2014 General Meeting

By admin, 30 March, 2022
Date of Meeting

    2014 General Meeting

    Date: Monday 3rd week, Trinity 2014 (2014-05-12)

    Agenda


    Matters Arising

    1. NUS referendum

    Agenda

    1. Second hearing of Women’s Officer Motion [Richard May]
    2. Ethical T-shirts [Rivka Micklethwaite]
    3. Living Wage accreditation [Isaac Rose and Xav Cohen]
    4. Standing Policy [Richard May and Dan Turner]

    Women’s Officer (Second Reading) [Richard May]

    This JCR notes:

    1.     That currently, motions of no confidence in the Women’s Officers do not have a restricted franchise.

    This JCR believes:

    1.     That given the restricted franchise on Women’s Officer elections, a similar restriction should be applied to motions of no confidence.

    This JCR resolves:

    1.     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.

    2.     To mandate the drafters of the new Constitution to include a clause to the same effect in the new Constitution.

    Ethical T-Shirts [Rivka]

    This JCR notes that:

    1. The majority of clothing is produced by sweatshop labour
    2. As the JCR has previously chosen t-shirt suppliers for Freshers’ Week based on cost
    3. These garments were probably unethically produced
    4. To change to a supplier that has been certified by workers’ rights organisations as a responsible manufacturer would cost an extra £300-£400, to cover t-shirts for freshers and JCR Committee
    5. College covers the cost of the Freshers’ Week budget

    This JCR believes that:

    1. Sweatshop labour is wrong
    2. We should not endorse it by buying large numbers of sweatshop-produced garments in the name of the JCR

    This JCR resolves to:

    1. Mandate the President and the Vice President to request from College an increased t-shirt budget for Freshers’ Week in order to purchase t-shirts from an ethical supplier

    Living Wage Accreditation – [Isaac Rose and Xav Cohen]

    This JCR Notes:

    1. That Balliol College currently claims to pay all staff, including those who are employed through a sub-contract, the Living Wage
    2. That Balliol MCR passed a motion at the end of HT 2014 to become a Living Wage employer.
    3. That the Living Wage is (formally) applicable only to those who are aged 21 and over.
    4. That the majority of the JCR’s employees are current students, aged under 21.
    5. That the total cost of paying JCR members over 21 the Living Wage would be around ÂŁ20 per term for Pantry and ÂŁ400 per term for the bar.
    6. That should the JCR adopt resolve 1, all elements of the college would have employment policy consistent with Living Wage accreditation.
    7. No Oxford or Cambridge College is an accredited Living Wage employer.
    8. Accreditation costs around ÂŁ1000 pounds.

    This JCR Believes:

    1. That the Living Wage is a worthy cause that deserves to be championed.
    2. That Balliol should continue to lead the way when advancing progressive causes in Oxford.
    3. There would be great symbolic value for an Oxford college to become an accredited Living Wage employer.

    This JCR Resolves:

    1. To mandate the Lord Lindsay and the Foodies to pay all employees over the age of 21 the Living Wage.
    2. To mandate the JCR President to lobby college officers, and present a paper to the College Executive, calling for them to seek Living Wage accreditation.

    Standing Policy [Richard May & Dan Turner]

    This JCR notes:

    1. That as part of the ongoing process of Charitable Registration, the JCR is seeking advice on legal matters from Fellows with relevant knowledge, including Scot Peterson, the Bingham Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies.
    2. That we currently have several ‘joke’ items of Standing Policy (including Crocodiles, Jurassic Park, the Gordouli and Jack Hobbs).
    3. That Standing Policy is binding upon the Committee and other representatives of the JCR.
    4. That Scot has advised us in the strongest possible terms that we should not have joke items of Standing Policy due to the issues that will arise if charity trustees are bound by joke policies.
    5. That we have a separate list of Heroes and Villains of the JCR, but that this has fallen out of disuse in recent years.

    This JCR believes:

    1. That Standing Policy is important, because it allows us to express what we believe as an institution (for example, that discrimination in all forms is wrong).
    2. That making Standing Policy binding upon JCR representatives is important, because it ensures that JCR representatives must act to support the JCR's views even if they personally disagree with one of its policies.
    3. That JCR Heroes and Villains could be used as an alternate forum for this sort of thing.

    This JCR resolves:

    1. To mandate the drafters of the new constitution to strike all 'joke' items of Standing Policy from the new constitution:
      • Crocodiles
      • Jurassic Park
      • Jack Hobbs
      • Mascots
      • Scunthorpe United
      • Susie Deedigan
      • Balliol-Trinity Rivalry
    2. To add the following as Heroes of the JCR:
      • Crocodiles.
      • Tim.
      • The primary cast and crew of Jurassic Park.
      • Susie Deedigan.
    3. To add the following as a Villain of the JCR:
      • Trinity College.

    Minutes


    We began with husts regarding the NUS referendum: representatives from the YES and NO campaigns (Tom Rutland and Jack Matthews) outlined each side and then took questions.

    Second hearing of Women’s Officers Reading [Richard May]

    The motion passed without opposition.

    Ethical T-shirts [Rivka Micklethwaite]

    Rivka explained that we usually choose Balliol T-shirts (for freshers, Committee etc) based on price, and that this often means choosing companies which infringe on workers’ rights. The successful passing of the motion would mandate the JCR to ask College for an addition to our budget to pay for the extra cost of ethically sourced T-shirts. The total extra cost would not necessarily all be passed on to freshers, but might be asked for £3 rather than £2 for the purchase of a T-shirt. Rivka said that last year Balliol JCR’s supplier was Acorn, but that suppliers often sell T-shirts from various different brands. Richard raised the possibility that we should look at the environmental cost of T-shirts as well as ethical ones, to which Rivka agreed. Alex Bartram said that the current supplier for Balliol is Fruit Loom, for which College give us £400 to cover the cost. He proposed another sample brand which would cost £700, and recommended that we pass this motion to ask College for money rather than getting the the JCR to cover the extra cost. The motion passed.

    Living Wage Accreditation [Isaac Rose and Xav Cohen]

    Xav explained that at the moment all employees sub-contracted to Balliol are paid the Living Wage, as in many Colleges, but that no Colleges have the Living Wage Accreditation. He would like us to get this accreditation to ensure that the endorsement of the Living Wage continues in Balliol. The motion has also been created in the hope that other Colleges will follow, and that the Oxford movement would add institutional weight to the Living Wage campaign. Angus confirmed that part 1 of the resolve is not necessary for part 2 to pass.  Xav said that the Accreditation “firmed up” the College’s support of the Living Wage, and  would make it much harder for the College to not continue to pay the Living Wage. DT confirmed that the accreditation requites a one-off payment. AB pointed out that many JCRs do not employ students, so was curious as to why Balliol, whose JCR does employ students, would be the first to make these political steps when we are the College for whom it would be the least convenient. Xav also pointed out that we don’t live in a bubble, and that though this might not change things tangibly, it would be a political act which would leave to greater coverage, support and open endorsement of the campaign. RM pointed out that College and the JCR employ students under different tax codes, but MD said that the JCR would count as a sub-contractor of College. IR confirmed that it would be College who would do the admin, pay the fee, and get the accreditation, and that the point of the motion is to apply political pressure from the JCR to College to formalise their endorsement of the Living Wage Campaign.

    There was opposition to the motion; IR and XC wanted to take the motion in parts. AB made a speech in opposition to us taking the motion in parts because he thought that the two resolves relied on one another. DT explained that it might not be necessary to pass part 1 in order to pass part 2. We resolved to take the motion in parts, and moved to debate part one. Angus Hawkins opposed part 1 because of the costs to the bar and because of the arbitrary increase in wage for half of a year group, based purely on their age. AB pointed out that if this story made the Cherwell, it would not be good publicity. It would more appear to be an act of selfishness that we decided to pay students, who had the benefits of an elite education, the same as the morning staff (for example) who depended on their income to make a living. XC agreed, but said that there are some people in Oxford whose parents do not supplement their university spending to the extent that the distribution of government loans expects them to be supplemented. IR said  that part 1 was only there because when the motion was written it was thought that it was necessary for part 2; but now that that had transpired not to be the case he was actually against it. We voted on resolve 1; it failed. AB pointed out that point 1 is not necessary because the Living Wage campaign explicitly states that it only applies to employers working for more hours per week than any student employers of the JCR do. Resolve 2 passed without opposition.

    Standing Policy [Richard May and Dan Turner]

    DT ceded the chair to KH. Richard explained that the Constitution would soon be legally binding, and that this was problematic for many of the joke items of the Standing Policy. DT explained that last year David Bagg brought a motion to get rid of the joke items in the Constitution and was voted down. The newly-created of the “JCR heroes and villains” concept would not appear in the constitution. Joe Spearing asked if the current Standing Policy could be archived on the website as a delightful historical item of our College history. RM said that this was possible. MD pointed out that the reasons for each joke item could be found in minutes. AB asked how we would prevent people adding more joke items: RM said that in the legal documents which governed the creation of the Constitution we could not add anything “slanderous” or “vexatious”, so we could use this sentence to ban joke additions. People seemed to like the idea that reasons for being a hero or villain would be added to the list of names.

    There was opposition to the motion based on who was included in the “heroes” list. DT confirmed that GM motions would be needed to add to the list of heroes or villains. He said that rather than do this once a year, he would prefer to “spread the fun more thinly”. I proposed moving to a vote. DT made a closing speech saying that this motion was “eminently sensible and creates a whole new space for fun in the JCR”. The motion passed without opposition.