2013 Committee Lunch

By admin, 30 March, 2022
Date of Meeting

    2013 Committee Lunch

    Date: Wednesday 8th week, Michaelmas 2012 (2012-11-28)

    Present: Alex Bartram (President), Hannah Smith (Vice-President (Administrative)), Isaac Rose (Secretary), Emma Livingston (Treasurer), Angus Hawkins (Lindsay), Thomas Wainford (Dr. WHO), Rosie Bettle (Dr. WHO), Duncan Shepherd (Foody), Max Dalton (Foody), Adam Laycock (Sports Rep), Alexander Robertson (Sports Rep), Jack Banner (Academic Affairs and Careers Officer), Samuel Atwell (Access and Admissions Officer), Jamie Mawhinney (Access and Admissions Officer), Anonymous (Affiliations Officer), Caitlin Tickell (Affiliations Officer), Alex Copestake (Charities and RAG Officer), Sam Bumby (Charities and RAG Officer), Harry Parkin (Design & Maintenance Officer), Oliver House (Design & Maintenance Officer), Anna Blum (Student Disabilities Officer), Joshua Jones (Entz Officer), Marcus Watson (Entz Officer), Molly Rogers (Environment & Ethics Officer), James Rainey (Environment & Ethics Officer), William Toher (Ethnic Minorities Officer), Lukas Freund (Ethnic Minorities Officer), Emily Barradell (LGBTQ Officer), Richard May (LGBTQ Officer), David Janz (Website & Computing Officer), Emily Troup (Women's Officer), Alice Beech (Women's Officer)

    Agenda


    1. Introductions [Alex Bartram]
    2. Committee photos, phone numbers and emails [Isaac Rose]
    3. Joint position voting [Alex Bartram]
    4. Noticeboards [Alex Bartram]
    5. Co-options [Alex Bartram]
    6. AOB

    Minutes


    1. Introductions [Alex Bartram]
      • AB welcomed the new Committee and invited them to thank the outgoing Committee warmly for the hard work they had put in over the past work. He then asked the new Committee’s constituent members to introduce themselves.
    2. Committee photos, phone numbers and emails [Isaac Rose]
      • IR informed the Committee that he was compiling a sheet of the contact details of the new officers, and asked the Committee to write their contact details on a piece of paper he circulated. Further, he asked the officers in join positions to nominate a single person in each case who would receive the designated emails for their position.
    3. Joint position voting [Alex Bartram]
      • AB briefly explained that by convention, and due to the ambiguity in the Constitution, it was at this point that each year the new Committee whether or not each person or each position should hold voting power on Committee. This decision reached would hold for the rest of the year. JB noted that if officers had to share, problems might arise if they disagreed. SA argued that the greater the number of people voting on Committee decisions, the more likely it was that the correct decision would be reached. AYB said that the JCR may elect a pair of joint officers precisely because of their differing opinions. The Committee decided that each constituent member should have a vote, regardless of whether they held a joint position or not.
    4. Noticeboards [Alex Bartram]
      • AB asked that throughout the year the officers kept their noticeboards in the JCR up to date and interesting, and urged that the officers started thinking about their noticeboards soon.
    5. Co-options [Alex Bartram]
      • AB informed the JCR that empty positions following the elections were usually co-opted by the Committee, however given that there were contests for some of the positions this time, he felt that the process of selection was due special consideration. He noted that some members of the JCR had felt that there should be another round of elections to fill the vacant positions, and asked the Committee for their opinion on the matter. SA argued that since many members of the Committee had been elected on a platform of openness, the co-opting of the vacant positions behind closed doors would rather run counter to this. He therefore supported a JCR wide election for the vacant positions. This point was echoed by HS, who added that it was not only in the interests of the JCR as a whole that the positions were elected, but also in the interests of the future officers, as their mandates would be weakened if they only sat on Committee due to selection. MW said that while the Constitution did allow for co-options, this was not a reason in itself for doing it. He noted past claims of a Committee ‘clique’ forming, and argued that co-option would only serve to cement this image. ET expressed her discomfort at the idea of the Committee co-opting the EM&O position, as she felt that for these officers to do their job – represent minority groups – they would have to be elected. JB said that there was precedent for the Committee co-opting contested positions, in HT 2011 there had been three pairs running for DSO. TW argued that given this precedent, the JCR would understand if the Committee co-opted the vacant positions. JJ also supported co-option, as he believed it would be a faster and more efficient way of filling the empty offices, some of which (Affiliations specifically) had to be filled urgently due to important business early next term (specifically the OUSU council, where the JCR would need representation). HP wanted the Committee to co-opt, pointing out that everyone had already had the opportunity to run for the vacant positions, so a second chance was pointless. EL inquired as to whether there could be a curtailed election process, as a compromise between efficiency and openness. It was affirmed that the Constitution would allow this. AH gave his support to such a move, suggesting that the elections could be held along a similar manner to the ballot at the AGM, at the end of an evening of hustings. HP felt that such a ‘GM style’ election would turn into a popularity contest, while JB expressed concern at such a method, believing it would be open to abuse. However, EL believed it would be possible to keep such an election secure. The Committee however decided that working out the specifics of the system could wait until next term. After the debate, the Committee voted on three possible methods of filling the vacant positions: a full set of elections, co-option by Committee, or a ‘GM style’ curtailed election. It voted by a large margin for the latter. Thus the Committee agreed that an extraordinary set of elections would be held in the first week of Hilary Term 2013.
    6. AOB
      1. AC brought to the attention of the Committee that the Charities Officers would be putting on a charity musical in Hilary.
      2. AB reminded people that if they had substantial pieces of business to bring up at future committee lunches, then they should let the secretary know beforehand so it could be added to the agenda. This was so the meeting did not drag on for an unexpected amount of time.
      3. TW noted that Welfare Subcommittee would follow.

    Isaac Rose, Secretary