2017 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 1st week, Michaelmas 2017 (2017-10-08)

Agenda





Michaelmas Term 1st Week GM Agenda 2017

 

1. Matters arising

i) Prohibition of exclusion of religious societies from Balliol’s Freshers Fair (Aidan Balfe, Nicky Halterman, Will Cowie)

 

1. Amendments to the Governing Documents

i) Entz on Fexec (Ste Rose)

 

1. Motions relating to financial matters

i) Greater Change (Rishem)

ii) Reimbursement for Sam Gibb (Sam Gibb)
 

1. Any other motions

 

1. Matters arising

i) Prohibition of exclusion of religious societies from Balliol’s Freshers Fair (Aidan Balfe, Nicky Halterman, Will Cowie) PASSES

 

This JCR Notes:

1. That Section 2.3 of the JCR constitution mandates the JCR to be fair and non-discriminatory with regards to the religious identity of all students

2. That Balliol CU was denied a stand at the Balliol Fresher’s fair by the JCR Executive Committee and Welfare Committee

3. That the Balliol CU was not only denied the ability to have their own stall, but to have in person representation at the Interfaith stall

4. That this decision to bar the CU stand has created some disagreement and controversy by members of the JCR

5. That the JCR president has expressed his desire to solicit broader thoughts on how JCR committee handles issues of religious representation and participation at the Balliol Fresher’s Fair

 

This JCR Believes:

1. That welfare committee is an extremely difficult job that requires making judgements on short notice

2. That we should be able to review and discuss Balliol policy moving forward without this being portrayed as an attack on the good will or character of Balliol committee members

3. That Facebook is not a good arena in which to discuss complicated issues of Balliol Policy

4. That barring the participation of specific faith-based organizations from participation in the Balliol fair is a violation of free speech, a violation of religious freedom, and sets dangerous precedents regarding the relationship between specific faiths and religious freedom

5. That banning the independent participation of Christian groups in order to promote religious diversity endorses a harmful position that expressing Christian faith is incompatible with respecting and promoting religious diversity and tolerance

6. That the Balliol JCR should not make judgements regarding the legitimacy of faith groups or religious expression.

 

This JCR Resolves:

1. To prohibit JCR committee from barring official religious societies from participation in the Balliol Fresher’s Fair

 

Amendment 1 (withdrawn)

Change resolves (a) to ‘To prohibit JCR committee from barring official religious societies from participation in the Balliol Fresher’s Fair on the basis of being a religious society’

 

Amendment 2 (friendly)

Add resolves (b) to mandate the vice president to advertise the submission of materials and/or in person representation and/or information about any religion regardless of whether there is a society for that religion within Balliol, and add this to standing orders

 

1. Amendments to the Governing Documents

 

i) Entz on Fexec (Ste) PASSES

 

This JCR notes:

1. The existence of Financial Subcommittee as composed of the President, Vice President, Treasurer, Foodies, and Lindsay, as established by Part IV.1)1.3 of the Standing Orders, which meets four times a term as per Part IV.1)1.4.

2. That the Foodies, Lindsay, and Entz are distinguished from other offices by being responsible not for an assigned budget, but for an account from which they take money via spending and add money via revenue generated.

3. That the Foodies, Lindsay, and Entz often work jointly on events or deals (such as bops, the Crazy Tuesday Fever deal, ordering stock, occasional non-bop events), and sometimes have to manage similar circumstances and situations regarding organisation and planning.

4. The Entz Office has recently became a lot more interested in how its finances are going, and this has involved a lot of learning things later than would have happened if there was an ongoing dialogue.

5. Michaelmas term sees four (out of seven) bops, as well as the sale of Freshers’ Week tickets.

6. Entz has a non-negligible expenditure; the average budget for non-Fexec and non-Entz Offices is £50, in HT Entz spent £1760 (adjusted for stock), £1510 of which was at the discretion of the Entz Office.

7. The Entz account experiences high volatility.

This JCR believes:

1. Financial Subcommittee is a valuable forum for the exchange of experience regarding the spending from accounts on events and other operations.

2. Given Entz’ similar responsibilities and discretionary control of the Entz account, it is useful for Entz to share a forum for exchanging experiences and ideas regarding financial items.

3. Financial Subcommittee is the ideal forum for this.

4. It would be appropriate for such a change to take place before the first Michaelmas Fexec meeting, due to the high number of events in that term.

This JCR resolves:

1. To amend Part IV.1)1.3 of the Standing Orders to include Entz

2. To co-opt Entz onto Financial Subcommittee with immediate effect.

 

c) Motions relating to financial matters

 

i) Greater Change (Rishem)  PASSES

 

This JCR notes:

1. Greater Change is a mobile donation system being developed by Alex Mccallion, a graduate of E&M from Jesus College, under the auspices of Aspire, a homeless charity

2. Homelessness is a massive problem in Oxford

3. A large amount of money given physically to the homeless is spent in a destructive manner

4. Oxford is becoming an increasingly cashless city, as is society in general all around the developed world

This JCR believes:

1. Cashlessness has, and will continue to have, a dramatic effect on the amount of money given to the homeless

2. A manner of giving which would enable more funds to be raised for the homeless and also ensure that said funds are spent in a constructive manner is a good thing

This JCR resolves:

1. To donate £250 towards the Greater Change Crowdfunding campaign to help build the system.

 

Amendment (friendly)

Proposes to strike notes c), and ... change believes b) to “A manner of giving which would enable more funds to be raised for the homeless would be a good thing”

 

ii)  Reimbursement for the production of LGBTQ zine – Samuel Gibb PASSES

 

The JCR Notes:

1. Listening, the OUSU LGBTQ Campaign zine for 2017, was produced mainly by Balliol student Sam Gibb.

2. The zine was primarily produced to be handed out to freshers at the freshers fair, and showcased art, poetry and articles about LGBTQ+ history around the world.

3. Sam has put extra copies in Balliol’s JCR for students to read/take.

4. Balliol has a history of supporting the furthering of LGBTQ+ rights and arts.

5. Wadham supplied £150 pounds for the production of the zine.

6. The total cost of production from the printers was £282.86.

7. There is a £132.86 gap between the zine’s cost and Wadham’s reimbursement.

8. Money makes the world go round.

The JCR Believes:

1. The zine is really, really good. Seriously it’s like, really good.

2. That the JCR is grateful for the extra copies placed in it.

3. LGBTQ+ people are great.

4. Sam shouldn’t have to pay out of pocket for an OUSU campaign’s zine.

The JCR Resolves:

1. To reimburse Sam £132.86 for his incredible zine.

 

Amendment 1 (friendly)

To remove believes d), and add to notes: The JCR has previously funded the zine Cuntry Living

 

d) Any other motions

Minutes

 

 

Michaelmas Week 1 GM minutes 2017

 

 

Hubert welcomes everyone to the first GM of term and explains the GM process, including the structure of motions and debate.

 

 

Hubert proposes moving Officers’ Question to after the first motion.

There is some opposition by Stephen, who explains that the JCR have not had the chance to reply to the lengthy emails detailing the situation that were sent out today and if we want to resolve the situation, it makes sense to hear all the information before. 

Balfe and Juliet reply that the purpose of the motion is policy and setting a precedent, rather than any accountability or blame. Moreover, context and information has been provided in the emails sent out and it seems arduous to repeat the content through questions. 

 

Less than 1/3 of attendees reject moving OQ to after the motion. OQ is moved to after the first motion has been heard. 

 

First motion: Prohibition of exclusion of religious societies from Balliol’s Freshers Fair- Nicky Halterman, Will Cowie, Aidan Balfe

 

Nicky, proposing the motion, gives some context, explaining that there was a decision made by the JCR Committee and welfare sub-committee that Balliol Christian Union should not be at Balliol Freshers’ Fair. There was no precedent for this decision, and such a discussion for a decision like this must happen in a GM rather than on a Facebook page. Balliol JCR Committee must not have the ability to prohibit religious societies from being at the freshers fair. 

This motion does not call into question the good faith of welfare subcommittee and acknowledges that it their difficult job to make difficult judgement calls on issues affecting welfare. This motion does not aim to lay blame on any specific member, just seeks to set a precedent. 

To ban Balliol CU is a violation of religious freedoms, affecting the experience of individuals within college, and hinders religious tolerance at Balliol. It is possible for religious groups to have their own stall this being an opposition to the diversity of faiths. This policy would be limited to organisations within Balliol only and the JCR cannot bar such groups from attendance on the grounds that they are religious. 

 

A question is asked whether the motion is to prevent the barring of religious groups or groups for being religious. 

A friendly amendment is submitted, adding ‘for being a religious group’ and ‘friendly amendment’ is explained by Hubert. However, the amendment is then struck as Hannah explains that here, there were welfare concerns, rather than the CU being barred simply for being religious. Nicky adds that whether or not a group is religious should not enter into discussion, as this is a different issue, with mechanisms already in place with college to decide. 

Simran explains that Balliol CU were not denied a stall from the fair and were not banned on the grounds of being religious at all, rather instead the unmanned representation of different faiths was proposed along with other offers, none of which the CU took. 

Lucy clarifies that it was the CU that offered a range of alternatives and didn’t accept the Committee’s compromise since they felt it was inappropriate and unfair to have an unmanned stall. 

A question is then asked if there are any other faith groups in Balliol and Hubert responds that there are not, and the interfaith stall at the fair was to have leaflets from wider religious societies. 

Finn then makes a clarification on ‘JCR notes c)’ that there was no proper discussion or vote within committee or welfare sub-committee and it in fact did seem like there was an individual diktat. 

Nicky says that this is not relevant to the current motion and should be brought in OQ, since the motion is deciding the realms of Committee power. 

Beth then says that what was provided was non-discriminatory (notes (a)) and since the discussion had to be held in short notice, there were genuine concerns of welfare and discrimination towards other faiths with CU presence only. 

Will replies that, as a member of Balliol CU he felt the decision not to allow a manned representative stall at the fair was an unfair and discriminatory decision against his faith. 

Beth added that there was actually more information about Christian faith groups and societies available at the fair than other faiths. 

Balfe said that, however, the Balliol CU had less representation than other societies (such as sports, political etc) and therefore there was discrimination towards them because they are a religious group. 

A point was then raised that allowing Balliol CU would not have discrimnated against other faith groups, as there aren’t any within Balliol. 

Balfe added that Balliol CU aren’t trying to be the ‘only religion’ in Balliol and they are not trying to convert people. There are in fact only five members within Balliol and he encourages people to come and talk to them. 

Simran explains that to be a non-Christian in Oxford and at the University is to suffer discrimination and racism due to the predominantly-Christian nature of the University and fundamentally it is wrong to say that we all have the same rights which are represented the same way. He says that he doesn’t understand Balliol CU’s relationship with the wider CU and Will adds a point of information that Balliol CU has no formal affiliation with OICCU, it is its own society who meet once a week and pray together. 

Simran continues that it not true that Christian organisations are non-discriminatory and especially OICCU, which Balliol CU is loosely affiliated with, whom has invited insulting evangelical speakers. 

Nicky replies that it is a shame that he can’t think of any other non-Christian societies in Balliol college, however this policy-making is not part of this problem. The advancement of Christian groups whilst respecting the negative experiences of people does not require us to tear down Balliol CU stall. This argument is one for the abolition for Balliol CU, which is not the policy here. It makes our community much stronger to accept challenges and allow religious participation in public life rather than hiding it away. 

Hannah adds that fundamentally, Balliol CU is a society at Balliol and the aim of the freshers fair is to show what societies are on offer within Balliol. 

A point is then brought that there is still affiliation between the Balliol CU and the wider CU (OICCU), especially since they occupy the same name and Will responds that this is an assumption made and an argument for the presence of a manned stall to eradicate these myths. This is supported by Nermeen. Moreover, Balliol CU should not be tarnished by the actions of a separate group. 

Juliet adds that this motion is not just for Balliol CU to have a stand, but any religious group and Will supports that there will hopefully come a day when other religions are as well-represented. 

Zach says that it is clear that neither side disagrees that more religious groups would be good, however it would also be nice if a person didn’t have to belong to a society and the interfaith leaflets were given out every year with an email asking if anyone wanted to be a representative for their faith. He adds that there is homeliness in college faith and questions why this has to link with having a society. He proposes amendment ‘resolves b)’ to mandate the VP to advertise faith participation at the fair and the submission of materials of all faiths. This is taken as friendly. 

Nicky says that the Balliol choir were at the fair, which holds some relationship to Christianity and it seems that this year the CU has taken a hit where other societies could have perceivably been too.

Beth says that there were concerns raised specifically by the JCR EM Officer, who is elected to represent people of colour of all faiths and it is ridiculous to have only white individuals raising concerns. Nicky responds that the beauty of the GM process is that a wide range of people can be heard. 

Kyle says that the decision made is irrelevant, but if there are legitimate concerns warranting banning, these avenues should not be closed by a fixed policy. 

Nicky replies that this motion is Balliol-specific, which eliminates hate groups with serious welfare concerns. If you can be a Balliol society, you should be allowed to be public in Balliol life. 

A point is then made by an individual who is a non-white member of the Christian union, who says we must not focus on what is done but making it right and build the JCR up by pushing for representation of other groups, rather than tearing it down. 

Another point is made that many people will not be offended or disgusted in the lack of representation of their own faith, and it seems that we are looking for hate in a group where it doesn’t exist. Moreover, the fair allowed Balliol Left Caucus, which has made some offensive facebook posts and we need to look at the incoming freshers and see what they can do to promote other faiths. Every society should have equal opportunity to be represented at the fair, and this is what the motion is achieving. 

Will says that as an incoming fresher he would have found it very hard to find the CU had it not been at the freshers fair, as it is not incredibly visible, although the sense of community is essential. 

Simran says that he completely endorses this motion, whilst disagreeing with some of what has been said and emphasises that there are issues with the way in which we engage with minorities in this college. 

Johnny says that this motion will leave a very good legacy for future religious societies. 

Zach proposes a move to a vote, which is supported.

The motion passes. 

 

Zach then brings a procedural motion to bring Ste’s motion before Officers’ Questions, however this is opposed by more than 1/3rd and the motion fails. 

 

Officers’ Questions

 

Ste asks if before the email sent out to the Balliol CU initially, were welfare sub-committee used in an advisory capacity or to agree with a decision that had already been made.

Juliet replies that by the time the issue had come to them, the response to the email was their task and their was no opportunity to change the decision made. 

 

Hannah then asks who decided to move the discussion from the general Committee page to the welfare sub-committee page and why, as it had originally been a Committee-wide discussion. Hubert says that it was his decision, and because points of welfare were raised, it needed to remain with those officers. 

 

Ste asks what was the process of decision-making as there had been no vote and Amrita responds that where welfare concerns are raised, it is always best to err on the side of caution. The welfare officers talked it over and decided the decision was for the best. 

 

Bessie then asked in the future, what has weight, the policy made or welfare consideration. Hubert said that in an exactly similar event, the policy will have priority. Amrita said that in the case of, for example Left Caucus, the committee would discuss the issues in a meeting, however if it were over the summer, the result would likely be the same as here, with welfare making the decision and if the JCR disagrees, bringing a GM motion. Hubert adds that this is an area in which the constitution is very vague, however Juliet supports that where there are welfare concerns, erring on the side of caution is the best policy. 

Simran says that what responsibility and power given to each officer is a fundamental issue, since he is elected to represent people of colour and different ethnicities and it unclear where they can make recommendations or decisions. 

There is suggestion of Christian representation on sub-committee but Juliet said that she is Christian and was considering her own views when writing the email. 

There is a further suggestion of a religious officer on welfare sub-committee, however Hubert says that this is a policy question rather than an officers question. 

Simran adds that it is unclear what authority each officer should/does have and a productive and respectful conversation is needed. 

 

Sam then asked if it is a constitutional requirement for the JCR Facebook page to be kept secret and the officers answer that it is not, but there are concerns about press involvement if it were to be public. Antonia adds that every other means of change are open to the JCR and lunches and GMs are minuted and publicised. 

 

A question is then asked regarding the two empty committee positions and Hubert explains the process of co-options and hustings. Al then asks about the position of JdeB but it is said that it will probably wait until after the next elections. Ste asks why there was no advertisement of co-options for JdeB and how this decision was made and Hannah responds that there was no secrecy, there was an assumed agreement to wait until Michaelmas due to the sensitive issues presented. 

 

No more questions. 

 

 

Second motion: Greater Change- Rishem 

 

JCR votes to let external speaker Alex in, passes. 

Alex says that he graduated from Jesus College in July and he is working with a charity in Oxford, trying to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds into employment, especially the offenders and homeless. A scheme has developed so that they are not left behind in the economy and it is a distribution system, with money released through a support worker so that the homeless engage with the services. The motion is to support this project with £250 and the JCRs are used for funding since there are lots of people through whom the causes of homelessness resonate. 

It is asked how the system works and Alex responds that there is a mobile app where people can give to the homeless person they want to and the individual can access their fund through support worker. 

It is asked what would the money do and Alex replies that it would be used to develop the tech side, as there are still thousands of pounds left. 

It is asked how much money the JCR account has in it and Ste replies that it is fine, but this would come out of the charities account anyway. 

Hannah then speaks on the behalf of Daisy in support of the motion, although introducing two amendments which are taken as friendly. The amendments concern the wording of the motion, as it is important that homeless people are not considered to use their money ‘destructively’ since it oversimplifies the problems faced by them. 

It is then asked what the homeless can spend the money on and Alex replies anything that isn’t drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. 

 

Move to a vote. 

Motion passes. 

 

Third motion: Reimbursement for the production of LGBTQ zine  - Sam

 

Sam introduces the motion, explaining that he was in charge of producing the LGBTQ zine for the college this year, however the costs were underestimated, and they only received £150 form Wadham so he is £132 out of pocket. Motion is to reimburse this £132.

It is asked what the money was spent on and Sam says only the physical production of the zines. 

It is also asked what a zine is and Sam explains it is a leaflet with art and poetry in. 

 

Move to a vote 

Motion passes. 

 

 

Fourth motion: Entz on Fexec - Ste

 

Ste explains that he, as Entz Officer, spends a lot of money from the JCR but doesn’t fully understand how it works. The Entz account is already out of pocket from a minimal levy and the funding of the Sky subscription and £80 of the bar license at the beginning of each term before considering JCR money. He doesn’t really understand tax and doesn’t know how much money he can/ does spend and all this would be clearer within a Fexec meeting. 

Someone asks what Fexec is and Ste replies that it is the Financial Executive Committee that meets once every two weeks, overseeing the financial running of the JCR. We are all unsure of the original rationale for leaving Entz off Fexec. 

 

Move to a vote

Motion passes.