MINUTES
4th JCR Open Meeting, Saturday 7th Wk, Michaelmas Term 2011.
Apologies from Patrick Penzo, Phil Low, Uma Divekar, David Gleeson
John Pilgrim, Emma Reid, Lizhi Howard, Anjuna Prasher, Kim Sayers, Becka Musgrave, Jack Lambert and Michelle Graham also not present.
Richard Luke (RL): Ok, let’s get going on this.
1. Apologies
Apologies UD, PL, PP, DG
2. Minutes of the last meeting
[no issues with minutes]
3. Matters arising
Library has been shut for various periods. I’ve little more to say than the email that has been sent round JCRMCR, SCR. Any queries, questions – email me. Also, please cc me in if you’re emailing the dean.
Aside from that, not a lot.
4. Presidential business
[none]
5. Committee business
Treasurer
Chris Sanderson (CS): The new tv is here – in the tv room still trying to get it hooked up to freeview.
Straw poll – bean bags for the tv room. Frivolous? Less than £200 expense.
Might be nice to have in the new JCR as well.
Emily Jane-Richardson: Sounds unhygienic.
Need to be machine washable?
Rob Morris (RM): My point was going to be, what’s happening downstairs then?
RL: Not going to be ours, almost certainly not going to be tv room. We’re going to have JCR annex, domestic office, Macgregor room.
CS: who’s in favour? Not a motion, just want to know.
[For: majority]
Thanks.
That’s it.
Welfare
Matt Lindsay (ML): Chlamydia testing went well. We’ll get money from that. Don’t think we’re doing another welfare tea –next week is too busy. So far those seem to have worked well, though.
Facilities
Sammana Ladha (SL): There’s still a lot of stealing going on. Between £40-50 again. Had gone down when I last mentioned it, but back up again.
Sophie Edelsten: Could you write up a new price list? Current one difficult to read.
SL: Yeah, sure.
Entz
CD: Just a couple of things from the Entz – apologies that they couldn’t be here. Everyone should have their Secret Santa names by now – if you haven’t, get in touch with Patrick. Christmas cocktails on Wednesday – live entertainment, free drinks, also remember Black tie – that’s the important thing.
Bop theme to be announced this weekend; bop on Friday. Decorating the Christmas tree will be at 1pm tomorrow. That’s it.
RL: Alright, if that’s it for committee business…
RM: OUSU?
RL: OUSU?
RM: No. Well…
Well done to everyone who voted. The expected slate won. So there we are.
RO
Sam Wigley (SW): Who wants to stand for xmas rep?
Zack Spiro: Poppy Jefferies but she’s not here.
SW: I also have a statement from Jon Sanders. [reads statement] Would love to be second xmas, alliance of yuletide joy. Co-founder of oxmas. Great at menial tasks, elfish.
RL: Neither here… great.
For Jon?
For: 28
Poppy?
For: 2
Abstentions: 3
[Jon elected]
SW: LGBT rep?
Nicole Williams
Nicole: Yeah, I care about it.
RL: questions? [none]
For: majority
Against: 0
Abstentions: 3
[Nicole elected]
RL: OUSU rep?
[none]
Tasha Bassett: What’s OUSU?
RL: OUSU voter, voter elect? Do you want to explain?
RM: I’m not really sure – explains OUSU is the student union.
CD: There are two sides to OUSU – there’s the hugely bureaucratic side where they don’t do themselves any favours, and everything takes forever, and they do stupid political motions. And then there’s the side that’s really valuable – they train our peer supporters, welfare reps, provide welfare supplies, train members of the JCR committee. So it’s very much an organisation of two halves.
Meetings are awful… oh, right. Run for the position!
[no one stands]
RL: While I remember, accommodation-elect going to be investigating whether the system for the room ballot is correct – running forum next term; thought I’d flag it up now.
[Someone asks when the ballot is.]
Anna Oestmann (AO): It’s up to rep, logistical nightmare so earlier better. Second week?
6. Committee motions
CS: Sky tv:
- This JCR would not re-subscribe to Sky TV
Proposed: Chris Sanderson
(this is a follow-up to the motion that cancelled our Sky TV subscription, passed in Hilary 2011)
Have to do this after cancelling sky subscription in HT.
We have to pay pub rates to show sky tv here - £450 per month. We’ve bought table tennis, new tv, shop orders etc. every section of the budget is bigger because we don’t have it – amount of people using it before not proportional. Cally’s ideas for next term kind of hinge on the assumption that we don’t have sky.
If you want an extra punt, shop order per week, vote against [sky]. Need money to kit out the new JCR. Don’t think it’s a feasible expense at the moment.
AO: So it isn’t anything to do with having a referendum?
CS: No, follows the motions in HT. No plans for a referendum at the moment.
For: All
Ag: 0
Abs: 0
RL: We’re going to move the boat club motion forward – interests of time for certain people here.
- In theinterestsof equality and practicality, this JCR will remove room 2, staircase 1 from the room ballot and reserve it for use by the Women's Captain of Oriel College Boat Club and her nominated roommate. This will commence with immediate effect to allow the 2012/13 Women's Captain to inhabit the room
Proposed: Ben Mansfield
Seconded: Bridget Fryer
Ben Mansfield (BM): Want to do it now before the room ballot next term.
Women’s captain job is a huge job – there’s a room for the guy’s captain, makes it a lot easier, meeting place, logistics, getting stuff done. Causes big inequality mismatch – women don’t have a meeting, focal point. We think it’s about time that we did have more equality in the boat club – ask the JCR first out of courtesy rather than going straight to college.
Bridget Fryer (BF): Just to say it wouldn’t be for me, whoever’s next.
Have to liaise with Ben and Max – running back between 1.1 and my room, in the interests of fairness. Pride in women’s boat club, current crop of fresher’s can aspire a bit more. One of a number of things we’re trying to do.
CD: Isn’t the room reserved for overall captain?
BM: We can choose to nominate guy’s captain or not – I have chosen to. Because I’m not in college it went to Max.
CD: But surely the solution then is to make it so that the overall captain can be a woman, which isn’t really the case at the moment.
BM: Our long term plan would be to try and make this more formal – overall captain, men’s and women’s, reform the constitution to be more equal.
CD: Does this mean you’ll need a third room?
BM: 1.2 is a set, so no. Whichever there’s two of, men or women, they can go in the set.
RL: 2.2 would be better? Room for one person - postgrad at present.
BM: There’s a precedent for using 1.2 before several years ago. Huge job.
BF: Captain of boats and men’s captain – men’s side split, so women’s captain still dealing with the entire women’s side of it.
RM: So I really think it’s a good thing that the boat club is tackling equality, feel uncomfortable with constitution stipulation captain being guy, unequal with other sports, tacitly accepting boat club’s dominance, unequal constitutional provisions.
BM: it doesn’t explicitly state that, something we’re going to work on, something that does need to change. Doesn’t say that it has to be a guy, just written to assume it would be. Women’s captain chooses next women’s captain. Refers to captain of boats as he. Nothing in there to say that it can’t be a girl.
RM: So can you pledge to reform and put he/she throughout the entire constitution?
BM: We only decided to do this this week – importance of this meeting is so that it’s clearly before the room ballot happens. In an ideal world we would have already modified the constitution, but too much going on. Do it during the vacation.
RM: In between now and the room ballot?
BM: When is the room ballot?
RL: Discretion of accommodation rep, second week ish.
BM: trying to get the room thing out of the way first. Stuff like changing rooms like this takes more time than you might think.
AO: The constitution written as men’s college – women’s paragraph added later, when women arrived.
RM: Isn’t that unacceptable?
AO: Yes, but changes coming alongside the room change.
BM: If we wanted to retain inherent sexism, we’d just say fuck em why do they need a room?
RM: Why not just have one room and a coin toss?
BM: Doesn’t solve the problem of having to see each other all the time.
RM: Should we be reinforcing the dominant rowing club? Perceptions of the college.
BM: Did you know how prominent the boat club was before you applied?
RM: No.
BM: So that just undermines your point, most people don’t have that perception of Oriel before they get here. Also, Oriel’s thought of as a thespy college as well.
RM: Yes, and the head of the Oriel Lions doesn’t get a room.
Ema Harker (EH): If the motion passes, it’s effectively three rooms for the boat club, women’s captain gets to choose room mate.
BM: Yes.
BF: Or just men’s and women’s captains.
EH: Does that mean there’s a non-captain in captain’s room?
BF: Yes.
John Ritzema (JR): Who in college decides whether this room would be allocated? What would Wilf tentatively, it’s on the JCR ballot, so thought we should come and ask. Obviously if someone with heart set on room, we’re not going to deprive them of it.
BF: Likelihood that it’ll be a second year in the room anyway.
CD: What about other sports teams? Simon Dungate’s point is basically that there’s no similar valuation of other sports teams in college – the rugby team are apparently higher that the men and women’s first boats are in torpids and yet the rugby captain doesn’t have a room. What’s different about rowing?
Sophie Edelsten: More administration for rowing, more early mornings. More work.
CS: This is about equal opportunities – women and men, not whether we like rowing or not
What about if the women’s boat club captain is someone who wants to live on their own, does it stay a boat club room?
BF: They could turn it down if they wished.
BM: It was turned down before, went back into the ballot.
BF: Another thing is we have a lot more rowing memorabilia – put it in the room. Don’t use it at the moment.
EH: I can understand the need for equality, can understand the need to be close to each other. Don’t understand the need for a set; non-captain.
BM: As we’re saying in the future going to have three captains on a permanent basis.
EH: What if the women’s captain wants to share with a non-rower?
BM: Anticipation is that she’ll choose a rower…
Dylan Jones: So the men’s captain and captain of boats, same person at the moment?
AO: We’re moving away from that, good thing.
BM: Simon [Peet] tried to do it, Wadders before that.
[pause for laughter, probably at Wadders getting anything done. Poor Wadders]
RM: Another concern. Are you sure you’re going to be able to make these modifications, given donor conditions?
BM: Conditions?
RM: Mr Moody’s donation conditional on captain being a guy?
Nick Aveyard (NA): It’s about 1.1 being in boat club possession.
BM: There’s also a much stronger men’s alumni association; women’s alumni much weaker, trying to fix that at the moment.
CD: Why two gender-based alumni? Why not just have one organisation, then no gender-discrimination or funding problems.
BM: Don’t have control over it, you’re welcome to talk to them if you like.
CD: I’ll be honest, it’s not high on my list of things to do.
[vote formotion]
For: 20
Against: 6
Abstentions: 10
[motion passes]
RL: Right, now we’ll move back to the normal agenda order – constitutional motions. Chris?
7. Constitutional motions
CD:
- This JCR will reform the role of Vice-President to include duties as the JCR’s library rep, and to act as a formal channel of communication between the JCR and the librarians.
Proposed: Chris Dunk
This is part of negotiations with senior dean re: library. One of librarian’s concerns is that there is no formal channel of communication between librarian and JCR. She wants library rep on committee. We think committee already big, rep might be ignored if they were bringing negative news all the time. VP could have job – more chance of being listened to, minimal committee. Message that we care about library. College feel we don’t respect it. We need to show that this is not the case. Vast majority don’t move things around, eat, etc.
CS: Surely it should be Academic Affairs and Careers? VP already has large role.
CD:[incredulous] Is it?
CS: Did Helena feel over-used?
CD: Accommodations or facilities could deal with it. Ambiguity means VP as overriding catch-all position could take it; President could as well but he’s very busy anyway.
CS: Is Dungate [Simon Dungate, incoming VP] ok with it?
CD: Yes, we’re both of one mind on this.
RL: He was fully behind it.
Sophie E: Would it be a 2 way thing?
CD: Yes, feedback to Marjory.
Sophie: In effect from now?
CD: Formally, from the second passage of motion. Will informally start now though. Needs to be passed twice due to constitution.
Vote:
For: majority
Against: 0
Abstentions: 2
[passes]
RL: Sam, your motions?
What? [looks at agenda] Oh yeah.
- SW: This JCR would move the election of the IT rep to Hilary term [second reading]
Proposed: Sam Wigley
- This JCR would remove clause R3 from the constitution as it is no longer applicable [second reading]
Proposed: Sam Wigley
These are just the second readings of the constitutional motions from last week – moving the IT rep, and getting rid of R3 because there’s no longer a need for the shop key because it’s here.
Vote ii.:
For: majority
Against: 0
Abstentions: 5
Vote iii.:
For: all
Against: 0
Abstentions: 0
8. General motions
- This JCR believes the library should remain open 24/7.
Proposed: Nika Jones
Seconded:
CD: Needs to be seconded.
CS: I’ll second it, although I’d like an amendment.
Nika J: Thought someone might want to amend it. So with the library, we have a responsibility, agreed. Matter of principle vote on a motion like this, let the college know they shouldn’t be able to do this. Library a right, not privilege. The college shouldn’t be able to take it away because of one or two people.
CS: Amendment; unless the property of the library is under serious threat.
RL: Referring to books being burnt three years ago.
CS: We should respect the library as a resource.
CD: Is there a separate collective punishment point here? General opposition to the notion of collective punishment.
RM: We already passed one motion last year.
RL: Different JCR.
RM: No
RL: Different group of people – a hundred people have left by now.
Is this more about they shouldn’t be able to take the resource away?
Sophie E: Need to give people more warning – people make contingency plans. Although it’s meant to be protecting the library, I don’t think it’s fair. Shut the bar? Pleasure rather than work related. On principle don’t agree with collective punishment. Something that should be in the ethics code that they shouldn’t be allowed to punish us collectively.
Christy Ford (CF): What actually happened?
RL: Book case was moved, books were taken off, put in piles -
CD:- quite neat piles.
Emily J-R: why were they moved?
CD: Marjory’s main response was bafflement rather than anger – she doesn’t know, and would just like to understand why.
RM: So I’m not sure what this motion is meant to achieve.
Have passed motions in the past and college never really listens to us.
Have passed motions against collective punishment in the past, and wondering if we need to do something stronger in response to this.
CS: Sort of thing you can’t do is take away academic resources for this kind of thing – fine on the JCR/MCR instead?
RL: Collective punishment again…
CS: But it’s not damage, just time taken out £25, £50 fine.
RL: Still sets collective punishment precedent, I disagree with it.
CD: On Rob’s point, protests not going to help – undermine negotiations.
RL: JCR position clear on collective punishment clear in negotiations.
RM: They didn’t change their position…
CD: Did in negotiation.
Henry Jefferies: CCTV?
ML: Lots of legal issues.
RL: Can’t technically look at it unless they’re pressing charges, or have taken it to law.
ML: Public space.
Innes Taylor: Seems like they’re inconveniencing themselves more
Don’t need to fob out – don’t know how long people were in there.
Sophie Edelsten: Even narrowing it down – being thought of as guilty until proven innocent, don’t like that.
RL: Simon[Dungate] also in library, he thought that this was less bad of two options.
RM: Should the JCR be willing to tolerate this amount of interference?
CD: So how do you find the person?
RM: You can’t; this is just really petty.
Zack Spiro: Don’t like collective punishment, is worthy of collective punishment? Moving a few books around…
If there isn’t an alternative, are we still anti-collective punishment?
RL: One aspect of this is collective punishment, one is protection of facilities.
Zack S: Will they punish the person who did it further – punished everyone already…
RL: I think you’re arguing both sides there, and I don’t know what college are going to do.
Naomi Zainuddin: Marjory’s not actually in the library half the time, how is this going to stop people?
[Someone points out that it’s much more likely that someone’s going to do it in the middle of the night]
Dylan Jones: Keep the library open whilst conducting the investigation?
RM: People are not going to come forward after seven days.
Helena Cantwell (HC): Most people didn’t know what had happened before now.
RL: One of the other reasons for the constitutional motion – now we can get to know about it and flag it up earlier.
Sophie E: Original email didn’t go around the MCR as well, different standards for JCR and MCR.
RL: Which is why on the back of negotiations, went round JCR, MCR, SCR.
Mark Johnson: Motions prove that JCR cares about the library, want to use the library, this should be something that’s going back to the negotiations.
Sophie E: Is there going to be a library rep for MCR?