2015 Annual General Meeting

Date: Sunday 8th week, Michaelmas 2015 (2015-11-29)

Agenda

Reports from Officers

1. Matters Arising

 

1. Second Hearing - Housing Officer [Amy Ford]

This JCR Notes:

1. The existence of the office of Dr WHO
2. Standing orders Part III, Section 8.1 [Duties of the Welfare and Housing Officer], subsections e, f, and g
   e) represent the JCR to the college on issues of welfare, housing and anti-discrimination;
   f) organise the housing ballot and room choosing for College Mainsite and Jowett Walk, ensuring that:

(i) all rising first year students shall live in College Mainsite; and

(ii) all rising third and fourth years shall live in College Mainsite or Jowett Walk, unless they should choose otherwise; and

(iii) all undergraduates shall be able to live in College-owned accommodation for two years of their degree; and

(iv) undergraduates shall be prioritised according to the number of times they have lived in College Mainsite, with a lower number granting higher priority; and

(v) undergraduates who ballot for Jowett Walk shall be in groups no larger than 8, and the ballot position of each group shall be the mean of the group’s members’ ballot positions.

g) maintain a current list of college rooms, and their prices, under the Dynamic Room Pricing System.

1. That Exeter, Keble, New College, Oriel, Queens College, and Worcester have separate offices for welfare and housing
2. The housing portfolio
3. That immediate action can be required for both roles at the same time, causing some top priority tasks to not receive the necessary attention
4. In some cases there is not a clear divide between welfare and housing issues

 

This JCR believes:

1. Welfare and housing both need to be well managed to ensure well-being of members of the JCR
2. Both roles are very time consuming
3. Usually people run for the position of Dr WHO primarily to help with welfare, not housing
4. The Housing Officer role should still be a welfare role and students should be able to approach the Housing Officer for related welfare support

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To remove the housing portfolio from the Drs WHO
2. To create a new committee office named Housing Officer
3. Assign the housing portfolio to the Housing Officer and amend the constitution accordingly
4. Remove from standing order Part III, Section 8.1 parts f and g
5. Amend standing order Part III, Section 8.1, part e to:
   ‘represent the JCR to the college on issues of welfare and anti-discrimination;’
6. Create standing order Part III, Section 9 - Housing Officer, and renumber list of JCR offices accordingly
7. Add to standing order Part III, Sections 9
   a) represent the JCR to the college on issues of welfare, housing and anti-discrimination;
   b) organise the housing ballot and room choosing for College Mainsite and Jowett Walk, ensuring that:

(i) all rising first year students shall live in College Mainsite; and

(ii) all rising third and fourth years shall live in College Mainsite or Jowett Walk, unless they should choose otherwise; and

(iii) all undergraduates shall be able to live in College-owned accommodation for two years of their degree; and

(iv) undergraduates shall be prioritised according to the number of times they have lived in College Mainsite, with a lower number granting higher priority; and

(v) undergraduates who ballot for Jowett Walk shall be in groups no larger than 8, and the ballot position of each group shall be the mean of the group’s members’ ballot positions.

c) maintain a current list of college rooms, and their prices, under the Dynamic Room Pricing System.

1. Add new points to standing order Part III, Sections 9
   d) Update and maintain a housing database
   e) Organise a housing meeting for first years in Michaelmas
   f) Liaise with OUSU to support students in housing related issues
   g) Liaise with College on housing policy
   h) Liaise with the Welfare Officer and Academic Affairs Officer on relevant issues
   i) Organise a termly housing working group meeting open to all member of the JCR
2. Amend Standing Orders Part IV, Section 2, subsection 2.4
   Standing orders Part IV, Section 2
   2.4. Welfare Subcommittee comprises six Committee Offices, consisting of:

a) the Dr WHO;

b) the LGBTQ Officer;

c) the Women’s Officer;

d) the Academic Affairs and Careers Officer;

e) the Disabled Students Officer;

f) the Ethnic Minorities and International Students Officer

g) Housing officer

 

2. Second Hearing - Comrade Procedure [John Clark-Maxwell and Jack Wheatley]

This JCR notes:

1. The JCR has a lot of procedure, some of which is complex and obscure
2. The JCR has a lot of institutional memory, but it is rarely read
3. Sometimes procedure is not followed correctly at GMs

This JCR believes:

1. Procedure is important, and allows the JCR to run smoothly and fairly
2. Institutional memory is important, and allows the JCR not to repeat the mistakes of the past
3. Procedure and Institutional Memory are underrepresented and underappreciated.
4. It is not reasonable to expect that the existing committee officers will adequately represent procedure and institutional memory, as they are burdened with mandates of their own.

This JCR resolves:

1. To Create a new Non-Committee office, named the Comrade Procedure
2. To mandate the Comrade Procedure to ensure that procedure is followed, and that institutional memory is brought the attention of the JCR as and when it is relevant
3. To mandate the Comrade Procedure to attend GMs and Committee lunch
4. To purchase a small bell for the person filling this position, which shall be rung when procedure is not being followed correctly, or when an incorrect claim about institutional memory is made
5. To pass a budget of £50 per term for the person holding this position, for the upkeep of all procedural affairs
6. To update the constitution and standing orders to reflect these changes.

 

Amendment (Oli J-M) friendly

Strike resolves 5

 

b) Passage of Motions without discussion

c) Amendments to the Constitution

 

3. JdeB [Oliver Johnson Munday] passes

This JCR Notes:

1. The JdeBs are currently on Committee.
2. Committee currently contains 35 people.
3. The Undergraduate population is listed as 377 on Balliol’s section of the Oxford Uni Website.
4. A lot of people in that 377 have next to no interaction with the JCR as a political and social entity.
5. The resulting percentage of people who are active in the JCR who are then also on committee is likely between 15-20%.
6. I only took Maths to GCSE.
7. If I wanted to put up a nasty poster up outside the JCR calling Duncan smelly I could, regardless of whether or not I was on Committee.
8. The only time I turned up to Committee Lunch was to blindly vote for my friends in a co-option I knew nothing about.
9. They lost.

 

This JCR Believes:

1. Committee is important.
2. The JdeBs are not that important.
3. Committee members all have extra voting powers at Committee Lunch.
4. The JCR gives the JdeB a mandate to write a magazine, not to have extra decision making powers.
5. All welfare obligations could be just as easily met without the JdeBs being on Committee.
6. Accountability is not increased by being on Committee.
7. In a thing called love.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To remove the JdeBs from Committee.
2. To amend the Constitution and the Standing Orders in accordance with the above.
3. To listen to the rhythm of my heart.

 

d) Amendments to Standing Orders

e) Amendments to Standing Policy

f) Main Agenda

 

4. Marauders [Suzy Shepherd] passes

 

The JCR notes that:

 

1. Marauders is a major new student short film, being produced by students across the University. Four Balliol students are involved - Suzy Shepherd as Director, Sam Joyce as First Assistant Director, Ben van Leeuwen as First Assistant Camera, and Harry Eagles as Location Sound.

 

1. The film is a short Harry Potter fan film, set in 1970s Hogwarts.

 

1. Oxford filmmaking is smaller than it should be, but it is currently expanding rapidly.

 

1. Independent shorts are an important, exciting art form. They are also essential to students that want to work in film. Getting enough experience at university making films is vital to launching a career in the hugely competitive industry.

 

1. Funding independent student shorts is notoriously difficult, because their production to a high standard is expensive - equipment hire, insurance, transport, catering, accommodation - and they are usually unable to make a return. The costs can be prohibitive to all but the very richest. Funding for films allows people to get involved in filmmaking, even if they can’t afford to self-fund the production.

 

The JCR believes that:

 

1. Allowing the opportunity to all students to get involved in high quality filmmaking is important. There is a lot of funding in Oxford to help students in other careers or hobbies - theatre, sports, law and business to name but a few.

 

1. It’s fair that, where possible, students interested in filmmaking should receive support, regardless of whether they are personally able to afford the costs of film.

 

1. Independent film created in Oxford will reach beyond the university: we are hoping that Marauders will build a large presence on social media. This is an opportunity to show an alternative side to Oxford life, alongside activities that are traditionally associated with the University. In a small way, it may contribute to positively altering the University’s public image, and thus to access.

 

1. Balliol should support filmmaking, and donating to Marauders is a great way to do that. The donation will allow a number of students to get important experience on set, and broadly support the growing filmmaking scene within Oxford.

 

The JCR resolves to:

 

1. Donate £250 to the budget of Marauders. In return, the JCR will be thanked in the film’s credits, and members of the JCR will be welcome to participate in the film as extras.

 

Amendment [Suzy Shepherd]  passes

 

Add notes:

 

6. Since submitting the motion to Balliol JCR, Rachael Ince Kitson has come on board as Costume Designer, and Aidan Balfe as Severus Snape.

 

7. Since submitting the motion to Balliol JCR, Marauders has been turned down from the Magdalen Creative Projects Fund, from which we were hoping to receive £250.

 

8. If any of the other funding bodies we have applied to fall through, Marauders will not reach its minimum funding target of £800, and we will not have the means to make the film.

 

Add resolves:

 

2. To additionally cover the shortfall between the total money acquired and the £800 minimum budget, up to a maximum of £100.

 

5. Buying DJing equipment from the Maestro Music Budget [Xavier Cohen] - passes

 

This JCR notes:

1. There is around £3000 in the Maestro Music Budget
2. We have a music room that people can book to play, for example, the piano or drum kit we have
3. We currently have no DJing equipment – be that mixing or production equipment
4. Mixing equipment enables one to mix pre-existing songs together so that there isn’t a gap between them, and one can do this in a musical way. This is typically what a DJ in a club does.
5. Mixing equipment requires inputs and outputs, and these vary according to which kind of mixing equipment one has. Typical inputs are vinyl, CDs, and files. Typical outputs include headphones, monitors (which are small speakers enabling a DJ to hear what they’re doing clearly) and larger speakers, of the kind the JCR uses at bops.
6. Depending on what kind of inputs one is using, various intermediary pieces equipment between input and output may be required. These can include: computers, mixing decks, amplifiers, leads of various kinds, headphones (these aren’t just an output, but are also important in enabling ‘proper mixing’ in which one can listen to two things at once at different volumes to the output level, which is what is going  out to the ‘audience’.)
7. Typical kinds of mixing equipment are: vinyl decks with records, which requires a record collection and a separate mixer to enable mixing between the decks; vinyl emulation decks with fixed records which play music files from a computer with a thrown-in mixing software connected to the decks usually by USB, which requires a file collection and a mixer to enable mixing; CD decks with CDs, which requires a CD collection (often burned from files) and a mixer to enable mixing; a USB controller, which is usually one piece of hardware emulating both decks and a mixer which is connected to a laptop with thrown-in mixing software and requires a file collection; DJing software, which one can download to a laptop (some good programmes from free) but is very limiting in what one can do due to one having to control it all by means of mouse and keyboard, and requires a file collection.
8. These things all vary widely in price, but a reputable USB controller with reputable matching software costs around £300, a good laptop one could use to DJ might cost around £500 (but a cheaper one could also do the job, if only slower, just as a more expensive one could do it quicker), good headphones around £50, good monitors around £100.
9. Electronic production equipment is equipment that enables one to make music rather than just mix pre-existing music. This may be done with just with software, or with additional plug-in hardware too, which can include having a microphone to pick up any kind of live sound.
10. The most reputable production software, Ableton Live 9, has ‘Intro’, ‘Standard’, and ‘Suite’ versions, costing €79, €349, and €599 respectively. The more expensive versions have better stuff.
11. A good, appropriate microphone can cost upwards of £50, required good quality leads could cost around £30
12. There are loads of tutorial videos online for beginners with all different sorts of DJing and producing
13. This equipment could also enable people who play classical instruments to record their work, in an ‘amateur studio’ kind of way

 

 

 

This JCR believes:

1. We should supports students with different kinds of musical interests
2. If students are interested in serious DJing equipment, then due to the cost of this kind of equipment, and as we have a bulging Maestro Music Budget, it makes sense buying it as common property for the music room, rather than just those who can afford it being able to have access to it
3. Xav, proposer of the motion, aka DJ Dub Fusc aka DJ Xavocado, is a good amateur DJ with a lot of potential, as both a live DJ and producer
4. It would be cool if we had DJing equipment, both mixing and production
5. Due to there being loads of really good online tutorials out there, DJing equipment should be accessible to students regardless of current ability, as long as they’re sufficiently interested
6. This could potentially make bopsets better, because people could learn to use mixing equipment and pre-record mixes to play at bops
7. It would be cool if people who play non-computer-oriented music could record their music, in an amateur kind of way, using some of this kit.

 

 

This JCR resolves:

1. To create a working group to be run on horizontalist principles - advertised by email and facebook group, for anyone interested to join – to decide the right kind of DJ equipment to buy for the music room, with access to around £1500 from the Maestro Music, which they will try to spend less rather than more of, whilst trying to get the right stuff for Balliol.

 

Amendment (Ste): Withdrawn

Add resolves 2: “To bring the conclusions of the working group to a GM asking permission to spend the money if it exceeds £1500”

 

6. Money for AKT funding [Ruby Breward] passes

 

This JCR Notes:

1. Homelessness is a real and terrifying truth for many LGBTQ youths, with 20-40% youths experiencing homelessness self-identifying as LGBTQ, which is disproportionate to the percentage of LGBTQ youth in the general youth population.
2. Ruby Breward, a Balliol student, and two other Oxford students are directly involved in the running of an event on the 18th December to raise money for the Albert Kennedy Trust, who support homeless or vulnerably housed LGBTQ youths
3. Making this non-for-profit event inclusive is at the core of its purpose, so the funding at our disposal is extremely limited (we want to avoid any charge for entry)
4. The event will host a zine library, DIY workshops, music, food and drink, and bands playing in the evening
5. Money raised from the sale of food and drink will go towards the AKT, as well as funds raised from a charity raffle and a donation box
6. The event will also provide a space for people to enjoy an alternative Christmas, creating a cozy and festive atmosphere for people who might struggle to find that at home
7. That buying supplies for running activities, buying zines for the library, and paying bands to play at the event will all cost money

 

This JCR Believes:

1. That support for this cause is important
2. Making this non-for-profit event inclusive is at the core of its purpose
3. The involvement of a Balliol student and other Oxford students is a further reason that this a good cause for the JCR to support

 

This JCR Resolves:

1. To contribute £150 to the running of the event

Minutes

1. Amy Ford explained that during the EGM last Sunday we voted to create a Housing Officer. She recapped the arguments that people made for doing this. Molly Rogers asked what the Committee roles would be called. Amy said that the Dr WHO would keep its name for now, and the office we are creating would be called a ‘Housing Officer’.

Molly said that she thinks we should have new elections for a Welfare Officer when we have elections for a Housing Officer. Annie Williamson thought that we should have the Housing Officer elections as soon as possible. She thought that there was a consensus amongst the JCR that the elections we have just had for Dr WHOs were likely to be electing people into a role that would become predominantly welfare based. Tom Posa argued that most JCR members who voted for Dr WHOs in the recent elections were aware of the likely changes to the role. He also thought that people cared more about the welfare capabilities of the candidates than their interest in housing.

Molly said she thought that at the time of elections, it was not certain that the Dr WHO role would no longer involve a housing element. She said that she thought it would be a good idea to think about re running these elections. Alexander Potten asked if we could re elect Dr WHOs, since we have just elected Meg Peyton Jones and James Letten to fulfil the role. He thought that this might be unconstitutional. Duncan Shepherd said he would like to check the constitution on this matter, and therefore refrained from answering this question now.

Molly asked for clarification on what would happen to Welfare Subcommittee. Amy said that a Housing Officer would be invited to Welfare Subcommittee at the discretion of the Dr WHOs, when housing matters are relevant to welfare subcommittee.

The motion passed.

 

2. John Clark Maxwell explained that he thought having a Comrade Procedure would make GMs run more smoothly, and would increase the accessibility and fairness of GMs. John said that he hoped the Comrade Procedure would encourage engagement in GMs. He pointed out that the position would not be on Committee and the person in this role would have a bell to ring to signal procedural errors.

Alice Farrell asked what this position does, that the Chair of meetings is not mandated to do already. John said that the chair is also the President, and they are not specifically mandated to bring up procedural points.

Meg asked what the budget would be used for. John said that giving each office and each non committee office a budget was part of his plan to make JCR finances easier to access in his current role as Treasurer.

Kathyrn Pritchard asked if this motion or position was intended to be a joke, or whether it was serious. John said that he wanted to solve a serious problem in a light hearted way.

Caitlin Tickell asked if John and Jack thought that having this position would be better than an independent chair. She also asked if they thought the position would create an intimidating atmosphere.

John said that having a comrade procedure was less disruptive to the way GMs are currently done than introducing an independent elected chair. John also said that he thought the way to avoid this position making GMs more intimidating was to elect the right person to the role.

Xavier Cohen asked for the approximate diameter of the proposed bell. Jack Wheatley answered that it would be an inch and a half in diameter. Xav asked what material the bell would be made of. Jack answered brass.

James Letten asked if there was a precedent for this at other colleges. John said that he didn’t know.

Cealach McKeating said that she thought John and Jack had changed the way they presented their motion since their last GM. She suggested that either the VP or the Secretary could be mandated to fulfil this role. Molly said that she thought the problem with fresher attendance at GMs would not be solved by having a Comrade Procedure.

Xavier Greenwood said that he thought that the sort of person who would run for this position would not need a bell – they would already have a loud voice at GMs.

Charlotte Suttle said that she thought it was a bad idea to give a person who is already an older, louder member of the JCR the structural power to speak over other JCR members during meetings.

Ste Rose said that he thought that the point of making the instrument a bell was to make it as non-aggressive as possible.

Oliver Johnson Munday said he envisaged this position mostly correcting the chair of the meeting, who is normally the President. He suggested that making GMs more fun was the best way to increase attendance at GMs.

Ruby Breward suggested changing the instrument from a bell to a kazoo.

Tom said that he thought this was an experimental position – we don’t really know what other colleges do, or how this position will work. He said that we currently have procedures to remove people from office, which could be used in the case that someone was misusing their powers as Comrade Procedure. He added that he thought we should trust that the people who would care about this role and would run for it, do care about the JCR more than they care about projecting their own voice.

Molly said that she thinks that this role would help to make the voices of overly loud people in GMs more regulated.

Duncan said that because this was a second hearing, we cannot make an amendment to this motion today.

Alice said that she was against this motion. She said that we already have a chair in meetings, which is the President, who we trust to have a good grasp of the constitution. She said that our meetings are already procedure-heavy, and that we should not make meetings more structured. She questioned whether this motion was brought with the expectation that it would pass.

Kat said that this position would be holding the chair to account. She said that there is nothing in the text which she thinks makes it clear that checking the chair would be the main role of the Comrade Procedure. She also said that there is no guarantee that the procedures that the JCR already has to check the powers of its officers are underused, or never used, for a reason.

Kat said that the bell might not be loud enough.

Alex said that having someone who knows the Constitution would be useful.

Caitlin said that often when we create new offices we usually have a consultation to decide what kind of office to create. She suggested that we fail this motion, and have consultation on exactly what the best way to solve the procedural problems we have seen in GMs. She thinks we should go away and spend some time thinking as a community.

Xav G said that we should not assume trust for this position. He said that a position like this, in the wrong hands (which he thought would be likely this year) would obstruct debate rather than help debate. He also thought it was a huge ask to mandate someone to know the entirety of procedure.

Cealach said that she thought there was a gender aspect to this motion. She said that the people she had heard might run for this position would not use this position in a good way.

Xav said that a lot of the issues that people might have with this role are related to the personal qualities of whomever is elected. Xav said that the nature of this role would formalize GMs and reduce the flowing structure of GMs.

Annie said that she thought that conversations about procedure and the position of the chair were good conversations to have. Annie said that she thought that this position seemed to have two contradictory purposes.

Duncan asked to yield the chair to Annie. Duncan yielded the chair to Annie.

Duncan said that he had a unique perspective on this issue, as one of the only JCR members who has chaired a meeting before. Duncan said that giving the budget to Comrade Procedure would be unnecessary. He said that he said he thought it would be a bad idea to give structural power to an older JCR member in GMs. He said that our GMs are the most procedural of all the GMs of Oxford colleges. He thought that the constitution already accepts in itself that it is not binding in every circumstance. He also said that Josh Warwick had been really useful in this meeting, and Josh hadn’t needed a bell and an office in order to be useful. He thought that this was a dangerous motion, which we should not pass just because John and Jack presented it well and are quite funny.

John thanked Duncan for his compliments. John said that a lot of the points raised are related to the character of the person who might occupy the role of Comrade Procedure. Duncan offered the point of information that he had made no reference to the character of the person.

John said that he and Jack had envisaged that the person who occupies the role of Comrade Procedure would not engage in the debates and meetings that they are supposed to regulate.

Tom said that he thought that the President, who currently has procedural powers, is more likely to be biased or partial than an elected comrade procedure would be. Tom said that we had had a lot of speculation so far in this debate about who might run for this role. He also said that people who thought the potential candidates for this office would be bad should encourage people they thought would be good candidates to run for the role, and then we could have an election – he said that this is the purpose of holding elections inn this first place. Lastly he said that procedure for removing people from office is in place and is fit for use.

Oli said that this debate boils down to two points. Firstly, would this role work? Secondly, would this role silence people? He said that he did not think that this role would silence people – the Comrade Procedure would not have the power to do this.

Oli brought an amendment to get rid of the budget. This amendment was taken as friendly.

John gave a short speech in favour of moving to a vote. He said that he and Jack were really glad that the discussion about procedure. He said that he thought it would be a good idea to vote on this motion now, and he said that if this motion falls, he and Jack would go away and do some more thinking about how to solve the problems that procedure can cause in JCR meetings.

Caitlin said that she thought that we should continue to debate, because there were still lots of people in the JCR who had raised their hands to signal that they had more to say on the issue.

Molly said that she was nervous about saying her next point. She said that she thought this highlighted the often hostile atmosphere of GMs. She said that she felt that speaking against some groups of people in GMs could have social repercussions. Alex proposed a secret ballot.

Jack requested that this motion not be put. He thought that it would be better to not have this debate in a GM format, and that it was causing more controversy than it was worth.

The motion was not put.

 

We lost quorum, and took a five minute break to encourage people to come to the GM.

 

Duncan brought a procedural motion to rearrange the order of the following motions.

Tom said that he had something important to say on the JdeB motion and had to leave soon.

 

4. Suzy’s motion passed.

6. Ruby’s motion passed.

 

3. Oli said that removing the JdeB from committee would not have welfare repercussions. Oli said that turning up to committee lunch and GMs should not be mandated as a responsibility of the JdeB.

Darryl Braier Lorrimer asked if this would take affect now, or at the next elections. Oli said that it would begin from the next elections.

Caitlin asked if Oli had spoken to the incoming JdeBs for their opinions on this. Oli said that he had mentioned it to them but they didn’t seem to feel strongly either way.

Tom said that he thought it was very important that JdeB was formally held accountable for welfare by being on Committee. He said that although formally the JdeB is mandated to go to committee lunch and GMs it doesn’t happen in practice. He said that checks on balnaces on the JdeB’s performance were a significant condition of the continued existence of the JdeB position in debates that the JCR mas had previously which proposed abolishing the office.

James said that welfare vetting could still occur without the JdeB on Committee.

Kat said that she thought it was a bad idea to alter the role of the JdeB based on the character of the people currently in the role. She thought it was quite important that symbolically that the JdeB should be part of committee.

Duncan said that he thought this was a positive move. He has seen a JCR committee where the JdeBs spoke a lot in committee lunches, and had also seen JdeBs who don’t turn up to meetings. He said it was useful to have JdeBs on committee.

Molly said that when we were reforming the constitution this issue came up and we voted that the JdeBs should be on committee. We have discussed this issue extensively in the past. Molly is going into her third term on welfare subcommittee. She thought that there is no reason that the JdeB being a non committee role would not stop the JdeB from being vetted. She said that while actual welfare issues are not discussed on committee lunch, it may be useful to have the JdeBs there anyway because welfare is discussed non directly.

Cealach said that the JdeB serve an important function of representing the voices of different groups of people at JCR meetings.

Oli said that this isn’t a debate about whether other positions should be on Committee. He thought that people elect the JdeB based on how funny they think the candidates are and how many friends to vote for them the candidates have, not for how well they represent alternative groups at meetings. He wanted to get rid of the burdens on the JdeB of bop clean up, freshers week help, and attending meetings.

Oli said that old JdeBs needed to be held accountable, but this has been solved by having a welfare subcommittee vetting process.

Charles Bertlin said that anyone can turn up to committee lunch, but they cannot vote.

Oli said that no one cares that he currently doesn’t turn up to meetings.

Duncan said that to a degree Oli self polices the JdeB. He thinks it is a good idea to have someone in the role who is engaged in the JCR, to help the JdeBs to self police.

There was a call for a move to a vote.

The motion passed.

 

5. Xav wants to spend up to half of the Maestro Music budget. He wants to buy equipment and software to enable mixing, and also equipment and software to produce music.

Oli asked whether this equipment would be used at bops. Xav said that the equipment would be in the music room, and might be used for bops, but he would want to make sure the equipment was sufficiently protected from being damaged at bops.

Ste asked how many people would attend the working group and how many people would use the equipment. Xav estimated that around 5 would attend the working group and around 15 would use the equipment.

James asked about insurance, Xav said that he wasn’t sure how the equipment would be insured. Duncan and Daisy said that this would probably come under the college insurance.

Charles asked why the money isn’t coming from the entz budget. Xav said that this motion was predominantly concerned with musical stuff.

Flo asked how the figure of 1500 pounds was put together. Xav said that it was a rought estimate based on adding up estimated costs of the kind of equipment we might buy.

Ste proposed an amendment that a second GM would be required to pass the money.

The amendment was withdrawn.

Ste proposed an amendment “To bring the conclusions of the working group to a GM asking permission to spend the money”

It was taken as friendly, but Darryl opposed it, saying that he felt it was better in its original form.

Oli agreed with Darryl on the above point, and said it gave him leeway to ask for more money, and said that it would give him the chance to change his mind on things RE: its use in bopsets.

Alice said that this motion only gives £1500, rendering the amendment useless.

Potten said he had an idea. He suggested that the motion be ‘not put’, the working group made, and the money passed at a later GM.

Daisy made a point of information that the money could likely be passed regardless under the remit of the Maestro Music.

Xav said that he brought this motion as a proof of concept, to gauge support as the majority of the work will be technical.

Ruby supported the motion.

Ste withdrew the amendment, because Alice was right.

Xav said he’d likely bring it later as it was a lot of money.

Oli asked how much more ‘industry standard’ costed.

Xav said that ‘good decks’ cost £900 plus a good mixer, summing up to £2-2.5k but ‘mid-range’ ones were cheaper but almost as good.

The point was made that a desktop may be better than a laptop; Xav agreed.

Darryl said that the spending was at the discretion of the treasurer, so the working group should happen and then come back with a motion later.

Cealach proposed a move to a vote; Oli opposed because he wanted more discussion; Cealach responded that most of the points were being repeated/answered that they’d be solved later.

The move to a vote passed.

The motion passed.