2014 General Meeting

By admin, 30 March, 2022
Date of Meeting

    2014 General Meeting

    Date: Sunday 3rd week, Hilary 2014 (2014-02-02)

    Agenda


    1. Officers' Reports
    2. Secret Voting [Richard May]
    3. Reach Oxford Scholarship [Chessy Whalen]
    4. Oxford Radical Forum [Xavier and Isaac]
    5. Punting [Max Dalton]
    6. Welfare Week [Anna & Molly
    7. Sky [Tom Wainford]
    8. Committee Reform [Isaac and Richard, plus various amendments]

    Minutes


    1. Officers' Reports DT welcomed everyone and announced that rent negotiations last week had led to 3.01% increase for next year. MD gave a short report from finance exec: pantry made its usual loss, the bar is working as normal.
    2. Secret Voting [Richard May]
      • RM explained that in the Standing Orders currently, we can take votes by secret ballot. RM pointed out that with many controversial motions coming out, there would be a lot of pressure for people to vote in certain ways. RM clarified that we could print out lots of bits of paper with yes/no/abstained on. They would be brought to the GM, and if needed they would be distributed, marked, and then counted by the secretary unless there was a conflict of interest.
      • Matthew Lynch asked when there was last a secret ballot, it transpired that no one was sure and it had been a long time. RM said that he wanted a low number to counteract any possible pressure not to have a secret ballot, and that our current other "low threshold" percent is to record committee lunch, and that is 25%. David Bagg made a speech in opposition, saying that 25% is too low a threshold. Anna Hufton pointed out that people who were worried about voting controversially ,might also be worried about voting for a secret ballot. Olly Johnson-Munday said that there were not enough unreasonable people in the JCR who would use the low threshold to increase administrative burdens pointlessly. Richard May gave a speech in proposition, pointing out that not many people would use the secret vote but that it was important for controversial issues. David Bagg gave a speech in opposition saying that it would create more work, and that it would do little to help the issues it aimed to help. The motion passed with a majority.
    3. Reach Oxford Scholarship [Chessy Whalen]
      • CW explained what the Reach Scholarship is - totally funds a student with no way of supporting themselves. College and the JCR pay for fifty percent each of living costs and the University doesn't charge fees. The scholarship is for an undergraduate.On the JCR's part, it is funded by compulsory levy. CW thinks 18 colleges currently take part. DT admitted that the president would know who the Reach scholar is because they would sit on the panel of selection. CW clarified that there could only be one Reach Scholar in Balliol at the time. Toby Kennon raised objection against the compulsory levy. Rose Hadshar pointed out that everyone would lose out if we didn't vote unless people had a better idea about how to get the university to pay. Angus Hawkins pointed out that passing this motion meant that more people could come to Balliol. CW explained that it had to be a compulsory levy because the College were entering into a contract with the JCR to fund the scholarship. Josh Jones said that he would rather not get ten pints from the bar than stop someone from coming to Balliol. Sam Bumby made a sumary speech in proposition. Toby Kennon made a speech in opposition, asking that the scholarship were funded in a different way. The motion passed with a majority.
    4. Oxford Radical Forum [Xavier and Isaac]
      • Xavier Cohen explained that the ORF was a group which set up events over Feb 28th to March 2nd with media figures and activists, involving talks and workshops. These talks involve famous people such as Terry Eagleton, but the costs are free to attend. The current Political Funds of the JCR are about £700. Illias asked why the motion wanted £102. The answer was to fund two lots of panels of three speakers to come from London to Oxford. Xavier said that excess monies could be brought to GMs. He said that the Political Campaign Fund had not been used since Michaelmas 2012.
      • DB asked how many Balliol students went to the Forum last year, XC didn't know. XC suggested that it would be less than £1000 to organise the whole event, and that often much of the funding came from Wadham. Illias asked if there was a political "meaning" to the group. XC said that many of the speakers identified under various political banners. XC clarified that he could turn away certain groups - so not anyone can be affiliated with the ORF. MD pointed out that the political levy was an optional levy. DB asked if any policy at any level of government had been changed because of the ORF. XC disagreed very strongly with the idea that the ORF was disengaged with the real world.
      • Tom Posa made a speech in opposition, suggesting that their should be ticket prices. Tom Wainford said that much of the JCR might not go, but this is precisely what the political campaign levy is for. TP said that he thought the political campaign levy was for Balliol to campaign to OUSU. Illias Thoms disagreed with Balliol aligning itself with the ORF when it wasn't representative of the JCR's views. Sam Atwell pointed out that the far left wouldn't turn up with pitchforks, and that in fact we would be "finding ideas" which was important. We voted to move to a vote. Paul Moroz pointed out that he was already reading the paper. We moved to a vote.
      • Isaac Rose made a closing speech in proposition, highlighting the idea of creating spaces for debate and funding ideas. There were 24 in favour, and 16 against: the motion passed.
    5. Punting [Max Dalton]
      • MD explained that over the past few years the JCR hired a punt, which made is cost only £3.77 rather than £5 an hour for each individuals. He wants to do this again.
      • David Bagg said that he made a speech in opposition every year, and did so again because he was fundamentally opposed to punting, and didn't see why anyone should be forced to fund people "pissing about on the river". MD made a closing speech and encouraged DB to try punting anyway. DB reiterated his arguments. The motion passed with a large majority.
    6. Welfare Week [Anna and Molly
      • ] This motion passed unapposed. Molly and Anna have £400 to fund welfare week.
    7. Sky [Tom Wainford]
      • Tom Wainford said that he would like to set up Sky in the JCR. Toby Kennon asked if we could record Game of Thrones and watch it when we came back. TW pointed out that we could use it on the JCR laptop. CW said that Queens JCR had Sky and then lost their code - so can we put a safeguard in place to stop it happening. Illias Thoms advocated getting a SkyPlus box.
      • Matthew Lynch asked how we would continue to fund the Sky Box if we wanted to keep it for more than 12 months. TW suggested that this would come out of the Entz committee. TW accepted an amendment to set the date specifically for 12 months. MD said that this was roughly equal to the total surplus funds of the JCR. Emily Troup made a speech in opposition, saying that it was a lot of money for not serving a large proportion of the JCR. It was pointed out that it might be not helpful to get a 12 month contract when most of us are only here for half the time.
      • DT said he would ask the College to refund some of the cost because the service would benefit people who use the College when we aren't here. Paul Lopez said that people who watched football and Game of Thrones could watch these programs in "in other ways" for a lot less money. Abdul Jama said that these programs might create a certain atmosphere and exclude some members of the JCR. Sam Atwell said that watching football made him "incredibly sexist". TW made a speech in opposition, and ET made a speech in opposition. The motion passed with a small majority
    8. Committee Reform [Isaac and Richard]
      1. Welfare Committee
        • Isaac and Richard said they would like to include VP in Welfare Committee. TW said that it operated well with as few people as possible for confidential reasons, apart from in Freshers Week. Isaac ran through who is currently in Welfare Committee. Hannah Smith explained that in Freshers Week, people tended to go straight to the VP even if they were then referred to Welfare Committee, so that VP might be able to deal with these problems if they were welfare trained.
        • Molly Rogers supported a small welfare committee, apart from in Freshers week. Harry Parkin called to move to a vote but we didn't. Claudia Freemantle said that welfare committee doesn't share everything anyway, so if the VP were approached in freshers week they would go privately go to the Drs WHO. Isaac Rose highlighted the importance of a VP having a general understanding of how to deal with welfare issues.
        • Tom Wainford asked to vote on splitting the resolutions (adding the VP to Welfare, and getting welfare committee minuted). The procedural motion passed. Then motion one was struck. TW said that the secretary never really minuted the Welfare committee meeting. David Bagg advocated the importance of minutes for the Welfare Committee, but not by someone who is not welfare trained.
        • Angus Hawkins said that all committee reform motions should wait till next committee because there hasn't been enough consultation. Isaac Rose agreed completely. AH asked to table all reform motions to a future GM. DT put forward a procedural motion to move just the part about welfare committee to next GM. DB wanted the whole of the reform motion to be left till a later GM. The motion failed. Anna Hufton clarified that individual issues are not brought to welfare committees.
        • The main motion - to delegate minuting of welfare committee to Dr Who - passed.
      2. Arts Subcommittee
        • Isaac explained that he would like to create a new sub-committee of the arts offices to provide accountability to the expenditure of their budgets. Richard pointed out that this committee currently exists for one week for the year. The Treasurer would chair this committee.
        • Angus Hawkins spoke against debating this motion now. He said that debating the committee now could end up with piece-meal and haphazard changes to the committee.
        • Ross Cathcart pointed out that people currently in charge of these budgets are not immoral people, but that the committee would bring Arts people together. Anna Hufton suggested that nothing was voted on now, but that we discuss reform now and vote later.
        • David Bagg said that the people present are intelligent and engaged enough to debate everything now. DT brought a procedural motion of delaying this debate to a later date, but it failed. We then voted on the specific Arts Committee motion. It passed.
      3. Finance Exec
        • Isaac and Richard withdrew this part of the motion. David Bagg opposed the right of withdrawal. The proposer of the motion withdrew his proposal to withdraw the motion. Really.
      4. Removing Positions
        • JCR Dean and John de Bulletin. Isaac Rose clarified that he had been John de Bulletin, and that the position is redundant. It was clarifed that a fresher ran seriously for JCR Dean this year. John de Bulletin is supposed to create the JCR magazine, but there is no budget for this and it hasn't been done for a while.
        • David Bagg proposed his amendments, and to vote on them in parts. David Bagg suggested that committee is too large to act quickly and efficiently and "needs to be taken down". He argued that a smaller committee would create more competitive elections. He also pointed out that often dual nominations led to unequal work loads. David Bagg clarified that his amendments would apply to non-committee members.
        • CF made a speech against the motion because it would discourage shy but competent people from running, and that it would make committee more closed off. SB said that he had a lot of experience on committee and thought that much more could be done in pairs.
        • Duncan Shepherd spoke as an ex-foody and said that the position worked well with two people. We moved to vote on amendment c. The amendment failed.
        • DS pointed out that the Bar and Pantry work in very different ways. Amendment d failed. We moved to amendment II, c.
        • CW made a speech in favour of eradicating D&M. D&Ms past and present reported on what they had done. Colm Britchfield made a speech in opposition.The amendment to abolish d&m failed.
        • Abdul and Isaac spoke in favour of abolishing the JdeB as something which denies our status as "adults". They are also against the formalization of nastiness/gossip. Sam Atwell pointed out that Ben Crome thought the JdeB was entirely pointless. TW pointed out that the JdeB does come up three of four times in the year as a Welfare Issue. Zoe Slater pointed out that some people aren't happy about the JdeB but don't formally complain. Claudia Freemantle said that many of the related welfare issues occur a few days later. Alex Potten said that he had appeared many times in the JdeB but is not hurt by it, and that the vetting systems are very effective. Abdul Jama pointed out that an individual's experiences are not necessarily representative of the JCR.
        • Anna Hufton said that she would like more formalisation in the creation and publication in the JdeB. Rosie Bettle pointed out that possibly the JdeB was not worth the effort involved. It was pointed out that information will get to JdeB - even if it is vetted later the JdeB encourages the dissemination of information. Sam Atwell said that the JdeB could have gender/race/sexuality orientated ramifications which only came to light later. Caitlin Tickell pointed out we had banned applause in GMs apart from when motions passed. Alex Potten suggested a secret ballot for voting on whether to abolish the JdeB. The procedural motion passed.
        • IR pointed out that a very heavily censured JdeB was pointless. Abdul suggested that we think about the JdeB from the point of view of the reader rather than the people discussed. Isaac Rose clarified that we are voting on whether the JdeB as a concept is "okay". Illias Thoms said that the JdeB would have to be fundamentally changed to be okay, and that it isn't worth the changes that would have to be involved. Xavier Cohen suggested that the JdeB would not be something we would mention to someone thinking of applying Balliol. Harry Parking said that this discussion had provoked actual change of hearts, so it should be left to a later GM to allow for personal reflection. The procedural motion failed.
        • Alex Bartram pointed out the problem that this motion would not come into effect until the new constitution is formalised, so there might be a contradiction between deciding we don't like the JdeB and then letting it carry on. The phrase "relatively inoffensive" came up, and was dismissed as still not okay. Holly Marriot-Webb said that the JdeB doesn't set out to hurt people, but to tease them as people do with their friends and family. Alex Potten suggested that it was contradictory to be offended by something that you hadn't insisted on being vetted. It was suggested that it might be worthwhile making the JdeB a communal thing that offered a satirical and light-hearted view of college. Abdul suggested that consent regarding the JdeB might be a conditioned form of consent.
        • Sam Graydon said that the idea behind the JdeB as a gossip magazine, and the physical object of the JdeB might be two different things. Emily Barradell pointed out the JdeB could make people uncomfortable regardless of whether or not they were in it themselves. Isaac Rose pointed out the importance of this motion in the future. John Clark-Maxwell said that Balliol is a particular tolerant college and the JdeB is not part of what we stand for. Holly Marriot-Webb said that she would fully accept a mandate not to mention sex-lives in the next edition.
        • We voted on abolishing the JdeB by secret vote. There were 97 ballots returned. 3 were spoilt. There were 38 votes for yes and 56 for no so JdeB is not abolished. The motion to abolish JCR Dean and John de Bulletin passed without oposition. Possibly this had something to do with the fact that it was quarter past 11.