2014 General Meeting

Agenda

1. Siobhan's Leaving Present [Max Dalton]
2. Port [Dan Cerigo]
3. Veggie food in Hall [Tom Wainford]
4. Men's Welfare Representation [Caitlin Tickell and Tom Wainford]
5. Committee Reforms [Isaac Rose and Richard May]
6. AOB

Minutes

DT welcomes everyone and explains that we will be hearing second readings of some constitutional changes.

1. Siobhan’s Leaving Present [Max Dalton]
   • Passes without opposition.
2. Port [Dan Cerigo]
   • DC withdraws the motion. AM confirms that he will change the serving sizes of port.
3. Veggie food in Hall [Tom Wainford]
   • TW claimed that according to Jane, substantially fewer people now go to hall, and that the meat option frequently runs out. TW has not asked the MCR what they think of this. Alex Bartram (AB) confirmed that hall doesn’t have to make the different meal options in equal proportions, and DT pointed out that hall food on Fridays is currently made up with 40% of the single meat option. He also said that College thought we want a higher quantity of veggie food rather than just more options. College thought we’d be opposed to increasing the proportion of meat on Fridays, if the point of the motion was to make people eat less meat.
   • Josh Jones pointed out that objections seem to come from a college perspective and that we shouldn’t have this discussion during a trial. Harry Parkin suggested that the amount of meat served on Fridays must increase. Anna Blum argued that 4 weeks is too short a trial period. Veggies never get a choice otherwise, so this system is a substantial welfare benefit for many people. Ben Crome suggested that the issue should have nothing to do with cost-cutting; we made an ideological statement about the type of food we want. Caitlin Tickell said that she understood it’s annoying not to have enough meat options, but vegetarians have that problem 6 days out of the week.
   • Alex Bartram criticised the motion: “Notes” should be objective facts, which is not true for this motion. Motion suggests people weren’t aware they were voting to have more veggie options in hall, which is ridiculous. “Believes” 5 says good progress has been made in the issue of veggie food; what does that even mean? This motion claims some people feel so strongly about only eating meat that if the meat option runs out once a week, the situation will be horrible. There are fewer people like this than there are standard meat eaters. Chris Elliott argued that this motion wasn’t passed on ideological grounds, but to increase the choice of veggies.
   • AB said that he received menus + quantities of hall meals for weeks 1 and 2. Average number of meat option non-Fridays is 75 of each; on Fridays the average of the meat option is 40, so a lot less. AB was not opposed to increasing the proportional number of meat options on Fridays; however this could be done with college more informally. DT pointed out that catering committee agreed to increase meat quantity on Fridays already. Matt Lynch made a plug for pantry who do sell meat on Fridays. CW pointed out that veggies allergic to nuts can’t eat in hall almost ever. Also, catholics can’t eat meat on Fridays (technically). So the current system is good.
   • TW confirmed that Hall needs to make a minimum amount of each veggie option, which limits the number of meat options. DT said that the head chef thought we wanted to limit meat eating, which is why they couldn’t increase the proportion of meat, but this is being worked on and they now understand better what we want. Alex Mullan suggested we increase the meat proportion to 50% or similar. Abdul clarified that yhe motion was about options, not the quantity of meat on any given night. Motion fails.
4. Men’s Welfare Representation [Caitlin Tickell and Tom Wainford]
   • Motion passes with no opposition.
5. Committee Reforms [Isaac Rose and Richard May]
   • Welfare Subcommittee Redux (2nd reading) passes without opposition.
   • Arts Subcommittee Redux Amendment I [Richard May & Rebecca Hannon] (2nd reading) passes without opposition.
   • Removing Positions Redux passes without oposition
   • d)Entz Committee
     • RM explained he would like Entz officers to co-opt as many people onto entz committee as they want, and bar social sec + JdeB to be added onto entz committee. JdeB are relevant because of their association with bops (which is part of entz). Chessy Whalen confirmed that not everyone on this new entz committee would be on the JCR committee. Josh Jones argued that Entz committee doesn’t need to be formalised, the way it works depends on what the entz officers want. Making things slightly easier in election isn’t a good enough reason for the change. Alex Bartram confirmed that current and old entz officers asked about this? Ben Crome though that those in the role of JdeB wouldn't necessarily want to attend another committee meeting.
     • David Bagg argued that elections are good things,so we should give the JCR a chance to say what they want rather than just co-opt entz committee members. Josh Jones pointed out that entz committee is not like the “sensible” committees, it’s just about decorating bops, adding JdeB is unnecessary, and sometimes there isn’t even a bar social sec (like when Josh and Marcus were entz).Chris Parr informs this is incorrect as he was the social sec. Motion fails.
   • Finance Subcommittee and Steering Subcommittee
     • IR explained that currently we have a body called finance exec, nominally devoted to finance. Current system has problems: Fexec has a dual function, finance but also executive things (like rent & domus charge discussions). Entz officers should be included in finance discussions (have a lot of money), and Drs WHO on exec because welfare is very important to the way the JCR is run. Suggestion: split Fexec into a finance committee and a forum for these more technical debates (latter to meet twice a term).
     • Amendment by Angus Hawkins: Lindsay included in steering. Accepted as friendly. IR confirmed that Fexec would meet as often as they do now, steering when necessary. Steering the place to discuss them as they arise.
     • RM explained that steering works out exactly how to carry out the things on which GMs have already decided on; but would have no power to make big decisions. IR explained that it would also help the fact that we run out of time to discuss everything in committee lunch. Oli Johnson-Munday asked for examples of the current system failing. IR suggested that Fexec has discussed charitable registration + rent negotiations. These discussions must happen more formally, not just between mates in corners.
     • Darryl asked why Lindsay would be on steering but Foody not. RM explained that College has more of a relationship with Lindsay because of the nature of the bar (college cares about alcohol consumption etc.)
     • Claudia Freemantle confirmed that steering committee would not be closed. CF suggested that the current informal works well. IR explained this wouldn’t abolish the current system of setting up working groups. Tom W and others argued that this motion makes things more exclusive, less transparent, and overly formal. AB argued that this motion doesn’t make things less transparent because things would still be taken to CL + GMs, and RM pointed out that steering would mean a record of the discussions that already happen. Chessy W pointed out that steering makes committee members who are not on steering view their own opinions as not equally valuable. Angus Hawkins concluded that this isn’t a bad thing, but unnecessary. If something comes up, the relevant people can just set up a meeting and minute it. This is unnecessary complication. A procedural motion to take the motion by parts failed. Motion fails 16-22.
6. AOB
   • Max’s report on Finance exec: Discussed at the last Fexec: Pantry takings roughly 10% down, which is still okay; bar is fine; sorted out Pantry contracts.