2016 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 3rd week, Hilary 2016 (2016-01-31)

Agenda

 

a) Matters Arising

1.     Change of DSO name: Second hearing [Molly Rogers]

        This JCR Notes:

1. According to the equality act of 2010, a disability is any physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on one’s ability to carry out normal daily activities.
2. People can choose whether or not they self-identify as disabled, and therefore a person may have a disability but not identify as disabled.
3. There is currently a role on the JCR Committee and Welfare Subcommittee called Disabled Students’ Officer whose duty it is to assist, inform, and represent Balliol’s students with disabilities.

This JCR Believes:

1. The label ‘disabled’ may be off-putting or exclusionary and this may deter people from seeking advice from the Disabled Students’ Officer.
2. The term ‘Students With Disabilities’ is more inclusive than ‘Disabled Students’, as it encompasses anyone who suffers from an illness or impairment which classes as a disability, regardless of whether or not they view themselves as disabled.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To change the name of the role currently known as ‘Disabled Students’ Officer’ (or ‘DSO’) to ‘Student Disabilities Officer’ (or ‘SDO’), and to update the JCR Constitution and Standing Orders accordingly.

b) Main Agenda

 

2. Pantry restructure [Freddy Potts and Zack Leather]

This JCR Notes

1. That in the past few years there has been a lack of permanent non-student staff in Pantry, an issue which will doubtless rear its head again in the future
2. That operating Pantry without permanent non-student staff is necessarily time-consuming for those students who replace them
3. That to prepare food, students should be food safety trained, which requires a significant time commitment and can be difficult to organise
4. That preparing food is a more difficult and less attractive job than manning the till
5. That because of points 3 and 4, the burden of operating Pantry in times without permanent non-student staff has fallen largely on the shoulders of the Foodies.
6. That there are only two Foodies, and that there are parts of a Foodie’s job which do not involve opening Pantry by doing shifts
7. That a Foodie’s job is therefore large during times without permanent non-student staff
8. That Foodies are people who do degrees and who want to do well at them

This JCR believes:

1. That Foodies should not have to prioritise between Pantry shifts and work commitments at times when it is impossible to do both acceptably
2. That Pantry opening reliably and frequently is extremely important to the culture and maintenance of the JCR
3. That there is currently not enough incentive for students to become involved with the food preparation aspect of working in Pantry (henceforth referred to as “a back shift”) in times when Pantry is entirely student-run

This JCR resolves:

1. To increase the wage of those doing back shifts to £6.70 per hour, in line with the national minimum wage for over 21s.
2. To hold elections for the Pantry emergency sub-committee no later than the Sunday of 7th week Hilary Term
3. To provide £30 to each Pantry emergency sub-committee member to pay for a food safety training course and certificate
4. To amend Section IV of the Standing Orders as follows:
   1. Pantry Emergency Subcommittee (PESC)

10.1. The PESC is a body which exists to assist and advise the Foodies in the management of Pantry during times in which there are no permanent staff assigned to lunchtime or dinner shifts.

10.2. The PESC shall consist of:

a) The Foodies

b) Up to five additional PESC Members, elected in accordance with part VIII of the Constitution.

10.3. The Pantry Emergency Subcommittee shall be chaired and convened by the Foodies.

1. To amend Section V of the Standing Orders as follows:
   1.1. The following positions are Non-Committee Offices:
   […]

1. PESC Members

18. Duties of PESC Members

18.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee, each Pantry Emergency Subcommittee (PESC) Member shall:

a) Ensure that their food safety certification is up to date and make appropriate arrangements for its renewal or acquisition with the JCR Office, either directly or through the Foodies, if it is not up to date or non-existent.

b) Carry out a minimum of two food-preparation shifts (also known as a “back shift”) per week during periods when PESC is activated.

 

 

3. Updating the role of the Ball Committee in the Constitution [Daisy Cutts]

This JCR notes:

1. That the JCR Constitution under ‘Part VIII Procedure for Elections’ currently reads:

‘8. Election of Non-Committee Offices

8.1. At the beginning of Trinity term, a referendum shall be held to decide whether Members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following academic year;

8.2. In the event that members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following academic year, the following Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Trinity term of the academic year:

a) Ball President

b) Ball Treasurer

c) Ball Secretary

d) Ball Publicity Officer

e) JCR Ball Representatives

f) MCR Ball Representatives

8.3. These offices shall take over responsibility from their predecessors on Saturday of 8th Week of the Trinity term in which they are elected.

8.4. All other Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Michaelmas term, in conjunction with the Committee, and take office at the same time as the Committee-Elect.’

 

This JCR Believes:

1. That the procedure outlined in this part of the Constitution is no longer appropriate because the JCR would like to organise a Balliol Ball once every two years instead of annually, with a garden party in the intermittent years.
2. That the Governing Documents of the JCR should be up to date and should reflect what the JCR actually does.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To amend the JCR Constitution ‘Part VIII Procedure for Elections’ to:

 

‘8. Election of Non-Committee Offices

8.1. At the beginning of Trinity term, a referendum shall be held to decide whether Members wish to hold a ball or a garden party at the end of the following academic year;

8.2. In the event that members wish to hold a ball at the end of the following academic year, the following Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Trinity term of the academic year:

a) Ball President

b) Ball Treasurer

c) Ball Secretary

d) Ball Publicity Officer

e) JCR Ball Representatives

f) MCR Ball Representatives

8.3. These offices shall take over responsibility from their predecessors on Saturday of 8th Week of the Trinity term in which they are elected.

8.4. In the event that members wish to hold a garden party at the end of the following academic year, the following Non-Committee Offices are to be elected in Trinity term of the academic year:

a) Garden Party President

b) Garden Party Treasurer

c) Garden Party Secretary

d) Garden Party Publicity Officer

e) JCR Garden Party Representatives

f) MCR Garden Party Representatives

8.4. These offices shall take over responsibility from their predecessors on Saturday of 8th Week of the Trinity term in which they are elected.’

8.5. The elections detailed in 8.2-8.4 will not take place if the JCR has voted not to hold a ball or garden party in the year in consideration, as in 8.1.

 

4. Updating the Role of Ball Subcommittee in the Standing Orders [Daisy Cutts]

1. That Part III Committee Offices, subsection 6 ‘Duties of the Lindsay’ reads:

‘e) give the Ball Subcommittee any assistance required in alcohol sales at the Annual Ball’

 

2. That Part IV Supporting Offices, section 9 currently reads:

 

9. Ball Subcommittee

9.1. The Ball Subcommittee has specific control over the management and execution of the Annual Ball, and shall be granted no additional powers.

9.2. The Ball Subcommittee will consist of:

a) the Ball President;

b) the Ball Treasurer;

c) the Ball Secretary;

d) the Ball Publicity Officer;

e) the Lindsay;

f) the Entz Officer;

g) the JCR Ball Representatives;

h) the MCR Ball Representatives.

9.3. The Ball Subcommittee shall operate under the following procedure:

a) the Ball President shall Chair the meetings;

b) the committee shall meet once a week, at times to be determined by the Ball Secretary; and

c) the Ball Secretary shall minute all meetings of the Ball Subcommittee, and shall make them freely available to all members of the JCR.

9.4. If any of the Offices outlined in clause 9.3 are unfilled at the beginning of the term in which the Ball is to be held, the Ball Subcommittee will have the power to co-opt Ordinary Members to fill these vacant posts.

a) Co-option onto the Ball Subcommittee shall be done in a manner equivalent to co-option onto the Committee, as outlined in part VIII.

9.5. The Ball Subcommittee may not request any loans from College on behalf of the JCR without the approval of the General Meeting.

9.6. It shall be the responsibility of the Ball Subcommittee to present a detailed plan of the event at an Ordinary General Meeting no later than 4th week of the term in which the Ball is to be held.

9.7. By 2nd week of the term in which the Ball is to be held, responsibility of Catering, Music and Attractions shall each be delegated to a separate member of the Ball Subcommittee.

9.8. If any of the positions of Ball President, Secretary or Treasurer are unfilled at the start of the term in which the Ball is to be held, then the Ball shall be cancelled.

3. Part V Non Committee Offices currently reads:

1. List of Non-Committee Offices

1.1. The following positions are Non-Committee Offices:

a) The Duckworth

b) The Drama President

c) The Drama Treasurer

d) The Drama Secretary

e) Maestro Music

f) Comrade Tortoise

g) The Amalgamated Sports Rep

h) The Picture Fund Rep

i) Comrade Shakespeare

j) Comrade Bike Rep

k) The Bar Social Secretary

l) The Ball President

m) The Ball Treasurer

n) The Ball Secretary

o) The Ball Publicity Officer

p) The Ball Representatives

 

4. That number 18 of Part V of the Standing Orders currently reads:

18. Duties of the Ball Representatives

18.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the four Ball Representatives shall:

a) sit on the Ball Subcommittee; and

b) work under the supervision of the Ball President.

This JCR believes:

1. That the procedure outlined in this part of the Constitution is no longer appropriate because the JCR would like to organise a Balliol Ball once every two years instead of annually, with a garden party in the intermittent years.
2. That the Governing Documents of the JCR should be up to date and should reflect what the JCR actually does.

This JCR resolves:

1. To change
   ‘e) give the Ball Subcommittee any assistance required in alcohol sales at the Annual Ball’ to
   ‘e) give the Ball Subcommittee any assistance required in alcohol sales at the Ball’.
2. To update the Standing Orders, so that Part IV Supporting Offices section 9 reads :

9. Ball Subcommittee

9.1. The Ball Subcommittee has specific control over the management and execution of the Ball, and shall be granted no additional powers.

9.2. The Ball Subcommittee will consist of:

a) the Ball President;

b) the Ball Treasurer;

c) the Ball Secretary;

d) the Ball Publicity Officer;

e) the JCR Ball Representatives;

f) the MCR Ball Representatives.

9.3. The Ball Subcommittee shall operate under the following procedure:

a) the Ball President shall Chair the meetings;

b) the committee shall meet once a week, at times to be determined by the Ball Secretary; and

c) the Ball Secretary shall minute all meetings of the Ball Subcommittee

9.4. If any of the Offices outlined in clause 9.3 are unfilled at the beginning of the term in which the Ball is to be held, the Ball Subcommittee will have the power to co-opt Ordinary Members to fill these vacant posts.

a) Co-option onto the Ball Subcommittee shall be done in a manner equivalent to co-option onto the Committee, as outlined in part VIII.

9.5. The Ball Subcommittee may not request any loans from College on behalf of the JCR without the approval of the General Meeting.

9.6. It shall be the responsibility of the Ball Subcommittee to present a detailed plan of the event at an Ordinary General Meeting no later than 4th week of the term before the Ball is due to be held.

9.7. If any of the positions of Ball President, Secretary or Treasurer are unfilled at the start of the term in which the Ball is to be held, then the Ball shall be cancelled.

 

3. To add to the list on non-committee offices in Part V:

q) The Garden Party President

r) The Garden Party Treasurer

s) The Garden Party Secretary

t) The Garden Party Publicity Officer

u) The Garden Party Representatives

 

4. To change number 18 of Part V Non-Committee Offices so that it reads:

 

18. Duties of the Ball Representatives

18.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Ball Representatives shall:

a) sit on the Ball Subcommittee; and

b) work under the supervision of the Ball President.

 

5. To add to Part V Non Committee Offices the following:

 

‘19. Duties of the Garden Party President

19.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Garden Party President shall:

a) take overall control of the Garden Party, producing deadlines for various aspects of its completion and ensuring that they are adhered to;

b) Chair all meetings of the Garden Party Subcommittee;

c) present reports regarding the Garden Party to the JCR Committee as and when required by the JCR Committee; and

d) present a final report and accounts at the final Ordinary General Meeting of the term during which the Garden Party was held. If there are no subsequent Ordinary General Meetings after the Garden Party, the Garden Party President shall present this report to the General Meeting at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

20. Duties of the Garden Party Treasurer

20.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Garden Party Treasurer shall:

a) be responsible for the accounts of the Garden Party

b) present a budget to the JCR Treasurer no less than 30 days before the Annual Ball.

 

21. Duties of the Garden Party Secretary

21.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Garden Party Secretary shall:

a) be responsible for organising weekly meetings of the Garden Party Subcommittee;

b) minute said meetings; and

c) ensure that all paperwork pertaining to the Garden Party is in order.

 

22. Duties of the Garden Party Publicity Officer

22.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Garden Party Publicity Officer shall:

a) take overall control of publicity and marketing for the Garden Party; and

b) seek sponsorship for the event.

 

23. Duties of the Garden Party Representatives

23.1. In addition to other duties imposed by the Constitution and Standing Orders and by the resolutions of the Committee or of General Meetings, the Representatives shall:

a) sit on the Garden Party Subcommittee; and

b) work under the supervision of the Garden Party President.’

 

 

5. Dr WHO Naming: First Hearing [James Letten]

This JCR Notes:

1. That Dr WHO currently stands for Welfare and Housing Officer.
2. That Dr WHO do not manage housing since the election of a Housing Officer.
3. That there have been instances where the use of 'Welfare' in the naming of the Drs WHO has led to confusion regarding their role within college.

This JCR Believes:

1. That the name Dr WHO should be retained as this is recognisable to the college.
2. That the word 'well-being' better reflects the activities of the Drs WHO than does 'welfare.'

This JCR Resolves:

1. To retain the name Drs WHO, but have it stand for "Well-being and Health Officers".

2. To amend the Governing Documents accordingly.

6. Balliol/ New College Event [James Letten]
This JCR Notes:

1. That the Drs WHO have been approached by New College requsting a joint music/arts event in 5th week, provisionally to be held in New College 'barn'
2. 5th week of this term is Welfare Week
3. Saturday of 5th week is the last night of the Charity Musical.
4. New College intend to pass £100 to contribute towards the cost of the event.

This JCR believes:

1. This would be fun.
2. We should do it.
3. That the best time for such an event would be Saturday of 5th week, rounding off Welfare Week before the last night of the Charity Musical.

This JCR resolves:

1. To pass £100 for the event to pay for catering (such as paying the college to produce sandwiches, etc.).

 

7. Air beds [Annie Williamson]

This JCR Notes:

1. There is often a need for airbeds amongst JCR members.
2. ‘Blacks Outdoors’ sells ‘Deluxe Single airbeds with an inbuilt pump’ for £30 each.

This JCR Believes:

1. It would be beneficial to collectively purchase and provide airbeds to members.
2. These could be lent out using a system similar to that used for laundry room booking.
3. The college provision of camp beds, whilst useful, requires advance planning and is not always convenient.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To pass £90 for the purchase of three new airbeds.

2. To establish an airbed lending scheme through the JCR website, with appropriate liability measures in place.

8. Rent Negotiations [Annie Williamson & Darryl Braier-Lorimer

9. Conduct on Facebook Group [James Letten & Meg Peyton-Jones]

This JCR Notes:

1. That we currently have no policy with regards to conduct on the Balliol JCR 2016 Facebook page in the event of any post causing offence.
2. That there is a precedent that 5 officers, namely President, Vice President, Drs WHO, and Secretary, have the right to veto any given post, being administrators of the Facebook group.

 

This JCR Believes:

1. That the system for dealing with Facebook posts should be fairer and clearer.
2. That in an ideal situation, posts that offend would be amended or removed by the poster after this has been made clear to them.
3. That it is good to have the option to protect anonymity regarding who has taken issue with the post

 

This JCR Resolves:

1. To establish an informal system, whereby:

a) The pinned post at the top of the Facebook page is extended to remind members to be respectful, and lay out a suggestion of what to do in case of offence (see b,c and d).

b) Any member who takes offence at any post is encouraged to explain the cause of offence and politely request the poster to amend or remove the post accordingly.

c) Where this is not possible, said member makes their issue known to a member of welfare subcommittee, who will then speak to the poster on behalf of the member, protecting the member's identity if requested to do so.

d) If an impasse is reached, one of the administrators [the five officers mentioned above] is requested to remove the post by the member/ representative of the member.

Amendment 1 [Meg & James]

This JCR Believes:

1. That a person should not have to justify their reason for taking issue with a post.

This JCR Resolves:

1. As above, removing 'explain the cause of offence' in b).

Amendment 2 [Meg & James]

This JCR Notes:

1. That the President, Vice President and Secretary are not elected as welfare roles.
2. That welfare subcommittee are welfare roles, and are elected with vetting (the JdeB) as part of their mandate.

This JCR Believes:

1. That only the Drs WHO people having veto power would be insufficient, as in many cases neither would be on Facebook to see a reported post within a short time of its being reported.
2. That it would be impractical to have 16 administrators (i.e. all of welfare subcommittee) of the website. 

This JCR Resolves:

1. To strike ‘resolves 1’ and replace it with an identical resolves of parts a), b), c), followed by “d) That the welfare subcommittee (or the whole JCR) elect a further administrator of the page from welfare subcommittee
2. If an impasse is reached, one of the Drs WHO or the further administrator elected in d) is requested to remove the post by the member/ representative of the member.”

Amendment 3 [Meg and James]

To add 

Believes 1: That members should endeavor to be respectful and considerate in all dealings with one another

To strike Resolves 1b) and 1c)

and replace with 

1b) Any member who takes offence at any post is encouraged to communicate this to the poster, either directly or indirectly, via a member of welfare subcommittee who will then speak to the poster on behalf of the member, protecting the member's identity if requested to do so. The member/representative of the member is encouraged to explain the cause of offence and politely request the poster to amend or remove the post accordingly.

Amendment 4 [Amy Ford]

Change notes 1 to:
This JCR notes that:
1. 5 officers, namely President, Vice President, Drs WHO, and Secretary, are administrators of the Facebook group and have the capacity to accept member requests and remove posts.

Add
“This JCR believes:
That the Facebook group should only be for members of the JCR.”

Add “This JCR resolves:
To give an official list of JCR members to the 5 administrators to aid them in accepting requests to join the group.”

10. Modernising Standing Policy Language [Ele Saltmarsh & Flo Hardy]

This JCR Notes

1. Standing policy sections 'transgender rights' and 'LGBTQ rights'.

 

This JCR Believes

1. The wording is outdated in these sections.
2. 'Chosen gender' and 'trans*' are no longer used terms.
3. The trans* label as an umbrella term for transgender people makes the transgender label seem exclusive when it does in fact act as an umbrella term for any who identify as any. gender other, or in addition to, than the one assigned at birth.
4. Standing policy should use commonly accepted and unoffensive language.

 

This JCR Resolves

1. To use transgender as an umbrella term instead of trans* within the standing policy.

2. To change the standing policy ‘Transgender rights’ section to read "This JCR believes: That transgender people have the right to have their gender identity legally recognized”.

 

11. Support for Rhodes Must Fall [Xavier Cohen]

This JCR Notes:

1. That Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford have sent out a request for JCRs to endorse the fall of the Rhodes statue on High Street, owned by Oriel College.
2. Cecil Rhodes was responsible for an undemocratic, racist system of rule in South Africa, stating to Cape Town Parliament in 1887, “We must adopt a system of despotism, such as works so well in India, in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa.”
3. Rhodes was responsible for thousands of Southern African deaths.
4. The Rhodes Must Fall Movement in University of Cape Town have succeeded in removing the statue of Rhodes, and RMF in Oxford was set up to express solidarity with them.
5. They held a protest Friday the 6th October 2015 calling for its fall and presented a petition of support to the Provost of Oriel. Hundreds of people attended the protest, and to date 2,732 people have signed the petition.
6. Mansfield JCR, Christ Church JCR, Magdalen JCR, Catz MCR, St Anne’s MCR and Wadham SU have all passed motions supporting RMF and the removal of the statue.
7. In a survey taken by the OUSU Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality in 2014, 59.3% of BME students felt unwelcome or uncomfortable at Oxford because of their race or ethnicity.
8. That Balliol has its own colonialist, George Curzon, honoured with a painting hung in Hall.

This JCR Believes:

1. That a public statue of a figure at the top of an Oxford College overlooking the High Street in centre of the city clearly commemorates, celebrates and glorifies the figure in question.
2. That the celebration of a racist, colonialist murderer like Rhodes is unacceptable, just as we find statues of historical figures responsible for genocides to be unacceptable.
3. The statue venerates Rhodes uncritically and therefore contributes to his legacy of colonialism and racism, which are endemic in Oxford University.
4. We should create an environment that supports students and does not alienate them. Solidarity with this cause is our obligation in fostering a just community of students.

This JCR Resolves:

1. To support the removal of the Rhodes statue as outlined by RMF Oxford.
2. To support RMF Oxford in their aims more broadly, including challenging institutional racism and fighting to decolonise education.

Amendment 1 [Xav Cohen]

Add Notes:

1. Ex-Colonialist and Chancellor of the University of Oxford, Chris Patten, a Balliol alumnus, attacked the Rhodes Must Fall movement, saying that “our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudices” and that “people have to face up to facts in history which they don’t like and talk about them and debate them”.
2. The Telegraph say of Patten that he “defended Oxford's historical relationship with Cecil Rhodes saying that many of the university's scholars depended on activities that would be "unacceptable" in the modern world”, and the Guardian report him as saying that “Can you imagine a university where there is no platform? I mean a bland diet of bran to feed people, it’s an absolutely terrible idea. If you want universities like that you go to China where they are not allowed to talk about western values, which I regard as global values.”
3. After donors threatened to withdraw over £100 million of funding to Oriel, the college decided to end its 6 month consultation period early and come to the decision that the statue of Rhodes would remain.
4. Following this, RMF Oxford released a statement in which they said: “This is not over. We will be redoubling our efforts and meeting over the weekend to discuss our next actions… The struggle continues! #RhodesWillFall”

Add Believes

1. Chris Patten’s comments about RMF Oxford are confused, ill-considered and repugnant.

Add Resolves

1. To condemn Chris Patten’s comments about RMF Oxford.
2. To condemn Oriel’s decision to end their consultation process early and keep the statue of Rhodes.

Minutes

Annie welcomed the JCR to the GM.

She reported that college has formalised there vac res refunds of £8, as a positive, pointing out that the information can be found in peoples emails.

She reported that the work outside the staircases will be shifted to 15-18 next year.

Molly asked whether it had changed that not everyone can be refunded vac res. Annie explains that the aims would be that everyone would be able to, however there will be some discretion. She also pointed out that there are ways to receive vac res through other means (I.e. the chaplain).

 

Molly explained that she’d like to change DSO to SDO because she feels that not everyone who has a disability identifies as disabled, and hence the name DSO may be off putting to these people who still qualify for the same support.

Motion passes without debate.

 

Freddy disappeared to get Zack because Zack is a dedicated Foodie who was currently working at Pantry. Freddy explained that the motion is to create a new Foodie subcommittee to replace the existing set up in which the burden falls largely on the Foodies, particularly when there is a lack of permanent staff.

Zack explained that there are two shifts, the front shift and the back shift, the latter of which is more complicated and requires food safety training, and the task is just more difficult (and paid equivalently). He explained that back shifts fall almost entirely on Foodies and ex-Foodies, which means about 10 hours of extra work, not including administrative work.

He explained that members of the foodie subcommittee would be five people mandated to perform two back shifts at the higher wage of £6.70 an hour, which would mean that all shifts would be covered.

Tom asked if there’s ever a problem to get people to do front shifts. Freddy replied that not really, as it’s easy to train and get people to do front shifts. Zack reiterated this.

Anna asked whether there’d be an added incentive to over-21s who already get paid £6.70 to do back shifts. Zack said no as they aim to attract freshers so that the people who are food safety trained stick around.

Charles asked about interest. Zack replied that three people had expressed an interest.

James asked if the foodies are happy from a finance point of view with the increased wages. Zack responded that there’d be an increased expenditure of £50, which the current profit covers.

Meg asked if the subcommittee would only be in existence when there was no permanent member of staff. Zack replied yes. She asked when they’d be elected, Freddy replied he’d like it to happen during regular elections so that there’d be a back up should we lose a member of staff.

Hugo asked if we’d be paying people to train even if we aren’t guaranteed to require their services. Freddy said yes in a very diplomatic way (the phrase “small amount of money was used”).

Charles asked what response there would be to officers who refused to fulfil their mandate to perform two back shifts. Zack feels that the flexibility involved would make the problem unlikely, and if it happened it would be an isolated event. He explained that he supposed it was a concern, however it is only asking four hours off of people.

Moved to debate.

Darryl gave his approval and expressed that of previous foodies, and suggested people just pushed it through.

Duncan agreed.

Motion passed without opposition.

 

Daisy explained that her motions are intended to correct the incorrect descriptions of the ball subcommittee in the governing documents. She explained that she got rid of the word annual, and that now there is a referendum for an event each year, and that the events will be a ball and a small event alternating. She explained that there are two hearings required on the constitutional change because she’s a constitutional pro.

Ellie asked whether the alternating basis will correspond to year or to event. Daisy replies that she hasn’t included this in the motion as she wouldn’t like to introduce further inflexibility.

Daisy was asked if she wanted to combine the positions. She replied that she chose not to so that the constitution would express our desire for a large ball event on a regular (though less regular) basis.

The motion passes without opposition.

 

Motion passes without opposition.

 

James explained that the name is incorrect. It is.

Meg explained that opinions had been gathered, and that prevailing opinion was to include the name Dr WHO as it is a large part of the JCR. She explained that she felt the word welfare had connotations of requiring help, whereas well-being fit better, and ‘health’ just works.

James offered that ‘health’ isn’t meant to make them sound more qualified than they are.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

James explained that his friend from home is the welfare officer at New College, and that they would like to create a joint event on the Saturday of 5th week (welfare week). He explained that the idea is to do a musicy-arty event in the afternoon with food, drinks, and funk. He explained that it’d be a chance to get to know another college well. New College have offered a venue called the ‘barn’ which accommodated around a hundred people. New College have also offered to cover catering, though James will offer his assistance. He hopes that it’d be a free event with charges for alcohol. He asked people if people would prefer afternoon or evening, as the afternoon is not desirable for New College (though we have the charity musical on that evening).

Guy asked if we have a bop that night. We do. James suggested this impacted his decision. He explained that it’d be an early finishing event.

Anna asked if this interfered with anything else, and suggested considering other dates. James said he could go back asking to do it later, however he would find it appropriate to have it during welfare week, though he is very flexible on the matter.

Xav C offered that 5th week was bad but 6th week is terrible as well. James accepted this.

Hugo asked if passing the money meant it was spent even if there wasn’t an event.

Mimi asked if it would be too late to wait until the next GM. James suggested that there are other avenues of communication with the JCR.

Motion passes without opposition.

 

Annie explained that the motion satisfies a need.

Xav C offered that there exist One Direction branded air beds that not only are self-inflating, but also have their own sleeping bags.

Aidan asked what liability would entail. Annie explained that it would entail accepting damages if the damage done is the fault of whoever loaned them out.

Charles asked where they would be stored. Annie suggested the international storage space, but there exist other JCR spaces.

Annie returned to the 1-D airbeds are perhaps less hygienic.

JCR passes the motion by vote.

 

 

Meg explained that people find the Facebok page useful, however in the past few years, there have been isolated incidents of people being upset by what individuals have posted, and wanted to canvas opinion. She explained that she and James imagined the vast majority of instances part a) would be sufficient. In the minority of cases she believes b) will be sufficient as she believes the vast majority of people are reasonable. She expressed that she doesn’t imagine d) being used at all, but outlined how it would work.

James reiterated that the JCR Welfare Subcommittee can act as a conduit for the debate, and hence he feels anonymity is well-preserved.

Meg explained that conversations she has had suggest that people have objections on the basis of their freedom of speech, which is where she feels that parts a) and b) (which are essentially just reminding people to be polite) are sufficient.

James explained that the first amendment to the motion is because he would like to debate the question as to whether or not the procedure would be applied arbitrarily is people don’t need to justify their offence.

Meg explained that the second amendment is to elaborate that the roles of exec committee are not related to the administration of a page on welfare means, and hence adding a further admin from welfare subcommittee would be useful.

James explained that amendment 3 is to reiterate the JCR’s respect of the anonymity of an individual. Meg reiterated that there should be no preference to objections raised anonymously and objections raised directly.

Amy explained that her motion is intended to handle a reoccurring issue of uninvited guests of the Facebook page by giving the admins a list of Balliol students.

Tom asked whether the first amendment and the third amendment are contradictory. Meg and James agreed. They explained that should the first amendment pass, the third amendment would be as is mutatis mutandis.

Amy expressed her support of the opinion, and explained that she feels it’s analogous to people not requiring to explain to JdeB’s why they’d like something removed, and that she has hope that most people wouldn’t wantonly ask for posts to be removed.

Charlie explained that he feels this amendment is dangerous to open conversation on the Facebook page. He explained that he doesn’t feel that it is analogous to the JdeB vetting process as Facebook is already inherently not anonymous, and that people may take offense to posts being removed.

Molly replied to Charles by reiterating the motions expression that an individual posting a comment which has offended would be contacted. She also explains that while she understands that while there are reasons to be concerned about not having to explain the cause of offense; she proposed the alternative of explaining which part of the post is causing offense without explaining why. Meg offered that the amendment is not to reject the possibility of explaining offense and expects most people would.

Colm offered that the discussion of ‘freedom of speech’ is too grandiose to be applied to a page that is only reasonably used to advertise and find missing things, and expressed that the current motion simply formalises current process.

Richard reiterated a lot of points in support of the amendment, and expressed that it’s less harmful for someone to  not understand the removal of a post than for someone to be the target of an offensive post.

Daniel explained that the vast majority of cases would be handled voluntarily by people who post things as people are general not awful, and the last two parts are largely if the JCR has to act against someone directly to protect a targeted individual. He also imagines that if a post is offensive, while not everyone would want to contribute why it was offensive, at least one person would.

Alice explained that ‘freedom of speech’ isn’t relevant to a medium in which admins already exist. She also expressed the opinion that most offense is not intentionally caused. James agreed, and explained that this motion is simply only to act as a contingent. Alice replied that she agrees because she doesn’t feel that most people are likely to care about a post being changed or removed.

Molly offered that the procedure outlined is only to handle instances where people are upset – not when people simply disagree with each other, and it is not intended to silence people.

Amy expressed that the Facebook page is not a place for people to express opinions, and hence the procedure does not address a problem that occurs often. She also feels that the procedure asks more as a deterrent to specific jokes than a response.

Daniel expressed the thought that regardless of the intention of the procedure, people may still use the procedure to silence people.

Kat offered that GMs are the space for people to voice opinions on JCR activity, and that the motion doesn’t affect this space.

Anna explained that the joke of removing a post (which has been discussed and I haven’t particularly understood) isn’t actually that funny as no one notices (which is why I didn’t get it).

We voted on the amendment.

Amendment passes. We don’t clap amendments.

Nicky asked what the distinction between the JCR and the Welfare Subcommittee means in this instance.

Molly asked if we could co-opt a committee member rather than a member of welfare subcommittee exclusively. Meg seemed to agree.

Molly explained that she feels it’s important to consider that the person who writes the post causing offence, they may not still be on Facebook as people are trying to contact them, and suggested setting up a time frame during which a person may respond before the post is removed.

Richard asked what the time limit would be.

Tom expressed his confusion that this is expressed as an amendment to the amendment rather than as an amendment in its own right. Molly replied that she feels it’s immaterial.

Meg expressed her opinion that two days is quite a long time frame, but Richard explained that this was merely a rhetoric device. Meg suggested that two hours might be reasonable but would like to canvas opinion.

Hugo offered the idea that we could also send emails to individuals concerned.

Colm suggested that two-hours is too long a time as controversial posts have a tendency to explode rather quickly, and such a time limit would render this motion rather toothless.

Char suggested that the discretion of the officer concerned should be used in creating a time limit for when the post should be handled as any other limit would be arbitrary.

Tom asked if there exists a temporary ‘hide’ function on Facebook. Meg said this would be great. Someone informed him that you can only hide it from yourself. He implied that this was not ideal.

Molly offered that an hour is perhaps an optimal time limit.

Amy agreed with Char that a time frame is inherently arbitrary and causes issues of its own.

Molly offered the point of information that the time limit would start at the complaint, not when the post was created.

Nicky expressed his agreement that the idea of a time frame is rather arbitrary, and an elected officer to handle the issue would be expected to be able to apply their discretion appropriately.

Alex that while the discussion is not how long we allow a post to exist, but rather how long we’re willing to allow damaging posts to exist before we begin to act.

Cealach expressed the opinion that the motion seems to suggest the onus exists on the offended party, which the amendment to the amendment further affirms.

Alex offered that the time limit makes the system formal rather than informal (as suggested by the motion) and he prefers an informal system.

Molly suggested that in lieu of this amendment to the amendment, people may simply ignore messages in which they are asked to remove a post, and to not include this amendment to the amendment would be damaging in allowing this, and we should not leave a post up indefinitely after someone has complained if no response is received.

Alice expressed approval of the amendment to the amendment as she feels it is a positive to explicitly outline that there is a guarantee of some response from admins in lieu of a response.

Colm asked if the motion was to establish a best practice, or a binding process, the latter of which would be influenced by the amendment to the amendment, the former of which wouldn’t. James replied that he wanted the system to be made informal, however he is receptive to creating a more formal system if that is what the JCR desires.

Hugo suggested that the inclusion of a time limit which is mentioned with the fact that an officer can still use their discretion is reassuring to offended parties.

Amy expressed that a formal system is preferable as the establishment of Welfare Subcommittee is still somewhat inherently arbitrary, and hence a formal system is useful not only to the JCR but also to the officers concerned.

Cealach asked if the amendment to the amendment should include a number, or if it’s simply to give approval to the concept. Molly responded that she is unsure.

Meg suggested a minimum of 15 minutes.

Alex suggested moving to vote on the amendment to the amendment rather than amending the amendment to the amendment, as the debate is pointless establishing a time limit if people don’t want a time limit.

There was a call to move to a vote.

34 in favour, 12 opposed. Motion passes.

Amendment to the amendment is voted on and falls.

Molly offered the amendment to amend the amendment to allow the co-option to be from the whole of committee.

Alex feels that people have not cared about anything this much since milkgate. Alex expressed that he would like to see an admin elected by the JCR.

Duncan offered that the committee was already elected, and that more beauracracy is only a bad thing. I can’t spell beauracracy.

Daisy offered that the process of co-options is still rigorous, and offered that people who are interested are able to attend committee lunch.

Char mentioned that the welfare committee have a presence on the admin as they have more knowledge than the rest of committee.

Moved to a vote.

Cealach asked if the amendment would prevent exec committee from removing posts. Meg replied that it would.

Call to a move to a vote on amendment 2.

Darryl clarified that the officer would be a welfare subcommittee officer co-opted by committee (which I definitely called wrong).

Motion to move to a vote passes.

Amendment 2 passes.

Meg expressed that amendment 3 is simply for emphasis. Amendment is taken as friendly.

Daisy asked if such a list as presented in amendment 4 exists. It does.

Potten asked if this would imply the removal of people who aren’t actually on the JCR list are on the page. Meg and James replied that it would. He suggested we add resolves 2 to clarify this.

Amy accepts the amendment to the amendment as friendly, as does the JCR.

Kat asked if OUSU people would be welcome on the Facebook page.

Charles asked if suspended students would be on a JCR list. They are.

Daniel asked if JdeB is part of the JCR, Potten replied that because it is based on people rather than names, he is.

Xav C said this would also apply to accounts such as Entz.

Molly offered that OUSU people can just contact the JCR through contact points in the JCR rather than having open access.

Tom offered that the discussion of who should be permitted on the website is to be applied to the whole amendment, rather than this part.

JCR moves to a vote. Amendment to the amendment passes.

Move to a vote. Amendment passes.

Move to a vote. Motion passes.

 

Ele explained that “trans*” is an umbrella term for any transgender people, however she feels it is outdated as ‘transgender’ is now an umbrella term itself. She also feels the JCR believes that gender is not a choice, and hence the phrase ‘chosen gender’ is inappropriate.

Motion passes without debate.

 

Xav explained the origin of the RMF movement, which aims to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, and that the movement has wider aims to increase representation in things such as reading lists, and generally attack colonial legacy. He explained that recent events have led him to add his amendment to respond to the recent comments by the Chancellor, and the threat of investors to rescind donations. He feels that now is the appropriate time for the JCR to support the movement as it attempts to continue its momentum.

Charles offered the procedural motion to conduct vote by a secret ballot.

Xav was asked why Patten is defined as an ex-colonialist, given that he oversaw the handing over of Hong Kong.

The point of information was offered that the consultation period has been reframed, rather than dropped.

Beth offered the point of information that the handover was a prearranged thing.

Daniel expressed that he believes that Patten was a popular figure in Hong Kong disliked by the Chinese government, and hence it’s mistaken to portray him as an unwelcome figure.

Xav G asked for clarification regarding what resolves actually resolves to condemn, Xav C explained that it replies to Oriel’s decision to end the consultation process early, not ending it early after the threat of donations being lost.

Beth expressed the opinion that Patten’s popularity does not have bearing on whether we condemn his recent comments in our capacity as a JCR.

Darryl offered the amendment to the amendment to strike ‘ex-colonialist’ as he feels the condemnation is not related to this naming. Xav C does not take the amendment as friendly.

It was claimed that the label ‘ex-colonialist’ is accurate as he did run a colonoy.

Darryl claimed that his amendment to the amendment was not to disagree, but rather to remove debate on what is an incidental matter.

Xav C expressed the opinion that the condemnation is of the mischaracterisation and decontextualisation of the debate raised by RMF.

Alberto asked if Xav C would be open to an amendment that explicitly targeted what Xav perceives to be an attack on the free debate conducted by students.

Tom expressed that he believes that the is already clear given the condemnation expressed by RMF.

Charles offers the procedural motion for this to be conducted by secret ballot. There was opposition to this motion.

Charles argued that the way a person votes under this motion may affect the social response to this.

Duncan expressed the opinion that RMF directly affects peoples lives, and is not abstract, so people should not be able to ‘hide behind a secret ballot’.’

We voted to have a secret ballot.

Beth asked what would happen to the statue if it is taken down. Xav answered that it might go to a museum.

Hugo asked if Xav thought anything in the RMF movement might change over the next 24 hours. Xav said no.

Simran offered the point of information that GMs are dated.

James asked if more Oxford colleges have passed motions. Daniel answered that St Hildas has also passed a motion.

George asked for more specific information about the explicit aims of the Rhdes Must Fall movement. Xav listed generally fighting to increase representation of people of colour in the university, in departments and on reading lists, as well as better education on colonialism.

Sam asked if we had more information on what the £100 million mentioned would have been used for. Xav said that we didn’t have this information.

Simran offered a point of information the the RMF movement does have aims which are clearly written out and available on line.

Beth offered the point of information that the university today have rejected the suggestion that the university needs to address the issue of increasing BME applications to Oxford.

Nicky said that he had sympathy for people who are unsure where they stand on whether the statue should stand or fall. He said that how we vote on this issue will stay with Oxford’s reputation for a long time. He said that being apathetic was a dangerous decision to make – voicing his support of this issue.

Simran said that RMF is about much more than the statue. RMF Oxford really wants a wider decolonisation, it wants to challenge far more issues.

Charles brought the procedural motion for the motion to be taken in parts.

Xav argued that we should not take this motion in parts.

We voted not to take the motion in parts.

There was a call for a move to a vote.

Xav G opposed the move to vote to ask a question. Xav said that how he personally felt about the statue was irrelevant, but he thought we should be careful about how we speak upon the behalf of other people, and mentioned that a Cherwell study had shown that 5% more BME students supported RMF as opposed to white students. He asked why BME students may not support removal of the statue.

It was responded that it may be a desire for contextualisation. He expressed the opinion that statues are for celebrating, rather than remembering, and hence the statue should be removed. It was suggested that BME students may fear reactionary responses from the radical right wing. It was expressed that anecdotal evidence suggests the support is far greater among BME students than was reported by the Cherwell. It was expressed that ‘people don’t like walking past this statue.’

Cealach also pointed out that the survey asked people if they identified as BME, rather than verifying this.

Xav C said that there was a precedent of people in Oxford hacking surveys to further objectives.

A move to a vote was called. There was no opposition to the move to a vote.

The ballot was counted by Annie and Cealach, scrutiny was conducted by Ste. 70 votes in favour, 18 votes against, 3 votes spoilt or blank. Motion passes.