2013 Committee Lunch

By admin, 30 March, 2022
Date of Meeting

    2013 Committee Lunch

    Date: Wednesday 1st week, Hilary 2013 (2013-01-16)

    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), Max Dalton (Foody), Duncan Shepherd (Foody), Jack Banner (Academic Affairs and Careers Officer), Samuel Atwell (Access and Admissions Officer), Jamie Mawhinney (Access and Admissions Officer), Caitlin Tickell (Affiliations Officer), Anonymous (Affiliations Officer), Alex Copestake (Charities and RAG Officer), Sam Bumby (Charities and RAG Officer), Oliver House (Design & Maintenance Officer), Harry Parkin (Design & Maintenance Officer), Anna Blum (Student Disabilities Officer), Joshua Jones (Entz Officer), Marcus Watson (Entz Officer), James Rainey (Environment & Ethics Officer), Molly Rogers (Environment & Ethics Officer), Ben Crome (John de Balliol), Paul Moroz (John de Balliol), Lukas Freund (Ethnic Minorities Officer), William Toher (Ethnic Minorities Officer), Emily Barradell (LGBTQ Officer), Richard May (LGBTQ Officer), David Janz (Website & Computing Officer), Alice Beech (Women's Officer)

    Agenda


    1. Entz Committee Co-option [Josh Jones]
    2. Charities Act Registration [Angus Hawkins & Isaac Rose]
    3. A Billion Rising [Caitlin Tickell]
    4. Plastic Bags [Molly Rogers]
    5. Living Wage Campaign [Alex Bartram]
    6. Noticeboards [Alex Bartram]
    7. Numbers, Photos and Emails [Isaac Rose]
    8. OUSU Council (Julian Assange) [Alex Bartram]
    9. AOB

    Minutes


    1. Entz Committee Co-option [Josh Jones]
      • MW took JJ’s place and spoke about the co-option of the Entz Committee, which had three vacant places. There were two interested people, and the Committee co-opted them onto the Entz Committee.
    2. Charities Act Registration [Angus Hawkins & Isaac Rose]
      • AH informed the Committee that he and IR had done research over the Christmas holiday into registering the JCR as a charity. As of January 2013 it had become possible to register as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), something that legally had to be done as soon as possible and something that would be beneficial to the JCR in many ways: it would exist as an incorporated organisation, so it would be able to employ staff, own property and enter into contracts in its own right. To achieve this, AH said that the Constitution would have to be rewritten, something which he wanted to be done by the Easter holidays. He proposed that the new Constitution be ratified by referendum alongside the Trinity Term elections. The rewriting of the Constitution would involve the discussion of various contentious issues, such as who would be trustees, and he favoured opening up these discussions to the JCR at large. TW asked if there were any drawbacks to registering as a charity, AH said that there would have to be a debate as to who would be the trustees, since the legal maximum for a charity is 20, which, he noted, was larger than the Committee. SA asked if the trustees would be positions or individuals, AH replied that in a CIO the trustees would be elected from the wider membership and would serve fixed yearly terms. However he said the specifics of who exactly would be trustees was something to be discussed in a wider forum. AC asked how the JCR registering a charity would change our relationship with College; AH said that College wanted the JCR to register as the existence of the JCR as an arm of the College was problematic for their own position as a Charity – a Charity needs to have specific aims, and the existence of the JCR was this problematic for the College as it was a part of College which on occasions ran counter to their aims. He also added that as an incorporated organisation we could own property – which included all the equipment in the bar; this would make it very difficult for College to take the bar of us in future. Finally he noted that all of the JCR’s liabilities would be transferred from individual officers to the JCR as an organisation; and that this would be a good thing. The Committee gave its support to the idea of the JCR registering as a CIO, and AB said it was something that could be kept moving forward.
    3. A Billion Rising [Caitlin Tickell]
      • CT informed the Committee that she and CW hoped to organise a coach trip to London for an event called ‘a Billion Rising,’ which aimed to raise awareness of the fact that one in three women would be raped or beaten in their lifetimes; hence one billion. CW said that they had brought it to Committee Lunch in order to ask how it would be financed. EL said it was possible to pass money at Committee Lunch however only sums of under £50 were possible, so she would have to know the numbers involved and the cost of the coach in order to say whether the money could come from Committee Lunch or would have to be passed at a GM. AB said that CT and CW should bring it up at the next Committee Lunch, and asked in the meantime that they investigate the cost of the coach, the numbers interested in going and whether OUSU were planning on sending a coach – if possible the JCR could donate some money towards OUSU.
    4. Plastic Bags [Molly Rogers]
      • MR said that she and JR had realised that people were using a lot of plastic bags – and that a way to cut this down would be have a box at the entrances of college where people could pick one up to use. They wondered who it would be best to contact. AB said that it was a great idea, but wondered whether college would want boxes of plastic bags on their property, while JB said the best person to contact would be the head porter. AH said that it could be in the JCR, as Pantry had large boxes full of plastic bags, while AB let everyone know that the People’s Supermarket on the Cowley Road was always accepting of plastic bags.
    5. Living Wage Campaign [Alex Bartram]
      • AB informed the Committee that Abdul Jama had approached him who had asked him whether the Living Wage Campaign was ongoing. He had since spoken to the Domestic Bursar who had informed him that the housekeepers were paid above the living wage, and had one of the best payment packets of all the Oxford colleges. He has since spoken to Abdul, who had said that the Living Wage was now out of date and needed to be recalculated. He thus wanted to raise awareness that the campaign was ongoing.
    6. Noticeboards [Alex Bartram]
      • AB asked people to do their noticeboards in the JCR. He praised the Drs WHO for their exemplar boards.
    7. Numbers, Photos and Emails [Isaac Rose]
      • IR asked new Committee members to provide their phone numbers, email addresses and provide photographs for new members of the Committee.
    8. OUSU Council (Julian Assange) [Alex Bartram]
      • On the back of the discussion at the last EGM, AB said we would discuss the OUSU motion which condemned the Union’s invitation of Julian Assange to an awards ceremony, and come to a conclusion as to how the JCR’s representatives would vote on the issue. He invited people to debate the issue. Max Goplerud (MG) argued that we should protest Julian Assange speaking at the Union; as he believed there was a problem with someone speaking at the Union when they should be addressing the rape charges against him. Him speaking, and presenting an award, at the Union was all part of the ‘song and dance’ he had been playing over the past year, and the fact that he was allowed to play this game was symblomatic and symptomatic of our disregard of the seriousness of rape. Supporting the protest is a way of us saying that we’re not ok with rape charges being marginalised in this way; not that we disagree with him on other issues. DK pointed out that the reason Julian Assange was avoiding addressing the charges levelled against him in Sweden was that he was fearful of being deported to the US and tried as a whistleblower. Unless Sweden provided a guarantee that this wouldn’t happen, it was reasonable for him to avoid addressing the charges levelled against him. MG replied that as of now the US had not filed any extradition charges, and in any case it was unclear as to whether they would be able to deport him. However, regardless of whether the US tried to deport him or not, this doesn’t mean the rape charges can be ignored. These real allegations cannot be traded off so easily against the potential risk of extradition. EL expressed her concern that this meeting could adequately represent the will of ‘Balliol JCR’ – she argued that if people were opposed to Julian Assange speaking then they should go to the protest in their capacity as individuals. SA echoed this, reminding people that we should vote on what the JCR wants, not what we want. He also reminded those present that the protest wasn’t against a rapist, rather against someone who was evading rape charges. ET said that the Oxford Union is a prestigious platform to give to someone, it would be providing publicity to Julian Assange, while Megan Birch said in not making Julian Assange address the rape charges we were trivialising the allegations and that in inviting him to speak the Union was supporting him as a whistleblower, not considering the other side to his character. CW said that she doubted whether Julian Assange would be questioned on the rape charges at the Union, however HS thought that it was farcical to think it was fine to invite him if he were subject to questioning; pointing out that facing charges in a court of law was different to being questioned by some ‘Oxford kids with an overblown sense of importance.’ MG agreed, arguing that it was irrelevant if he had invited questioning, either at the Union or at the Embassy where he was hiding – he had exhausted all possible legal options in the UK to evade the rape charges and was currently subject to a European arrest warrant. DS said that if we accept he should be questioned any differently to other rape accusers, we were saying he had a special position for founding Wikileaks. He shouldn’t be treated any different from any other person charged with these allegations. It was decided that the three votes that Balliol JCR held at OUSU council would be split as the closest possible approximation of the results of a vote held at Committee Lunch. A vote was held, with 22 in favour of the OUSU motion condemning Julian Assange, 4 abstentions and 2 in opposition. The three votes of the JCR would be used in favour of the motion.
    9. AOB
      • DK informed the Committee that his computer needed an adaptor in order to project the motions at GMs. This would cost £40; the Committee agreed that the JCR would buy one for his use.
      • JJ informed the Committee that Maureen had said bop cleanup had been excellent; the Committee congratulated themselves.
      • AB noted that there would be an EGM tomorrow on rent negotiations and urged everyone to come. He also noted that College were going to provide free flood wireless as of MT13.
      • BC asked the committee for reimbursements on blu-tac expenditure for the pinning up of JdeB. The Committee were willing to fund his extravagances.
      • AYB and ET noted that they were hoping to buy a new box for tampon mountain. The Committee said that it would be ok to fund this from the Tampax fund.
      • TW noted that there would be Welfare Subcommittee the following week.
      • The meeting ended.

    Isaac Rose, Secretary