needed.

      • Raising awareness of welfare issues which affect these students, providing suggestions on how those who are interested in helping are able to help.

      • Reinforcing Balliol JCR’s friendly environment, by encouraging existing good interclass relations within college, encouraging discussion about socioeconomic class, and appeasing tensions where there exist areas for improvement.

      • Provide spaces and opportunities for these students to speak openly about their experiences.

      • Acting as a liaison between Balliol students and ongoing class-related OUSU campaigns.

   3. To formally introduce the role as soon as possible, with emergency elections being held before the end of Trinity Term 2017. This is so that the elected officer can fulfil their duties and ensure the smoothest transition possible for disadvantaged students before their arrival in Michaelmas 2017.   

   4. To adjust the governing documents accordingly, with the responsibilities of the Officer being listed in the Standing Orders as laid out by the above aims.

 

Amendment 1

Add resolves 5: To elect up to two people to this position

1. Welfare Vetting (Juliet Flamank) passes

 

i) This JCR notes:

1.     That the John de Balliol is a JCR publication, produced by 2 elected non-committee members, to be put up for the enjoyment of the JCR at bops.

2.      That, given the potential risk of content being harmful, the publication is vetted by welfare subcommittee.

3.      That the process of vetting is not mentioned in either the JdeB or welfare sub mandate, and as such has been carried out according to precedent and trust.

4.      That the failings of the vetting system have been demonstrated.

ii) This JCR believes:

1.      The JdeB is endorsed by the Balliol JCR, both in name and also as an elected role (albeit non committee) in the JCR. As such it must be something that the JCR is okay and comfortable with having attributed to it.

2.      That no JCR member should be harmed or made to feel unsafe in Balliol.

3.      That the vetting process should consistently ensure beliefs 1 and 2.

iii) This JCR resolves:

1.      To change the vetting procedure to the procedure detailed in the appendix.

2.      To change the mandates of the JdeBs and welfare subcommittee to incorporate their roles in the vetting process.

 

 

Amendment

Add resolves 3: update standing orders accordingly

 

Amendment

Add resolves 4: to inform potential applicants for welfare roles in information emails and handover packs that potential applicants have a role in the vetting process

5. Appendices

  Proposed vetting process for welfare subcommittee

1       The JdeB will be emailed to all members of the welfare subcommittee by 7pm, so that each member has an extended time to read the proposed publication to think about all possible readings of content and wider upset which could occur. Then within the JCR office itself they can read it at their own pace, and this ensures that it is clear what has been shown to the committee. It would also mean that those who could not be there in person would be able to see it and give feedback, though this should not discourage people from attending, see point 3, and their feedback has to be given by the time the vetting process ends.

2       The vetting meeting should be started, in the JCR office, by 8pm on the night of the bop, the earlier the better however. This ensures that there is enough time to vet properly and for the JdeB to be printed and put up before the bop starts.

3        Attendance is a serious part of the role of welfare subcommittee. All members should attend, and absentees must have a legitimate apology. At least one member of each committee position should be there for the entirety of the vetting process, unless in exceptional circumstances which must be discussed within welfare subcommittee prior to vetting.

4       Evidence of consent to publish should be obtained, and although it is not the responsibility of welfare subcommittee to receive consent, welfare subcommittee reserve the right to check consent has been given and ask questions about the content of the JdeB. If a person does not respond to a message or email then this does not count as consent, JdeBs can send another request to check if the original message was just not seen, consent has to be given in the form of a response. This consent should be asked for through individual messages or blind CCing in an email.

5       The role of welfare subcommittee in the vetting process is to look over the JdeB and remove anything that does not have permission, targets marginalised groups or anything else that they deem inappropriate.

6        It should be noted that one committee member may have knowledge of a sensitive situation and therefore even if only one committee member wants something removed then it is removed. If no agreement is reached, it will be taken out.

7       The welfare subcommittee has the final say in what can be in the JdeB, unchallenged by the Johns de Balliol.

 

Proposed vetting procedure for JdeBs

1. Email sent out 1 week before the bop outlining:

   1. that people will be included;

   2. that they can ask for more information, say no, or give a blanket consent;

   3. make clear that welfare can be contacted if they do not feel comfortable with J de B’s;

   4. that nothing will go in without their express permission.

   5. That submissions are required

2. J de B prepare a publication including only stories that have received consent.

3. Vetting will occur as per usual.

                Vetting will take place in JCR office, and the JdeBs come to introduce and present the publication.

a.              As many of welfare committee to attend as possible

b.              The JdeBs are not to be present during the vetting process and have no opportunity to question a decision: they are simply to be told that something has been removed and that it cannot be included.

1. The JdeB will be displayed for the entirety of the bop, and then removed at earliest possible convenience, although I think 3 days is the right amount of time, given that if people have been home for the weekend and want to see it they should have a chance as well. This is the responsibility of the JdeBs.

Amendment to i.iii

Change to: Make clear that welfare can be contacted if they do not feel comfortable directly contacting the JdeBs about their issues

 

Minutes



June Jamboree

 

Zach proposed the motion for the June Jamboree. He said that the Jamboree is happening in four weeks’ time and money is needed to be passed to be able to fund and organise it. 

 

Henrique asked if it was possible to move the Jamboree to the Saturday of 8th week but it cannot be because then it would clash with the 8th bop. 

 

There is no opposition and the motion passes. 

 

Class Affiliations Officer 

 

Izzy explained that this motion is to propose creating a Class Affiliations and First Generations Students Officer to be a part of the welfare sub-committee. 

They want to create one for purposes of inclusivity, so that anyone who has struggled to adjust to life at Oxford can get help and support. It is not just for people from working class students. There will be no requirement for anyone to prove their working class credentials and they want to encourage involvement from all backgrounds. Izzy said this will be of great benefit because it shows an acknowledgement that these problems exist and can especially provide practical advice for first generation students. 

 

Mia asked when potential elections for candidates would be and Calum said as soon as possible so that there would be an officer in place before Michaelmas. 

 

Zach pointed out that because this is a constitutional change, it would have to come to a 2nd GM for approval. 

 

Ellen said that whilst she thinks the first generation element is very useful, she doesn't like it being so associated with class. Ellen suggested that this is reinforcing the class issue and efforts would be better spent focusing on people who don’t have the means to get into Oxford in the first place. 

 

Isis replied that the motion does not create boundaries but focuses on them. She argues that there are existing class divides in UK culture, and the UK in not meritocratic. This motion would open up a dialogue and help everyone to understand the different class-relation issues. 

 

Beth said that we already have Women’s and LGBT Officers which could theoretically reinforce divisions but they are necessary to provide support and information. Also, there are already access officers to target people not at Oxford. 

 

Ellen replied that Womens’ and EM Officers is different because class is something more socially constructed and by bringing in an Officer, we would be reinforcing this social construct. 

 

Zach said that dome people are proud of their working class origin in the same way as LGBT people are proud of themselves, because it is part of their identity. He said that often Oxford can feel classless because of the hegemony of the middle classes. We need a class officer because it can be difficult to value working class culture, which should be respected in the same way as different backgrounds and different ethnicities. 

 

Cameron asked if this role would focus specifically on students already in Oxford and Calum answered that it would, although it may have some overlap with access. 

 

Izzy added that the Class Officer may also have a role in the summer, engaging in a dialogue with people who have gotten into Oxford but who are not yet here. 

 

Marianne added that welfare roles should actually have some communication with access and admissions, such as the SDOs engaging with college trying to make physical access easier for people. 

 

Ellen said that the Class Officer existence is still reinforcing a class system, especially since it is grouped with a first generation officers as it assumes all first generation students are working class. 

 

Calum answered that they are not trying to imply that it is more difficult to get into Oxford because of class, although objectively it is. 

 

Isis added that the issue of potential division could be addressed during the election process an they could try to elect someone who would not be so divisive. Combining the two roles does however make sense because many first generation students may be culturally working class even if financially they are not. 

 

Calum asked for a vote on whether the role should be carried out by one or two people. 

 

Decided by a vote that the role is to be done by two people. 

 

Luke asked, regarding running for this role, would people have to identify as working class? 

 

Calum answered no, it wouldn't be a problem and there is no requirement on any role other than Womens’ Officers, whoever they are, their purpose is to represent that particular group. 

 

Zach asked if this should be done by secret ballot but there was a vote and it was decided no secret ballot was needed. 

 

Aidan added that this role is really important for people who are working class and to help any people who may feel alienated and isolated when they arrive at Oxford. 

 

Moved to a vote: 

Over 3/4 of room in favour, motion passed. 

 

Welfare Vetting: 

 

Laura said that she is bringing this motion with welfare sub to alter and formalise how welfare vetting and the JdeB runs so that it is clear to the JCR and the people doing the vetting in the future. This motion was written collaboratively with input from past JdeBs and the aim is to make all the JCR feel informed, supported and safe. A lot of this motion is made up from precedent but the aim is to formalise this. The motion includes formalisation of issues such as making the evidence of consent more formal, introducing a right to check consent, a stricter deadline, an email to all members of welfare sub and an individual veto. 

 

Calum asked about the content of the email to be sent out before the bop.

 

Laura explained that this would be the usual JdeB email asking for submissions but with an extra point telling people the format of the JdeB, and reminding people about the issue of consent. 

 

Cameron and Monique proposed an amendment to i.iii to say that the standing orders will be updated accordingly and this was taken as friendly.

 

Nicky proposed an amendment to add resolves 4; ‘ to inform potential applicants for welfare roles in information emails and handover packs that potential applicants have a role in the vetting process’ and this was taken as friendly. 

 

No opposition to this motion and this motion passes.