Committee apologies: Loic Menzies, Sasha Taylor

Meeting commenced: 8.27pm

No committee reports

Motions:

Ball Loan Motion

This JCR notes:

-The triennial Magdalen Commemoration Ball will take place next June.

-While it is desirable for previous balls to leave a surplus in the bank for the next Committee, the last Ball ran a deficit of £2998 which we must make up.
-The Ball therefore has negative funds so cannot really do anything until ticket money comes through but needs funds to get on with planning the event so is in a catch-22 situation.

-The Ball Committee is currently seeking sponsorship very actively, not just lazing around begging from the JCR.

-The Magdalen JCR has £3500 in spare funds.

This JCR believes that:

-Magdalen deserves an AWESOME Commemoration Ball.
-For the Ball Committee to get on with organising an awesome Ball, it would help an awful lot to have some start-up funds with which to work.

-It would be nice for the JCR to grant a loan to the ball of £3500 which will be repaid in full when ticket revenue starts to come in, which will be by the beginning of next term.

-The 2006 Ball Committee has identified the flaws in the 2003 Ball’s finances and will not repeat the same errors.

This JCR resolves:

-To grant the Ball Committee a loan of £3500 on the condition that it is repaid in full at said date.
-To mandate the Ball Committee to give a progress report to the JCR at the last GM of term if the JCR so wishes, as they will be presenting a progress report to the SCR at Governing Body’s 8^th Week meeting.


Proposed: Dimitri Chandris
Seconded: Lydia Tanner

Proposition:

Can’t do anythingsuch as sponsorship booklets or deposits for entertainment without this money.

SFQs:

• Don’t we have a £3000 per meeting spending limit?

  • No, a £2000 limit.

• Did we get the last loan back?

  • No, the JCR paid for the fireworks under the agreement that they would be paid back if there was any money left over afterwards, but there wasn’t.

• Can the Ball Committee get this money from college?

  • The JCR is the first point of call, and college aren’t willing to give money until they have been asked.

• Is the Ball financially independent of college and the JCR?

  • Last time they had a separate bank account, so yes.

• Is this on the guarantee of the money coming straight back?

  • Yes.

• Has the Ball Committee asked the MCR?

  • They will do.

Debate:

• A loan from the JCR is reasonable but college call it a “College” Ball, so the JCR should not bear the whole cost. The SCR have more money than us and they all go to the Ball too, so we should split the costs.

• College paid the deficit from last time, and so the Ball Committee must pay them back too. We will have enough to pay back both loans with the ticket money.

• The money is not just being used to pay college back, since this will be done after the Ball as agreed with college. This loan is for essential stop-gap funds.

• The Ball will have to make a profit, but hopefully this is likely now the errors of the previous committee have been identified. The Committee want to pay back the loan and leave a surplus for the next committee. Can’t predict the exact profit, but they will pay off the deficit.

• The difference this time is that the Ball finances are being run through the college’s qualified accountant.

• Will this stop the JCR spending money on other stuff? We do have £25000 in the reserve account. This motion only proposes a loan, so we can still spend it assuming the money comes back.

• Amendment:

  • Amount should be changed to £2000 to comply with spending limit

  • Amendment accepted.

• Amendment:

  • The money should be taken from the JCR’s reserve account, not the current account.

  • Amendment accepted.

• The money must come back straight away, and must be proportional with other groups within college. The committee will not come back to us asking for more even if the MCR refuses funds.

• The interest rate will be 0%

Summary in proposition: The Ball needs money until Christmas, and will pay it back as soon as tickets sell. There is no problem with JCR finances, so this shouldn’t deprive us for the rest of term.

Motion passed nem. con.

Bar Motion

This JCR notes that:
1) The bar has been changed
2) That this seems to have been done with no consultation at all.

This JCR believes that:
1) These changes have been bad, rather than good.

This JCR resolves to:

1) Mandate the JCR President to get answers from college on the following questions:

a)Why was it decided to change the bar in the first place?

b)Why was there seemingly no consultation with the JCR, who are the main users of the bar?

c)Why was it decided to paint the bar lime green and have plastic/metal tables?

Proposed by Tristram Neal
Seconded by some angry JCR members

Proposition: The bar is disgusting. Why was there no consultation? What’s happened to the Home Bursar’s taste? We should write a letter and get the old tables back if possible.

SFQs:

• For the benefit of the freshers, what did the bar look like before?

• It was less green and had lovely wooden tables.

Debate:

• Varun spoke to the Home Bursar after hearing rumours about the new décor. He didn’t consult the JCR because he knew we’d kick up a fuss, and tried to “slip it in”, as it were. He said they’d had spare renovation funds. They are trying to redo all of the catering and got lighter furniture so it was easier to stack away for bops etc. This is apparently better for health and safety, even though they keep breaking and falling over. The old stuff will not be brought back because the staff are happier now.

• They asked for a different green but that one came out. The colour will be changed in the Long Vac at the latest, and hopefully at Christmas. There will only be new furniture if that stuff breaks.

• Does this mean they will be happier for us to hold more bops? No, we already get more than most colleges and that’s a decanal issue anyway.

• The old tables are not impossible to move, so it is possibly just an excuse. The new chairs wobble and look like the ones at Laserquest. Maybe we could get nicer stackable ones? Nick the Bar Manager would but he doesn’t get a say, and the other staff are not too averse to the idea. Varun will speak strongly to them.

• The JCR Committee could always move the furniture before bops if it is so bad, but it is still very unlikely that we’ll get the old tables back. They will probably be used for student rooms.

• We still can’t change the horrible upholstery – perhaps we could get some nice throws..?

• Whatever we do is not going to change much, so perhaps we should just get off to an ok start with the Home Bursar this year? However, Varun is angry and the Home Bursar expects us to respond.

No opposition. Motion passes nem con.

Graduation Ceremonies Motion

This JCR notes that:
1) At Oxford graduation ceremonies are massively low key, with only 6 or 7 places assigned to individual colleges each year, often months after actually finishing finals.
2) At Cambridge, graduation happens a few weeks after finals, with colleges putting on huge dinners and then the University organising ceremonies where everyone in a year graduates with the rest of their college.

This JCR believes that:
1) It is better to graduate with your whole year in college while everyone is still around.
2) It would be nice if college gave everyone one last dinner together before graduating.
3) It is ridiculous that Cambridge does something better than Oxford.

This JCR resolves to:
1) Mandate the JCR President to raise this issue with college, other JCR Presidents, OUSU, the Proctors and any other relevant University figures to try and improve the situation.
2) Support a campaign arising from these discussions to change how graduation ceremonies are conducted in Oxford.

Proposed by Varun Chandra
Seconded by Edward Young

Proposition:

It’s poor that our graduation ceremonies are so rubbish, and they should be made better. Other colleges Varun has asked about this have agreed. This motion is largely to let the JCR know what’s happening.

SFQs:

• What happens now?

  • You have to book ages in advance, so it’s hard to co-ordinate with your friends.

• When does it happen?

  • It varies depending on your booking.

• Is it a college or a university thing?

  • University.

• Where will Varun start his enquiries?

  • With the proctors.

• Doesn’t the current arrangement allow flexibility, such as for people who are travelling?

  • This is a good point, but Varun thinks his idea is better.

Motion passed nem. con.

Oscar’s Naked Bop Motion

The JCR notes that:
1) This college is a college of equal opportunity.

This JCR believes that:
1) As Oscar is denied the opportunity to wear clothes, he feels the opportunity should be denied to everyone else.

This JCR resolves to:
a) Hold a naked bop, to be held on Saturday of 5th week.

b) Call this bop the Leila Merouchi Foundation Bop.

c) Deny A. Chevasco attendance

Proposed: Oscar

Seconded: Oscar

Proposition:

Oscar has no clothes. It is therefore only fair that no-one else should. They will maybe be allowed to cover their torsos, since Oscar has a shell.

SFQs:

• Why can’t Oscar just buy some clothes?

• He has no budget, though donations would be accepted.

• Does Oscar have no genitals?

  • No.

• Did the Home Bursar deny him clothes?

  • Probably would if he had the choice.

• Is there not a health risk having a naked bop in November?

  • Hmm.

Opposition: We don’t want to see some of our friends naked.

Debate:

• Is Tag just worried he’ll get aroused surrounded by girls?

• Oscar has fur, therefore this motion should be limited to those JCR members also covered in fur, like Big Phil.

Proposition summary: Everybody should get naked.

Opposition summary: Nobody should get naked.

Vote:

For – 10

Against – lots (more than 10)

Abstentions – 3

Motion failed

Meeting closed: 9.10pm