2016 General Meeting
Date: Sunday 7th week, Trinity 2016 (2016-06-05)Agenda
a) Matters arising
1. Officer’s Report [Richard]
b) Amendments to the Governing Documents
c) Motions relating to financial matters
2. Prescription charges levy [Darryl Braier-Lorimer]
3. BT Sport [Darryl Braier-Lorimer]
4. Sponsorship of a child levy [Sophie Conquest & Rivka Shaw]
d) Any other motions
a) Matters arising
1. Officer’s Report [Richard]
b) Amendments to the Governing Documents
c) Motions relating to financial matters
2. Prescription Charges Levy [Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes
This JCR notes:
1. The passage of a motion in Michaelmas 2015 creating a new account for funding NHS prescription charges of Balliol JCR Members.
2. That this is funded by a £1.50 compulsory levy.
3. That the total expenditure (i.e. claimed prescriptions) of the account is, as of 1st June, is £257
4. That the account has accumulated £1,215 in levies.
5. That the balance of the account is therefore £958.
6. The existence of the compulsory-levy funded Sanitary Fund, which accumulated a balance of £7,000 by way of leaving an overcharging compulsory levy in place.
7. That cutting the levy to £0.50 would be more in line with the cost of the account, whilst providing some excess income should demand for prescription charge reimbursement increase.
8. That if we were to reduce the levy, we can always increase it again later.
This JCR believes
1. That the JCR overcharging its members is a bad thing.
2. That leaving levies too high when they need reduction (leading to huge restricted reserves) is a bad thing.
This JCR resolves:
1. To reduce the Prescription Charges levy from £1.50 to £0.50 per person per term.
3. BT Sport [Darryl Braier-Lorimer] Passes
This JCR Notes:
1. The passage of a motion at the 7th Week GM of Hilary Term 2016 mandating The Treasurer to get BT Sport.
2. That the notes of the motion quoted a price of £24 per month for BT Sport to the JCR.
3. That upon further research, this price was wrong, and was actually £240 per month.
4. That our current Sky TV subscription, excluding BT sport, costs £92 per month for around 800 channels.
5. That the Treasurer then negotiated a price of £134 per month for BT Sport, on a special deal that is no longer available.
6. That the price of BT Sport is now likely around £170 per month.
7. That we still do not have BT Sport.
8. That buying BT Sport now would be a waste of money, given nobody could use it until October.
This JCR Believes:
1. That £134 per month is an unreasonable sum of money to pay for two BT sports channels.
2. That given the original motion was passed with a lower price quote, the mandate is invalid.
3. That the JCR could, if it wished, pass a new motion at a later date mandating another JCR Officer to purchase BT Sport at the actual price.
This JCR Resolves:
1. To annul the mandate of the Treasurer to purchase BT Sport.
4. Sponsorship of a child levy [Sophie Conquest & Rivka Shaw] Passes
This JCR notes:
1. That a JCR compulsory levy of £0.37 per person exists for sponsorship of a child through school in India.
2. That the child we sponsored has now graduated.
3. That the charity we sponsored a child through no longer wants us to sponsor a child.
4. That money has been collected from this compulsory levy over the last term that has not been donated owing to the child having graduated.
5. That there are multiple options as to what to do with the money already collected.
This JCR believes:
1. That this levy has served its purpose.
2. That we should not be charging JCR members for a scheme that no longer exists.
3. That should we wish to continue sponsoring a child, a new levy can be set up.
4. That we should not exacerbate the problem by charging members whilst we deliberate what to do with the money already collected.
This JCR resolves:
1. To scrap the compulsory “Sponsorhip of a Child” levy.
2. To mandate the Charities Officers to continue looking into options for donating the money already collected.
Amendment 1 Passes
Strikes believes 1 and strike resolves 1 and 2
Add to resolves “To set up a working group to decide what to do with the money.”
d) Any other motions
Minutes
Annie welcomed the GM, noting that it was the first GM to be held outside.
Richard told the JCR that this was not related to his Office but rahter to the drugs testing kits scheme he had been pursuing this term. He told the JCR that he had spoken to College who disapproved for a good reason.
He noted that Newcastle Uni had started selling tests for £3 each to test substances for the presence of amphetamine variants. He noted that the Mastercard pills had killed two people in the last year due the presence of these sorts of chemicals, and these had also hospitalised people in Manchester.
He explained that the reason College weren't behind the kits was because the new kits are completely untested, and the success rate is unknown, and hence College were worried people would put too much faith in the tests. He told the JCR that he had argued that this would be better than the 0% success rate of the current method of just taking the drugs and crossing your fingers, but College were not convinced. He would therefore send an email informing people where to buy the kits.
He emphasised that Drummond, RQ, and Bruce were both onside with harm reduction schemes, and hence he would be looking forward to working with College on this issue. He expressed his disappointment in the timing of the scheme, as he would rather have sorted this during this term due to festivals over Summer (noting these are less safe spaces than Oxford). He emphasised that the kits are untested.
Meg asked how no testing has been done. Richard responded this is a good question. He was not able to find research online. He was concerned at Newcastle's faith in the kits.
Annie added that one of the labs producing them claimed to be certified and was not.
Richard noted that he had been researching a charity called In The Loop that tested drugs for free in festivals.
Darryl told the JCR he has two motions. Conor told him to speak up. Yeah, Darryl; project. Darryl noted that a motion had been passed creating a levy to refund prescriptions, with a £1.50 compulsory levy. He noted that £1200 in levies, with around £200 having been claimed back. Darryl claimed we were therefore collecting too much money, and hence he wants to reduce the levy to 50p.
Nicky asked about the relevance of notes six. Darryl clarified that it is to further the point that we have too much money in earmarked funds.
Cealach asked if the scheme had been regularly advertised. It had not.
Darryl noted the 50p suggested levy leaves excess in the account, and that the levy could be raised in the future, or the fund could be topped up by general reserves.
Laura asked how much 50p would rock up annually. £535 is the phone's answer.
Richard asked if this was part of running down earmarked funds, or if it was scaling back the service. Darryl replied it was a bit of both; he is opposed to restricted funds which he believes would be useful if we didn't have large general reserves; he also feels we should not overcharge JCR members.
Cealach offered the point of information that College are in favour of us spending money according to the way it is collected.
Richard asked for it to be emphasised that the motion was about releasing reserves, and that the project would be scaled up. James agreed to advertise the scheme better.
Motion passes without opposition.
Darryl messed up (he used more colourful language). He wrote a motion about BT Sport where he quoted a price of £24 a month based on the Sky subscription price. He recounted that when he called up BT, the price offered was £240 a month, which he correctly noted is more than £24. To his credit, he negotiated them to £134, however this deal was no longer on, and was now £170. He believes this is unreasonable for three sports channels, given we pay £92 for the other 800, and hence he wanted to annul his mandate.
Motion passes.
Sophie told the JCR that there existed a levy to sponsor a child who has since graduated and no longer requires sponsorship, so the levy is not doing anything, and hence she and Rivka would like to cancel the levy until ideas were sounded out in the future. It was noted Will suggested sponsoring a house instead, but for the time being, she would like to cancel the levy so that proper research could be done.
Rivka noted there's a lot of money collected from the levy that they are unsure on how it should be spent. Will wants it to be spent on the Xavier problem as the money should go to some children's charity given that this was why it was collected.
Will asked when the levy was paid. Darryl responded that finalists have paid the levy, non-finalists pay it at the start of Michaelmas.
Hugo asked what the advantage of having a levy rather than having something done through the charity fund. Sophie responded that she considered scrapping the levy, but that it was an easy way to raise a lot of money.
Nicky asked if the levy for the refugee scholarship not be considered a suitable replacement. Annie responded that the refugee scholarship is tailored to precise costs, so her sense that the excess collected by the levy could do a lot of good, whereas the added value of contributing it to the scholarship is not as high. She also noted that the money was collected under the impression iut would be spent in a certain way.
Will brought the amendment to strike believes one and resolves one and two and replace it with a mandate to set up a working group to research the Xavier group. Sophie responded that she would like to consider other charities; but she was open to the idea of a working group.
Cealach noted striking resolves one doesn't address the surplus collected through the levy. Will responded that as the money won't be collected until Michaelmas, he believes there's a long enough time. Rivka responded that it's true that the levy would have to be re-established soon, but the name of the levy would have to be changed anyway. Will responded he expects it should be sorted out that term.
Nicky suggested that it wouldn't be too hard to set up a new levy, so organisationally, it would be easier to scrap and re-establish the levy.
Cealach asked Darryl when the levies are charged in Michaelmas; at the start.
Darryl noted that Denise would have to be aware of the levy at the end of this term for it to be batteled in Michaelmas.
Annie noted the discussion was happening over two options that aren't too dissimilar, and hence suggested clarifying the options to the JCR.
Rivka stated that given the time commitments each of the charities officers have, she would prefer for it to be scrapped to avoid an unnecessary time pressure.
Annie suggested a vote to be taken on the amendment.
Will responded that he would take a big role on the project, and that he is concerned the levy may not be reinstated.
Lizzie asked if the scrapping of the levy would imply a chance it won't be reorganised. It was responded that this was a concern, and also that it might not be charged in Trinity term.
Hugo asked for clarification for when something would have to be passed to ensure no money is lost. Darryl responded an EGM would have to be called before the end of the term.
Darryl noted that the levy was 37p per person.
Daisy Cutts asked if the levy could be renamed to be more general. Darryl noted that the compulsory levies are not named.
Xav suggested that the scrapping and reinstating might go towards why the levy is being set up.
Aidan disagrees with Xav G that it would be hard to reinstate the levy.
Ste ranted about democracy; he believed that arguing that the levy might not be reinstated in a future debate should not bear on the decision made, as this would be acting in such a way to prevent the democratic participation of the future JCR.
Will agreed with Xav, and responded to Daisy that the fund should be very specific, and specifically target to primary and secondary education. He believes child education is the most important thing to be done in development in East Africa (noting that it reduces chances of children being involved in child conflict by 68%) and hence he also finds it important that money not be lost unnecessarily by scrapping the levy.
Nicky told the JCR that he changed his mind, and that the flexibility of the deadlines means that losing money in scrapping the levy temporarily would not be worthwhile.
It was reiterated that the debate was related to the amendment to establish a working group and not scrap the levy.
Will defended the amendment arguing that it was important to keep the levy going as the cause was very important, and that he would like to set up a working group to look at the charity; he likes Xavier because it sponsors a house rather than a child so the problem of graduation would not arise again. He noted his finals end Tuesday and hence he would be happy to invest time in making this happen before the end of term.
Amendment passes unanimously.
Motion passes without opposition.
The meeting was adjourned.