2018 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 2nd week, Trinity 2018 (2018-04-29)

Agenda

1. Matters Arising

• Pantry Mandated Maximum Loss
• Secretary Dual Nomination
• Abolishing the JdB
• Funding for Play at Fringe
• Subscription to Student Newspapers

Minutes

Pantry Mandated Maximum Loss

Thomas noted that pantry is currently mandated to lose no more than £1200 a year. He suggested changing this figure to £2000 on the basis that the original figure was just an informed guesses. He does not believe that pantry will make such a large loss but believes that pantry should not be required to adhere to an arbitrary target, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the financial impact of ice cream shifts. He suggested that pantry might make an £800 termly loss in the worse case scenario, which could push it towards the £1200 limit. It was asked whether the recent price rises would be reversed. Thomas said that they would not. Zach noted that the original mandated maximum loss was arbitrary, and agreed that it should be changed. 

Motion passes. 

Secretary Dual Nomination

Leah noted that there have been issues with the secretary's workload in the past. Unlike many JCR roles, the secretary must be available at specific times. Given the recent resignation, she thinks that it is sensible to make the role of secretary dual nomination. This does not mean that it will always be filled by two people, only that the option should be available. 

Ellen asked how the role of secretary would be divided up. Leah said that the two secretaries could decide on how to split the role up themselves. Ste objected that the president, vice-president, treasurer and Lindsay must attend as many meetings as the secretary. Leah noted that the secretary is usually a fresher, and there is no reason why they should need to attend every meeting. It was objected that the secretary ought to be across all JCR business, and that a dual nomination role might lead to communication issues. Leah noted that there are several dual nomination roles, including that of foodie, and that both secretaries will have access to all minutes for all meetings. Hence they should both be able to remain informed about all JCR activity. 

Nermeen asked what would happen if two people ran for the role and one resigned. Leah said that she wasn't sure but hoped that the other person would stay. Thomas said that it would make more sense to have an assistant to the secretary to reduce the workload. He further noted that the role of secretary doesn't necessarily have to be filled by a fresher. In future, he suggested that it might be filled by a non-fresher. Leah noted that the role is usually taken on by a fresher because it does not require a detailed grasp of JCR affairs and hence allows freshers to get involved in the committee. Thomas suggested that there should be more clarity surrounding what the role of secretary involves. Leah agreed that the secretary's responsibilities should be more clearly defined. However, she said that the motion is intended to address the fact that the JCR is currently lacking a secretary. 

Michael noted that the intention is not to set a norm, only to allow two secretaries to be co-opted if necessary (i.e. if a secretary resigns or has severe difficulties with the workload). The role should ideally be filled by a single person. It was suggested that it might become the norm for two people to fill the role of secretary. Leah said that she hoped that this would not be the case, and would emphasise in her handover pack that the role of secretary should be filled by a single person.  

Motion passes first reading with required 75% majority. 

Abolishing the JdB

Aidan noted that his motion is intended to remove all mention of the role of JdB from standing orders. He argued that the problem with the JdB is that it is a JCR institution. The presence of the JdB in the "JCR, and the fact that its editors are elected JCR officials, means that the JCR is partly responsible for its content. In turn, this means that the JCR has to ensure that the JCR has to make sure that the JdB's content does not unduly offend its members. Usually, it is possible to rely on the digression of the JdBs but recent events have forced welfare sub-committee to remove any material that may possibly be offensive. He noted that there is a great deal of pressure on those charged with vetting the JdB as they must ensure that no offensive material is included in the publication without knowing exactly what material may be offensive. This is unfair on members of welfare sub-committee, who may be blamed either for the lack of content or the presence of offensive material. He said that if the JdB continues to exist then it should be as independent magazine whose editors may be held responsible for its content. This means that the JdB will not have to be vetted by welfare subcommittee because its material will no longer be regarded as partially endorsed by the JCR. He noted that the nature of this organisation is not up for discussion. 

Isis asked why we should trust the judgement of future editors given past failures. Aidan said that having a clear code of practice would help. He thought that the new publication should focus on satire rather than gossip, and that it should be guided by a clear code of conduct. He also suggested that the magazine should contain content warnings. Isis expressed concern at the possible lack of accountability. Aidan suggested that the independent JdB could have an elected editorial team. He suggested that having more people involved would allow potential offensive material to be spotted. He reiterated that the debate was not about the future organization of the JdB, only about whether it should remain part of the JCR. 

Will argued that it's not possible to make sure that nobody will be offended by the JdB. Nonetheless, he believes that an independent JdB should be able to regulate itself, especially since much of the material removed from the present JdB is only potentially offensive and may not actually offend anybody. He said that the presence of A&B in college was proof that a self-regulating satirical institution could exist. Charlotte asked whether Aidan was planning to introduce the new JdB in eighth week and then leave. Aidan said that he was not. Zach said that he though the issue boiled down to three questions: a) should we stop the JdB, b) should we allow other people to create other publications, c) should we allow any future iteration of the JdB to take the JdB's name and occupy its current space. He argued that the answer to a) should be yes, the answer to b) has to be yes given that nothing could be done to prevent it, and the answer to c) should be no. A clean break should be made. Aidan agreed and said that the new JdB would probably be very different. 

Ilya noted that past JdBs did not deliberately include offensive content. He asked how an independent JdB could avoid the problem of unintentional offence. Aidan said that the greater number of people involved should avoid this problem. He also argued that the editors will have an incentive to avoid causing offence because they will bear the ultimate responsibility for their actions. Will argued that any future version will be very different in style and content, meaning that similar problems will not arise. Ste asked why we shouldn't just keep it within the JCR but separate from welfare. Aidan said that it's important to distance it from the JCR because otherwise welfare may well become involved again in the future. Isis said that she thought it was important to reduce welfare subcommittee's involvement in the JdB due to the stress involved in the vetting process and the sub-committee's high workload. 

Nicky noted that the current system of regulation has not worked, and that regulation is therefore not the answer. He also suggested that a broader editorial tema might improve the JdB's quality. Nermeen asked whether the new iteration of the JdB would be allowed in the JCR. Leah said that it would be possible bring a motion banning the JdB from JCR spaces; Zach said that this would be unnecessary as the JCR controls what enters the JCR. Mia said that this wasn't necessarily true as she did not have to seek permission to put up posters; she thought that there should be clear guidelines regarding independent publications. Rivka stated her support for the motion as it stands. Ste expressed concern at the lack of clarity about the JdB's successor, comparing the situation to voting for Brexit without knowing whether it would be a hard or soft exit. Aidan noted that the nature of any future version of the JdB is outside the scope of the present GM. He argued that it is too large an issue to be considered at so late a stage and noted that anybody could found a satirical magazine if they wanted, with or without JCR approval. He again noted that the focus of his motion is on the principle rather than the practice. Art suggested that the importance to the JCR of the JdB was great enough to justify retaining it. Will stated that if we didn't do something about the JdB then the same problems will crop up again. He argued that the present motion offered the best solution. 

Motion passes. 

Funding for Play at Fringe

Darryl asked the JCR for £250 to fund a play at the fringe. He noted that Balliol gave £800 for people going to the fringe last year. He said that any profits will go to charity. 

Henrique asked if he had sought funding from the MCR. Darryl noted that the MCR's meetings are fairly irregular so he had not. However, he is applying for funding from other dramatic societies.  

Motion passes. 

Subscription to Student Newspapers

Thomas noted that we buy a lot of copies of Cherwell and The Oxford Student every week, many of which are left in the JCR. He noted that this is both harmful to the environment and financially wasteful. He suggested that we should reduce the number of copies of Cherwell and The Oxford Student that we buy every week, emphasizing the importance of environmental concerns rather than monetary ones.. 

Will noted that a large number of Balliol students are involved in student journalism - buying the papers helps to support these students by keeping Oxford's student newspapers financially viable. The Cambridge version of OxStu has gone online only as it can’t cover its costs. Without the support of JCRs, the same thing may happen to Oxford newspapers. Aidan reiterated this point, noting that it’s important for the JCR to support the extracurricular activities of its students. Utsav then noted that Cherwell is printed on recycled paper, and all unused copies of Cherwell are recycled. Further, Cherwell is only sold in batches of 25 so it would not be possible to reduce the number of copies of Cherwell by the suggested figure. He also noted that if Balliol cuts its subscription then other colleges might also do so. We need to consider the knock-on effect of our actions. Nicky suggested that the environmental argument fails given these facts . It was noted that a better solution might be to encourage people to recycle used copies of Cherwell or The Oxford Student. Henrique noted that we would only save £25 per term by cutting our subscription. 

Motion fails.