2013 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 7th week, Trinity 2013 (2013-06-02)

Agenda

1. Renaming EM&O to EMIS [Lukas Freund & Will Toher]
2. Charities Motion [Sam Bumby & Alex Copestake]
3. Charitable Registration [Angus Hawkins & Isaac Rose]
4. Cuntry Living [Phoebe Braithwaite & Maya Thomas-Davis]
5. Items of Debate [Hannah Smith & Chessy Whalen]
6. Susie Deedigan, 2010 - 2013 [Isaac Rose & Hannah Smith]

Minutes

Alex Bartram (AB) welcomed people to what was, for some, their last GM ever.

1. Renaming EM&O into EMIS (second reading) [Lukas Freund (LF) & Will Toher (WT)]
   • WT ran through the arguments he had made at the last GM, saying that him Lukas had felt ‘overseas’ was an inappropriate term, as it not only displayed an anglocentric view of the world, but also for continental Europeans was ambiguous, as they consider ‘overseas’ to mean North America. He noted that Lukas had himself been confused when he arrived, unsure of whether this office applied to him. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Charities Motion [Sam Bumby (SB) & Alex Copestake (AC)]
   • SB noted that five charities had been nominated, and the money raised during the term in the charity account would be divided equally between them. Jack Banner (JB) asked if the Charities Officers liked the system which was used to allocate money, AC replied that earlier in the term he and SB had considered changing the system, but after speaking to ex-Charities Officer Susie Deedigan had understood the logic behind the current system, and therefore they were happy with the existing system. The motion passed. 
3. Charitable Registration [Angus Hawkins (AH) & Isaac Rose (IR)]
   • AH informed the JCR that he and IR had, over the past two terms, been working to rewrite the constitution and register the JCR as an Charitable Incorporated Organisation. This motion, he said, gave the JCR Committee the authority to begin discussions with college about registration. Harry Parkin (HP) asked AH what he had spilt on his top, AH replied coke. JB wondered if his name would be on the new Constitution as a founding trustee, AH said it wouldn’t; explaining that the legal process of registration would require the dissolving of the current JCR and the transferral of all assets to a new JCR, established by the Committee, which would then register all students as members. Josh Jones (JJ) asked if, once we had registered as a charity, we could date all documents from year zero. AB noted that this motion was more about talking to college than actually founding the charity—this would come later on. The motion passed.
4. Cuntry Living [Phoebe Braithwaite (PB) and Maya Thomas-Davis (MTD)]
   • PB informed that JCR that ‘Cuntry Living’ was a grassroots feminist magazine which was started by Exeter College student, but was now seeking to expand across Oxford. This motion would pass a one-off sum of £200 from the JCR general fund in support of the magazine. This money would get the JCR around forty copies but beyond this would be a symbol of support for the startup publication.
   • Emma Livingston (EL) asked PB what the magazine reported on, given it was a ‘feminist magazine’ and also asked the regularity of its publication. PB said that the magazine would be akin to the Isis, and would contain articles, poetry and art; all written by students. It was currently published termly, although she noted that the publication was currently in a state of flux as it was being revamped.
   • EL said she felt uncomfortable funding a publication which she had not seen, while Anna Blum (ABL) felt that the name was offensive. PB replied that the name was intentionally provocative, and the use of the offensive word in a non-offensive context was an attempt to reclaim the word from being derogatory. MTD noted that other colleges had passed £200 in support of the magazine, and Alex Hacillo (AHA) noted that £200 from each college was a lot of money. Helen McCartney (HM) asked how long it would be until the publication was asking for more money. PB reiterated that the money was a one-off sum.
   • The GM moved to debate, and Connie Lound-McGowan (CLM) said she felt that passing the money was a good idea, as it allowed Cuntry Living to branch out beyond Exeter, noting that within Exeter it had been confined, and had failed to take off. Max Goplerud (MG) echoes CLM, adding that this money was an aid to the magazine to help get the project off the ground; and it was entirely plausible that in the future the JCR would pay a subscription of around £30 per term—which was the same as for the Oxymoron.
   • EL said she didn’t object in principle, but was slightly dubious about giving money to a magazine she hadn’t seen; pointing out that £200 was ‘a lot of money’ especially when compared to subscriptions to the Cherwell and Isis. Harry Parkin (HP) expressed concern about the amount of money involved. PB pointed out that both the Cherwell and Isis had private backing and plenty of capital, while this was a startup student publication with no financial backing. MTD said it would be nice to think that any group of organised students could secure funding from JCRs to start their own publication, while PB added that she felt that this was exactly what the JCR should be doing. Furthermore, she noted the recent sexist scandals which had embroiled the established media groups in Oxford recently, notably the Cherwell, and suggested that the arrival of a new feminist magazine would be a nice alternative. AHA echoed this point, and on the subject of the people who ran the Cherwell and the Isis said he had “never seen a more reprehensible group of people”, describing those involved as “careerist” members of an “all boys club”.
   • Hannah Smith (HS) said that this motion showed something really great about Balliol—that two students could come infront of a room, voice feminist views and be treated seriously. Noting that not every JCR would pass £200, she said that it was important Balliol did, saying passing this would be recognition that feminism was a normal thing and hoping it would lead to the creation of a better culture in Oxford. PB summed up by saying that she felt this was a meaningful and worthwhile cause and it’d be great if the JCR supported it, while EL spoke against the motion, saying that given there was no example of what the magazine is, she was uncomfortable about passing the money until more was known about it. The motion passed.  
5. ‘Items of Debate’ [HS & Chessy Whalen (CW)]
   • CW noted that at OUSU council, usually the Affiliations Officers used their judgement about how to vote to best reflect the opinion of the JCR in the motions up for discussion, occasionally there were motions of a controversial nature, when they felt unqualified in representing the JCR without wider discussion, citing the BDS motion from the previous term as an example. She said that together with Caitlin Tickell, she wanted to create a system which made these decisions easier and tidier, noting that last time they had had to bring a cumbersome motion to the GM to instigate discussion. Their  proposed system would solve this problem, creating an ‘Item of Debate’ as a procedure at GMs, which would be a chaired debate on the OUSU motion, followed by a poll of those present in the room. The amendment was taken as friendly.
   • Steve Boyd (SB) asked how we’d decide on which issues were contentious enough to bring to debate, CW said that the JCR would have to rely on the Affiliations Officers. HS said that if somebody saw an OUSU motion which they wanted to have debate on, it would be possible for them to request that the Affiliations Officers brought said motion as an ‘Item of Debate’. It was established that the ‘AtRozFord’ name was purely egotistical. The motion passes unanimously.
6. Susie Deedigan, 2010-2013 [IR & HS]
   • IR introduced the motion, saying that it was designed to be a nod of appreciation to Susie who was unfortunately unable to be at the GM tonight, because she’d gone home—even though it would have been her last. HS said that Susie really enjoyed GMs, and her enthusiasm and passion was something to be admired, and that this was a nice way of the JCR acknowledging this. EL asked what Susie would think to this motion. HS said that beyond the fact that she’d thought it was an amusing idea, she’d love it as she felt that the JCR was about the community and everyone looking out for each other. Resolves 1&2 and resolves 3 were taken in parts, MG put on the “David Bagg hat”, arguing that references to individuals in Standing Policy would not be amusing in three years, when it came up for renewal. JJ echoed this, also donning said “David Bagg hat”, noting that this GM was year zero for the new constitution, referring to it forever as the ‘Susie Deedigan Memorial General Meeting’ would be silly. Resolves 1&2 passed unanimously.
   • Some felt that the motion suggested that Susie had died, though Paul Moroz (PM) felt this was amusing, and submitted an amendment to change believes 3 from “Susie Deedigan is a great individual” to “Susie Deedigan was a great individual”. HS and IR opposed this on the grounds that it was bad taste, though MG said that if the point of the motion was to make people think she’d died then it was “really funny.” PM said that it was less about the death, and more about mythologizing Susie—trying to make her go down as a figure in JCR lore who may or may not have died on the barricades, fighting for democracy. CLM objected, saying that she wasn’t actually dead. The amendment passed, and debate returned to the amended Resolves 3.
   • CLM said that the JCR should pass this motion, as it was really sad that Susie wasn’t able to come and she had always worked really hard for the JCR. MG opposed her with four words. “Think of David Bagg.” The motion passed.

The Susie Deedigan Memorial General Meeting came to an end.

Isaac Rose, Secretary