2014 General Meeting

Date: Sunday 1st week, Trinity 2014 (2014-04-27)

Agenda

June Jamboree – Max Dalton

This JCR Notes:

1. That last year the JCR held a free Garden Party towards the end of Trinity Term (‘The June Jamboree’) at Jowett walk.
2. That Standing Policy refers to the Treasurer’s role in organising the June Jamboree in Trinity Term.
3. That the June Jamboree was a success last year, with a hog roast (with vegetarian options), a bouncy castle, rounders, and other games.
4. That the total cost for the bouncy castle and games last year was around £250
5. That Denise estimates that insurance for the event will cost around £25
6. That a temporary event licence, which allows us to run a bar and play music, will cost £21
7. That the Treasurer is planning to work with the Entz officers, and other interested JCR members, to organise such an event again, and has booked Jowett fields for Sunday 4th week (18th May) (the only weekend that was available)
8. That, unlike last year, the Foodies are planning to sell food at the event. That Pantry is Health and Safety compliant. That the Lindsay will be running a bar, as usual.
9. That the event is organised with the permission and cooperation of the SCR.

This JCR Believes:

1. That Holding a June Jamboree is a good thing, and that the way the event was run last year was largely a success.
2. That the June Jamboree should be free to attend
3. That the June Jamboree can be a good way to unwind after exams or take a break before exams
4. That the June Jamboree, as open to all, should be subsidised from JCR resources, and thus can make a small loss.
5. That the June Jamboree should be held on Jowett fields
6. That if the Foodies are selling food, there is no need to buy in food from an external caterer

This JCR Resolves:

1. To mandate the JCR Treasurer to organise the June Jamboree along the same lines as last year, but without a hog roast, in consultation with the relevant college officers
2. To pass up to £400 for the June Jamboree, to pay for games, events licences, insurance, and other expenses.
3. To mandate the JCR Treasurer to keep the JCR informed of the plans by email and at the next GM
4. To encourage anyone who would like to get involved in organising the June Jamboree to email the JCR Treasurer.

Mooncups – Rivka Micklethwaite

This JCR notes that:

1. A majority of cis-women in the JCR use tampons or pads.
2. Sanitary products are provided by the JCR for welfare purposes (out of the Tampax fund).
3. The Tampax fund currently contains about £6000.
4. Tampons and pads are bad for the environment.
5. Re-usable menstrual cups (such as the Mooncup) are better for the environment, pose fewer health risks and cheaper for their users in the long run than tampons and pads.

This JCR believes that:

1. People might be deterred from switching to a Mooncup due to an initially fairly high fixed cost (£20 including P&P from the website, £22 from Boots).
2. The JCR should support its members in their attempts to reduce waste and be environmentally friendly.
3. Subsidising the purchase of Mooncups for members of the JCR would be a more sustainable way of improving the welfare of JCR members, as we already do with the provision of tampons. 

This JCR resolves to:

1. Mandate the Women’s Officers to reimburse members of the JCR who buy Mooncups (or any other re-usable menstrual cup) by the full cost.

Air Hockey (Tom Wainford and Harry Parkin)

The JCR notes:
1. We currently can't use the pool table
2. We have no beer hockey table
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkkmxbYjX48

The JCR believes:
1. We like beer
2. Air hockey is fun
3. The d&ms have not been tested so far

The JCR resolves:
1. To buy an air hockey table
2. To mandate the d&ms to make it into a beer hockey table

Papyrus – Alex McKenzie

This JCR notes:
1. That Andrew Kirkman was a beloved member of the JCR until his tragic death in December 2013
2. That Andrew suffered from depression
3. That Papyrus is a charity which works to prevent suicide among young people
4. That his family have asked for donations to go to the charity Papyrus

This JCR believes:
1. That Papyrus is a worthy cause
2. That it would be fitting for the JCR to have a way of paying tribute to Andrew
3. That the easiest way for people to donate would be a page on the JCR website

This JCR resolves:
To have a donation page on the JCR website, with a £2 suggested donation

Women’s Officer Elections [Rose Hadshar & Richard May]

This JCR notes

1. Constitution 6.1: "All full JCR members shall have the right to vote in all JCR elections, excepting those for Women's Officer, in which only women may vote.”
2. Standing Policy “Discrimination”, point 4: "That given women are in the significant minority at Balliol, it is valuable to have a Women's officer providing welfare, representing women's interests within Balliol, to the university and OUSU, and coordinating events.”
3. That abusive voting has never been a significant problem for EMIS, LGBTQ or DSO elections, in which the core demographic is smaller than that of women as relative to the overall JCR.

This JCR believes:

1. That 'Women's interests' involve men.
2. That all members of the JCR have an interest in promoting gender equality.
3. That all members of the JCR are competent to vote in the election of JCR officers

This JCR resolves:

1. To strike Constitution 6.1, and replace it with "All full JCR members shall have the right to vote in all JCR elections."
2. To mandate the drafters of the new Constitution to include a clause to the same effect in the new Constitution.

Amendment 1 [Richard May]

1. Adds believes 4: “That provision should be made to ensure that elected Women’s Officers are supported by their core demographic.”
2. Adds resolves 3: “To add Constitution 4.31.9: Only JCR members who self-identify as women may propose or vote on a motion of no confidence in the Women’s Officers”.
3. Adds resolves 4: "To mandate the drafters of the new Constitution to include a clause to the same effect in the new Constitution."

Minutes

June Jamboree – Max Dalton

The motion passed without discussion.

Mooncups (Rivka Micklethwaite)

The motion passed without discussion.

Air Hockey (Tom Wainford and Harry Parkin)

Tom explained that he really wanted an air hockey table, but that we should ignore the part about the beer table. We resolved to take the motion in parts. Tom said the table would be about £150, and he would suggest that it go in the TV room. Caitlin Tickell said that we had been gifted a table tennis table that might go in the TV room. Isi Bogod asked if the table would actually fit in the TV room. Tom airily assured her that it would. Alex Bartram asked if Tom had asked the College about it, because in Trinity term College were “quite funny” about people using the TV room for activities that generated noise. CT  suggested an amendment that would make the air hockey table’s implementation “subject to College’s approval”. Alex Akehurst confirmed that no one would be charged for the games. Emily Troup pointed out that there was not an obvious place for all the current stuff in the TV room to go. It was suggested that we propose a limit for the price. Richard amended the first resolve to be “to the limit of £175”.

There was opposition to the motion so we moved to debate. AB said that we should not buy an air hockey table because the motion hadn’t been researched enough, and because there is not enough room into the TV room, and that people would be disturbed in watching television. We moved to a vote. Resolve 1 failed. The whole motion was dissolved.

Papyrus (Alex Mckenzie)

Alex Mckenzie explained that Andrew’s parents would like anyone who wanted to give money to donate to Papyrus, a charity that works to prevent suicide in young people. AM would like there to be a page on the JCR website so that people could give easily to Papyrus through battels (suggested donation £2). IT asked how long the page would last – AM suggested two terms. There was no opposition to the motion, and the motion passed.

Women’s Officer (Rose Hadshar and Richard May)

Dan ceded the chair to Max Dalton. Rose Hadshar explained that she had brought this motion because she thought it important that it be discussed. RH said that RM thought that consistency was an issue to consider – for example how this motion might impact on LGBTQ voting. RH also pointed out that this motion might impact on trans issues  as it rejects a gender binary within the JCR. RM brought an amendment which was that only women could vote in a vote for a vote of no confidence in the women’s officer. He explained that this motion would introduced a system that was in place in Wadham. Caitlin Tickell asked if there were any provisions in case to ensure that women’s officers represented their core demographic, to which the answer appeared to be no. AB pointed out that the vote of no confidence hadn’t been used seriously since any of us had been there. CT clarified that in OUSU only women could vote as women’s officers. CF pointed out that the MCR currently have everyone voting for their women’s officers. CF said that the women’s officer was defined as “furthering the interests of women in the JCR”. DT read out the quote in full. Anna Hufton pointed out that many of the things written in the constitution were brief descriptions of a complicated role or process.

We moved into debate about the amendment. AB said that the amendment was contradictory because it prioritised the idea that women’s officers  be supported by their core demographic, but that this idea was undone by the main text of the motion. KH said that she was not a big fan of the motion but that she would rather the motion passed with the amendment than without it. DBL repeated AB’s point that the motion and its amendment were contradictory. OH said that if the role was a welfare role, then it was fine for only women to vote, but that if the role was political then it should be open for all to vote. The amendment passed.

We moved to debate on the motion as a whole including the amendment. SB asked why men should be allowed to vote but not stand. RH said that perhaps men would not be qualified to provide the welfare role. DT proposed a procedural amendment to take the motion in parts. CW argued against this because 3 and 4 came as part of an amendment that we have already voted on. ML said that some people might want to hear 3 and 4 passed. AH said that if the second motion passes then people will be more likely to vote for parts 1 and 2, but that actually it’s important that people think carefully about the first two parts regardless of whether or not 3 and 3 have passed. The motion passed so we heard parts 3&4, and then 1&2 together. IW brought a procedural motion to have parts 1&2 voted on by secret ballot. The procedural motion passed.

We moved to debate on parts 3&4. AB said that we should not debate these again, because we’d already heard the arguments. We voted to move to a vote on parts 3&4. RM gave a speech in favour highlighting that at the moment men could no-con women’s officers and that was not a good idea. OH said that either men should have the same powers as women, or no vote at all, but that the inconsistency was not desirable. Resolves 3&4 passed.

We moved to short factual questions on resolves 1&2. It was asked whether a man could ask for emergency contraception. ET said that during her time at women’s officer, she had reimbursed men. AB pointed out that at the moment there were more men than women present, and suggested that only women could vote in passing 1&2. RM explained that we could bring a procedural motion to suspend standing orders temporarily. The chair would then be in charge, and could prevent men from vote. AH said that this would depend on men voting not to vote, and instead we might just suggest that men could abstain. CT said that the procedural motion would give more agency to the women in this room. OO pointed out that given that this vote was happening by secret ballot then transparency had been compromised already. FW brought the procedural motion to suspend standing orders in the way that Richard had suggested, because then the decision wasn’t left up to individual men and there would be some kind of consistency of opinion. ML asked if we could postpone the procedural until after the motion itself had been debated. FW postponed her procedural motion.

We moved to debate on resolves 1&2. CT opposed the motion on the basis that minority groups know what’s best for them and so would vote with that knowledge. She gave us the stats for students’ gender at Oxford and the gender imbalance, and the finals gap, and casual sexism that goes on. Another reason she highlighted was the fact that women would experience things that people that don’t identify as women would not experience, concluding that this motion would be a regressive movement. CT also argued against the idea that this motion would promote a gender binary. AA agreed that as a woman you notice things that men are less likely to notice, but said that just because men hadn’t experienced these things themselves that didn’t make them incapable of understanding. She also pointed out that some men might know more intellectually about women’s issues than some women. CT clarified that she would like to bring other minority roles in line with this motion. OO said that nobody feels that men aren’t supportive, or are incompetent indivuduals, but there is a difference between alliance and membership, and that even if men voted with the women there is a symbolic idea that women are not an authoritative caucus with the ability to self-organise. TW said that sometimes men felt excluded and that if they could vote in this motion they might be more likely to take an active interest in the role. ET said that she thought that the political role is already very inclusive, and that men are welcome at and have attended discussion groups and talks that engage them with the political side of the role. DBL said that given we gave already passed 3&4 it was in the interests of the JCR to pass 1&2. CT said that whilst the women’s officer role has two parts to it, the two do interact and cannot be completely separated. She also said that being an ally of the movement involved listening to the members, and that it was up to men to choose to get involved, and not the responsibility of the women to ask men to get involved. FW pointed out that it was important for women to be representative of themselves as they can’t often do in the public sphere. She also said that there are so many opportunities for men to get involved in feminism and women’s liberation that are a lot less harmful than taking away agency in a very important vote. TH suggested that getting men to vote for women’s officer would force them to be involved momentarily and that would be a good thing. RM re-echoed FW’s points. AB said that it is fairly obvious that men have a dominating role in society, and that women have social and academic disadvantages which include the ways in which they can express themselves publicly. AB also pointed out that voting for women to vote for women’s officer was in itself a gesture in which men could get involved with feminism. AB said that at the moment College has a list of “female” students, but not a list of “EMIS” students or “LGBTQ” students, so consistency between all minority groups is not to be a key priority. FW said that there are worse things in life than the JCR constitution being inconsistent – and that actually it would be much less harmful to generate a specific voting core for women’s officer role than for other minority votes.

FW brought a procedural motion for the standing orders to be suspended so that Max could bring a motion that only women could vote on 1&2. RM said that when we passed 3&4, nobody thought that only women should vote, so it was a bad precedent to set now. RH said that given that only women could vote for no-confidence, it was consistent to pass the procedural motion. The procedural motion passed.

We moved to the secret ballot for parts 1&2, (only women to be franchised). RH made a speech in prop, and FW made a speech in op. There were 30 valid votes – 3 for and 27 against. The motion failed.