2017 Emergency General Meeting

Date: Sunday 2nd week, Michaelmas 2017 (2017-10-15)

Agenda





1. Matters Arising

a) College presence on the JCR Facebook page

Minutes





1. Matters Arising

College presence on the JCR Facebook page 

Minutes 

Hubert sent out the agenda he received from RQ and went through it with the group. 

Zach started the discussion by saying that having a college member in the page would likely be ineffectual as a new group would be created and anything controversial would be posted separately on an alternative forum. Zach also pointed out that considering the history of crises we have had within the JCR, most have hatched in places that aren’t public to the JCR community and were aired to the Facebook page after it took place. Therefore, if college were able to monitor the Facebook page, they would find out about controversies after they took place. 

Eliza then seconded the point that a second JCR group would be made, emphasising that this would have no admin control. 

Amrita then asked about the purpose of this meeting and what it could achieve and Hubert replied that this is a preliminary discussion, not a GM, to gather some feedback and perspective to send to the Exec meeting on Wednesday. 

It was then asked by Hope what controversies this concerned apart from the CU (which it is accepted began in a different forum to the JCR Facebook page.) 

Haydee replied that there was an issue regarding racial abuse on the Balliol compliments Facebook page, which she had to take to the Dean to get anything done. This had to be screenshotted and sent, which was a very difficult and long-winded process as the Dean doesn’t have access to the page. Although the compliments page is unofficial, it is still seen as a college page. 

Hope then replied that if the Dean was in the main JCR page, then would she want access to the Balliol Just The Tips page, the sports pages etc? Where is the line drawn? If this isn’t the case then it’s possible that Just The Tips will become the main Balliol page. 

Beth added that there will constantly be new pages sprouting up and we mustn’t drive people away from the main JCR group which is well monitored and adminned. 

Eliza supported that it would be likely that the Dean or Chaplain wouldn’t have time to check the posts and messages in the page as they are put up and by the point they see it, the situation would likely have escalated or been removed and resolved by the admins of the page. 

Luke said that controversies are rarely happening in the JCR page and so a mass exodus is unrealistic.

In response, Zach pointed out that controversial issues would move to a different forum and escalate without admin presence to contain it. 

Felix said that a new group would have a different, unregulated environment whilst the current group has a safe, moderated environment. If another group were to spring up, there could be a selection process allowing only certain people in. Moreover, information is safer in a closed Facebook group and it can be edited and deleted before anything comes of it. 

Hubert said that in Corpus Christi, the Facebook page has the Junior Deans on it and isn’t as active as Balliol’s. Hertford’s page has the chaplain on it but there was no comment as to its activity. 

Eliza then said that RQ is her tutor and she wouldn’t feel comfortable at all with the Facebook page having her or anyone who reports back to her on it. Moreover, it is possible that future Deans might have certain discriminations and make people feel very comfortable sharing information. Marianne added that this would prevent people from enjoying themselves and seeking advice, even about tiny things. 

Beth said that the Facebook page could be said to be the forum of the JCR as a body and student union, used to advance our own interests as students which might not align with those of the SCR.

Nicky added that the agenda stated the purpose of this is watchfulness, however this is very vague and it unclear whether RQ would have a say in what posts are removed.   

Marianne replied that the JCR page is really beneficial to students and adding college involvement takes away a point of help. She suggested that what we should be doing is making the JCR page a better place, making the rules stronger on what can be posted or adding more admins. 

Hope then said that what happened in the case of Balliol compliments was a failing of the JCR and having the Dean would not have helped, except to be able to link information (which is supported by Haydee) and is likely an exception which would not happen again. Also, Hope questioned how far this would go, as it looks like there is no college confidence in the JCR and we are playing politics with no power and autonomy. 

Zach agreed that since GM and CL minutes are shared with college, the Facebook page is the most important thing for privacy of the student body. He said that RQ needs to be asked whether it is valuable for students to be able to share messages amongst ourselves, which is ultimately what the page is about. 

Beth added that it is a somewhat vague agenda, and suggests that a precedent may be set to let RQ into other groups, like Bal Gals, the LGBTQ page etc and it would not be acceptable to force someone only these. 

The results of the straw poll were then discussed, in which 88% disagreed with having a college presence on the Facebook page. 

Felix raised the point that if college were on the page, they might be able to see all our personal profiles and Lauren said that it seems to be an overreaction, having surveillance for the sake of it. 

Marianne said that in the past, Entz have posted pictures of drunk people from bops, and although consent has been obtained, it is likely that some of these would have to be taken down if there was college presence in the group. 

Isis added that the motion would be counterproductive as it would mean people are too scared to post on the page, especially about personal and sensitive things. Hope added that although she has a good relationship with her tutor, she doesn’t want to feel like she has to justify things to him. 

Nicky supported that it is important for the JCR to understand the actual intentions of RQ here, because it seems the agenda is purposefully confusing.

Hannah then asked about the relevance of the part of the agenda regarding having a 15-year old in the page and Hubert replied that permission was needed to have him in the page, and there are legal issues with having images of him on the internet without explicit consent.  

Haydee said that it looks like the outcome will be not having college staff on the page but it is important to address the issues as she has repeatedly felt let down by admins, committee and welfare officers. Our track record shows we are not that trustworthy and for a lot of people, welfare doesn’t seem to happen. Isis acknowledged these concerns but pointed out that it is not welfare sub who monitor the page. 

Haydee recognised this, and just said that she thinks people will care more and second guess what they post if there could be negative repercussions. 

Ste then compared adding RQ to having a house chat with a landlord in it. The Facebook page is meant for the JCR community, and not college.

Isis agreed with Haydee about repercussions but said instead of college presence, we should set out some guidelines and ground rules to improve the page. 

Eliza replied that people will always say stupid things, it will just move to a different forum; adding someone external would not help. Nicky added that people should behave respectfully on the JCR page to be respected and be decent individuals and where people mess up, this is where the moderators step in. 

 

To conclude, Hubert summarised what has been said, that the minutes will be published to the JCR and the arguments and comments raised to be put to Exec in Wednesday’s meeting.