|
Minutes for General Meeting, Sunday 3rd Week MT05 Meeting commenced: 8.32pm No committee reports Motions: Vacation Study Motion This JCR notes that:
1) Rent is currently over £15 a day.
2) The vacation study grant is currently £6 a day, available for a maximum of 30 days a year.
3) Many students taking public examinations stay up in the Easter Vac in particular to revise.
4) The study grant is money received from the government, not a subsidy from college.
This JCR believes that:
1) The £6 a day grant has not risen in accordance with our rent.
2) This should be rectified, regardless of whether the increase comes from government or college, as it college, not the government, who have put up our rents.
3) The best way for this to be done would be for college to offer 14 days free vacation residence per year for all those taking public examinations, as this would take into account rent rises.
4) This would also have the benefit of being much easier to apply for and would perhaps encourage more people to take vacation residence who may have previously been discouraged by the complicated grant system and perceived cost.
This JCR resolves to:
1) Mandate the JCR President to take this proposal to the Deans' as soon as possible and recommend its immediate implementation.
2) Ensure that the scheme is well advertised amongst the JCR.
Proposed by Varun Chandra
Seconded by Edward Young Proposition: Self-explanatory SFQs: · Would this be instead of the £6 per day grant, or as well as it? o Instead of. It will work out at about the same, at least on the basis of the old rent level, since it used to cover 14 days’ rent. · Will this apply just for finalists or for those with prelims too? o Not for prelims, just finals, in whatever year. Currently the grant applies for every year whether they have exams or not, with 10 days for 1st years, 20 for 2nd years and 30 for 3rd years. However, we shouldn’t change the proposed system to reflect this, since the Deans have suggested that this system is not applied in practice. Debate: · The current scheme gives enough, so can’t we just advertise it rather than changing it? However, this system has been devised specifically to relate to rent rises, hence being measured in days, not a fixed grant. · It has previously been done on a basis of reimbursement rather than being paid in advance since that is the way the Bursary works. However, people might claim they haven’t used all the time they claimed for. Summary in proposition: Currently the system is complicated and misunderstood. This will simplify it, make it equal to other colleges and link the funds given to the rent rises. Motion passed nem. con. Room Ballot Motion This JCR notes that:
1. Some undergraduates are taking 4-year degree courses who, in their fourth year, will be finalists.
2. The present room ballot system integrates current 3rd years into the current 1st year ballot who then pick rooms after the current 2nd year (whose ballot has been reversed from their 1st year order).
3. This means that some undergraduates who will be taking finals will have very little choice of rooms, possibly in parts of college that are less conducive to peace, quiet and hard work.
4. Finals are the most stressful time, academically, in anyone's university career.
5. Some 4-year courses have finals in their 3rd year as well as in their 4th year, thus effectively making those undergraduates finalists twice.
6. Two years ago, fourth years still had to live out of college accommodation so inserting them into the room ballot is a relatively new phenomenon.
This JCR believes that:
1. It would be nice if all finalists, no matter how long their courses, had the opportunity of picking a decent room for their finals.
2. This would be possible if those of the current 3rd year on 4-year courses were drawn in a separate room ballot and then pick rooms after the current 2nd year and before the current 1st year pick.
3. This is not unfair on students taking 3-year courses as they will still get first pick of rooms in their own final year.
4. This would resolve any confusion over whether those undergraduates who have changed courses, etc., so are technically studying in a lower year than that in which they matriculated, should be drawn in their peer group's or academic year group's room ballot.
This JCR resolves to:
1. Adjust the room ballot's organisation so that those of the current 3rd year on 4-year courses are drawn in a separate room ballot which picks rooms after the current 2nd year and before the current 1st year.
Proposed by Mohan Rao
Seconded by Jack Maxton Proposition: This is not as complicated as it sounds. It is about fairness. Magdalen has a flat rate rent and the 1st year are randomly allocated rooms, and the 2nd and 3rd year ballots are fair. It is in the 4th year that the system falls down, since fourth years have been towards the bottom, then towards the top, and are then below middle, making their rooms below average overall. They are subsidising the 2nd years’ getting nicer rooms. SFQs: · How are they subsidising 2nd years? o The are paying the same rent. Just as it would be unfair if someone got 2 bad rooms in a row, the fourth years have below-average rooms in both their 2nd and 4th years. · What about languages students? o They will carry on being inserted back into the ballot in their final year where they would have been in their 3rd year. · What about 5th years like Classics and Modern Languages? o They will be inserted back into their fourth year place. Debate: · This is wrong as it would disadvantage 2nd years on 3-year courses. · This already happens when 4th years are drawn in the 2nd year ballot. They would only be moved down about 20 places. · How will 2nd year finalists be catered for? This issue is the reason that the motion is more about fairness rather than finals. · Actually Grove rooms are quite nice and largely available to 4th years under the current ballot system. · Either 4th years or 2nd years have to get the worst rooms in college, and it should be the 2nd years, who will be compensated in their 3rd year. · All references to finals should be removed from the motion, since if the point of it is fairness, to mention finals complicates the matter and presents it in an entirely different light. · If this is being done on a purely “mathematical” basis, we should take into account that the top person in the 4th year will get a better room than the bottom one. · We are quite lucky to get accommodation at all for all years. How does the benefit to the 4th years weigh up against the disadvantage to the 2nd years? · Fourth years already pay another year’s rent. However, this doesn’t mean they should get better rooms just because they do another year. · This issue needs to be addressed, since all courses seem to be drifting towards lasting four years. · Fourth years will probably choose different rooms from 2nd years, which will be quieter and remoter. It shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage 2nd years. · Smaller rooms mean you work harder anyway, since they’re not always full of other people. · This is not actually so much about fairness. We are lucky to get rooms anyway, and should not complain about unfairness in those circumstances. Second years do have finals too and this is not addressed. Good, suitable rooms are available after the 2nd years if you choose carefully and sensibly. 4th years don’t need better rooms when good rooms are available anyway. · Having a better room does affect finals performance. However, Helen Tarbut was directly under the bell tower and still got an extremely good First. · Couldn’t 4th years be in the 2nd year ballot in their 2nd and 3rd years and the 3rd year ballot in their 4th years? This gets far too complex. · What’s considered “good” and “bad”? Quiet rooms are not necessarily bigger or more “expensive”. · 4th years will have more choice to get the sort of rooms they want this way. Summary in proposition: This is about fairness. Summary in opposition: This motion is badly thought out, and if the main point is fairness, finals should not even come into it. Vote on Motion: · For: 53 · Against:18 · Abstentions:11 Motion passes JCR Drum-kit motion This JCR notes that:
1) The JCR drumkit is currently stored in the Old Bursary practice room.
2) The OB is a very small room, and not really big enough for band practices when the drumkit is set up.
3) The drumkit is more often used outside of the OB than in it, and the access to the OB is very bad, and it is very difficult to move the kit in and out.
4) The drumkit is particularly often used in the Auditorium, which is a popular music and rehearsal venue, but that it is difficult to move the kit from the OB accross college to the Auditorium each time it is needed.
This JCR believes that:
1) The Green Room of the Auditorium would be a better place to keep the drumkit, as it is more spacious, has easier access to move the drumkit when necessary, and is overall a better rehearsal and performance venue for bands.
This JCR resolves to:
1) Move the JCR drumkit to the Green Room of the Auditorium.
N.B. Catherine Hughes, the HB's assistant, has already given permission for the move to take place if it is approved by the JCR.
Proposed by Katie Hasler
Seconded by Mark Westcott Proposition: Self-explanatory Motion passes nem. con. Oscar’s Humiliate Varun (Again) Motion
Oscar notes that:
1) Last year Varun "magic feet" Chandra was mandated to provide Oscar with dance lessons.
2) This was never knowingly done.
Oscar believes that:
1) Varun never gave the lesson because he can't actually dance.
Oscar proposes:
1) In order to prove that he can actually dance he must do a one minute salsa routine for the JCR in the meeting.
2) Oscar will pick a dance partner so that Varun has the chance to complete the task in full.
3) There will be a panel of three judges again picked by Oscar who will mark the dance accordingly, each giving a score out of ten.
4) If he doesn't score more than 20 collectively he will repeat the process at the next GM.
Proposed Oscar
Seconded Oscar Iain Anstess will speak for Oscar, who is absent. Proposition: This is self-explanatory and Varun could be given a vote of no confidence if he does not do it. SFQs: · Could Varun please remind us what it was he was mandated to wear? o No. Opposition: We like the idea of Varun dancing, but not if he is not dressed appropriately. Debate: · Varun should wear a frilly salsa-esque shirt. However, he refuses and people don’t really want to see him in it. · If Varun must dance for continuous meetings, when will it stop? He could be stuck doing it for the rest of his life. Summary in proposition: We want to see Varun dance and look like a prick. Summary in opposition: Varun doesn’t want to dance and look like a prick. Vote on Motion: · For – everyone who didn’t vote against or abstain (lots) · Against – 4 · Abstentions – 9 Motion passes Meeting closed: 9.05pm
|
