Committee apologies: Jack Maxton, Hikmet Babayev, James Tulloch, Debs Turner, Mike Forster

Meeting commenced: 8.35pm

No Committee Reports

Motions:

1. Husts

This JCR notes that:

• Current electoral and constitutional arrangements prevent candidates for JCR offices directly engaging with other candidates' past records.

• This is inconsistent with almost any other type of election anywhere else

• That husts often skirt around what everyone wants to talk about but are prevented from addressing those issues.

This JCR believes that:

• It's really important to get the JCR the best officers,

• The fullest discussions lead to the best informed electoral choices

• One of the must useful gauges of any officer's future performance is his/her past performance

• That discussion of past records allows the JCR to reward successful officers and drop the unsuccessful ones more easily.

This JCR resolves

• To mandate Ed to change the electoral and/or constitutional arrangements to allow discussion of past records of JCR officers at husts.

Proposed by: Richie Goodman

Seconded by: Varun Chandra

Proposition:

This is a Ronseal motion – it does exactly what it says in the, er, motion. Most people who run for big JCR Offices have done another post beforehand, and we should be able to see how they did in that post – say, if Varun had “mislaid” £34 000. We have a right to know and past performance is often a good indicator as to whether they will be any good in future.

SFQs:

• Has Varun put away £34 000?

  • Not that we know of, though we wish he had.

• Would we be able to direct questions at a specific candidate?

  • It seems perfectly reasonable to be able to, at the discretion of the VP. That’s not currently covered by this motion, however. There is nothing in the constitution that currently says we can’t. This is only convention, to ensure everyone gets a fair share of the debate. Similarly it is only convention that we cannot ask about previous roles, which in turn derives from the convention of asking every candidate the same questions.

• Will this lead to other candidates or questioners casting aspersions on particular candidates?

  • Possibly, but it should be fairly obvious that this is what they’re trying to do. It would be silly to ask every candidate the same question about one’s past role, since it is irrelevant if you do, and does not give people the whole picture if the question is not asked at all.

Debate:

• The damage would already have been done to someone’s reputation if a particularly pointed or unfair question is asked, whether the audience realise the nature of the question.

• The motion intends to make constitutional changes, so it doesn’t matter what current convention is, and will clear the matter up if it is made constitutional.

• Amendment:

  • Questions aimed at individuals should be allowed as long as the VP considers them fair and ensures that every candidate gets equal time for representation.

  • Amendment accepted.

• Husts are not the only opportunity to find out about a candidate’s past performance – there are hacks etc as well. Admittedly it is the most efficient means of getting the information across to a large number of voters, but it is often useful to ask everyone the same questions.

• The main point of husts is to determine whether the candidate is suitable for the new post. The accepted amendment ensures that questions are fair, so the proposed system seems legitimate.

• If the issue is a problem of transparency and not every voter knows what candidates have previously done, shouldn’t the last JCR committee give an appraisal of candidates, since they are the most likely to know about these things?

• The last committee already seem the most likely to go to husts and ask questions, so this seems unnecessary.

• Not everyone is able to challenge candidates during hacking, as for example they may not see them. In the proposed system many more people get information as long as they have the right to know.

Summary in proposition: We should be able to judge candidates on how they did in previous posts. This is what is done in almost all other elections and job applications. This way we get better candidates and more open husts.

Summary in opposition: OUSU elections are done in the same way as our current system, so we are going with Oxford tradition [which, it is admitted is the most rubbish argument for anything]. There are other opportunities to hold people to account, there would be danger of abuse of questioning and there would be increased pressure on the VP.

Vote on motion:

• For – 28

• Against – 5

• Abstentions – 3

Motion passes with 2/3 majority required for constitutional change

2. GM Spending Cap Motion

This JCR notes that:

• We do not currently have cap on spending in General Meetings

This JCR believes that:

• It is dangerous not to have any cap on spending at all.

• The JCR is unlikely to spend more than £3000 in any one meeting.

• Though unlikely, special circumstances that may arise in the future can be dealt with then.

This JCR resolves to:

• Make the relevant constitutional changes to introduce a spending cap of £3000 for any one general meeting, retaining the quorum of 50 currently in place for spending over £1000.

Proposed by: Varun Chandra

Seconded by: Jon Adamson

Proposition:

• We are never going to spend more than £3000 in one GM. We can deal with special items as and when. Governing Body have asked us to amend this in order for them to ratify our constitution.

SFQs:

• Is the £3000 limit per motion or per meeting?

  • Per meeting

• What about the plasma TV for the JCR Rooms, which we will be buying soon (hopefully)?

  • We will spread the cost of it over two meetings.

Debate:

• What will the get-out clause be if we do ever need to spend more? It doesn’t seem enough to say that we will simply deal with it at the time, and there should be a proper structure in place.

• This is a constitutional change and can be undone in the next meeting if ever there is a need to do so.

• This is not good enough, since it provides no security for the future. Having a limit of £3000 is fine, but the mechanism to get round it if necessary is not. It only deals with such occasions on a case by case basis.

• We could set a slightly higher permanent top limit if preferred, but this could still be undone if necessary, so it seems no better.

• £3000 seems an arbitrary figure, though we rarely spend more than that.

• It is not clear what the motion adds when we could change it in the next meeting. Safeguards are good, but it doesn’t seem that we have any way of making a proper one.

• This will involve a longer process for spending large amounts of money, since the spending cap would have to be changed at least one meeting earlier than the spending motion was brought. This is a better safeguard than is provided by the current situation.

• We are a sovereign body, theoretically with complete control over our own money. If Governing Body don’t have a spending cap, why should we?

• We are not really a sovereign body, since College provide us with a large amount of money and do not want to see it spent recklessly. Since Governing Body must ratify our constitution for it to stand and they have requested this change twice now, we have little choice.

• If emergencies arise we could have a GM one day to change the spending limits and call an Emergency GM to discuss spending.

• Since GMs have agendas, could we not set a time limit to ensure people do not propose spending motions less than eg 2 days before the GM?

• In the last 3 years we can recall spending over £3000 between 3 and 6 times, and almost always on essential or highly important items, such as the JCR Dining Room refurbishment.

• Why are Governing Body so determined that we set a spending limit if we have only spent large amounts on important things – there is no precedent for us wasting money in this way.

• This is intended just to satisfy them, and since we have so rarely spent large sums it has no massive implications for us.

• Even if we can technically override a spending cap, it prevents us from doing so rashly and acts as a guide on sensible spending figures.

• Governing Body could always call an Emergency GM to stop us spending money if they were not happy, since they are all members of the JCR.

• This would be a petty and unnecessary argument to have with Governing Body, and does not take into account the fact that the Treasurer could hand over the money straight away and it could have been spent by the time the motion has been revoked.

• It should be £3000 per item, since it is easy for several items in one meeting to add up to significant sums of money, especially towards the end of a term.

• Governing Body are unhappy with this idea.

• If we want to spend money on something big we can change the limits temporarily, but this stops people changing motions halfway through a GM to request more money or using other such loopholes.

• Very large and sensible spending plans are usually known about a long time in advance, so there shouldn’t be an issue with the length of time involved in passing these, whereas less sensible plans will hopefully be stopped by this process.

• Proposed Amendment:

  • The spending cap should be £3000 per motion, not meeting.

  • Proposition: Things add up in one meeting, and some good causes could get shafted by a limit on spending per meeting

  • Opposition: It is rare for us to spend £3000 in one meeting, and with this amendment we are not doing as Governing Body have asked. It is an unnecessary battle to fight with them.

  • Vote on amendment:

    • For – 13

    • Against – 15

    • Abstentions – 3

• Amendment fails.

Vote on motion:

• For: 26

• Against: 3

• Abstentions: 5

Motion passes

3. Ball Committee Terminology

This JCR notes that:

        The current, unratified, section of the Constitution dealing with the Ball Committee includes:

‘The Vice-President of the JCR shall sit on the ball-committee in an advisory capacity and to ensure that

the Ball Committee is accountable to the JCR. If he/she feels unhappy with the functioning of the ball committee then he/she should refer the matter to the JCR committee and if necessary JCR General Meeting. Decisions of a JCR General Meeting (but not committee meeting) shall be binding on the Ball Committee.’

        That objections were raised in Governing Body to the implications of this section.

This JCR believes that:

        It is important to have JCR representation on the Ball Committee in an advisory capacity to ensure good communication between the two, and to reflect the substantial investment made by JCR members in the Commemoration Ball.

        It is important to phrase this section of the constitution in a manner that reflects this need without undermining cross-college representation on the Ball Committee.

This JCR resolves to:

        Mandate the Vice President to alter the constitution to read: ‘The Vice-President of the JCR shall sit on the Ball Committee in an Advisory capacity. If he/she feels unhappy with the functioning of the Ball Committee then he/she should refer the matter to the JCR Committee and/or a JCR General Meeting for discussion. Any concerns that remain unresolved with the Ball Committee may referred by the JCR General Meeting to College. ’

Proposed by: Varun Chandra

Seconded by: Chris North

Proposition:

• This is a simple change of terminology to keep Governing Body happy. The Ball Committee has members of other college organisations on it, and should refer ultimately therefore to Governing Body rather than the JCR committee.

SFQs:

• What does the MCR’s constitution say on this matter?

  • Nothing that we know of, and if it is like ours they too will doubtless have to change it for Governing Body.

Debate:

• It seems we are just conceding more power to College.

• This is just a change of wording to reflect the actual situation. College are stopping us from assuming power that we actually have no right to. We will still have a large input by other means, but within our remit. In practical terms this doesn’t make a difference to the current organisation.

• We already have a lot of influence in terms of choosing the Ball Committee, and as much power as we can genuinely expect.

Summary in proposition: What was said in the debate.

Summary in opposition (sort of): If it is just a correction of the error in the constitution, it’s actually fine.

Vote:

• For – 29

• Against – 1

• Abstentions – 2

Motion passes

4. JCR Gambling Motion

This JCR notes, and believes, that:          

• With:

• Increased policing against drugs

• Greater duty and even banning of smoking          

• Politicians addressing booze and yob culture

• And even the drop in quality of Eastenders

• It is getting considerably harder to become addicted to anything.

• Gambling is well worthy pass time to get addicted to.

• We have shit loads of money and that gambling is such fun.

This JCR proposes that:

• At the beginning of each year all JCR members’ names get entered into the hat (preferably a novelty hat) then a name gets drawn. This person gets to select one friend form the JCR to go on an all expenses paid holiday to Vegas. On this holiday they are given the entire JCR budget for the year and the bond, totalling a sum of around £100K, and they have to place this money on the roulette wheel on red or black in a bid to double our money.

Proposed by: Iain Anstess

Seconded by: Pres Anthony Smith (allegedly)

Proposition:

• This is another Ronseal Motion. Oh, and it would be fun.

SFQs:

• Can Tony Pres second motions?

  • Erm, no actually, because he’s not a member of the JCR, but Chris Guelff will selflessly step in to second the motion instead.

• Did the motion say we have to put all JCR members into a hat, or just their names?

  • Their names, although it did say a novelty hat, so there’s the option of one giant hat. Could be difficult to find one of those, mind.

• Does it have to be roulette?

  • Yes, because it’s exciting and we can televise it in the bar.

• Can we split the money between a few bets, since at roulette wheels they provide free drinks, and the JCR gambling representative might not have time to make the most of this fact.

  • It’s already an all-expenses paid holiday. Why would they need free drinks?

• Can we make it Russian Roulette?

  • No. Bit of a liability, really.

• Can we hire an Elvis impersonator to do it instead? [insert Tim Smith’s crap Elvis impersonation here]

  • Erm.

• Which casino?

  • This important matter will be left to the discretion of whoever’s going.

• Do they get a reward if they win?

  • Again, it’s already an all-expenses paid holiday to Vegas. How money-grabbing are these hypothetical JCR members? However, possibly either £10 000 or a photo of them in the JCR Rooms, next to Oliver Reed and Paul McCartney.

Debate:

• Proposed Amendment:

  • The JCR constitution must be amended so that, if it passes, this motion cannot be overturned. Ever.

  • Amendment accepted.

• Proposed Amendment:

  • The JCR Core 4 are put on as collateral for Russian loan sharks

  • Accepted, as this would probably mean that Food and Fac would take over the presidency of the JCR.

• Proposed Amendment:

  • All committee members of the opposite sex to the chosen representative must accompany them so they look like a big pimp/a bit more popular.

  • Accepted.

• Surely if we lose all of our money in the one and only bet it won’t foster a proper gambling addiction as the motion wishes.

• No, maybe not, but it will be like a giant gambling orgasm.

• Proposed Amendment:

  • We should go to Monte Carlo instead, because the minimum gambling age in Vegas is 21, meaning that most JCR members don’t get the chance.

  • Accepted.

• Proposed Amendment:

  • The bet should take place on the same weekend as the Monaco Grand Prix.

  • Amendment accepted.

Summary in proposition: Wooooooooo!

Summary in opposition: ---

Vote:

• For – 9

• Against – 13

• Abstentions – 7

Motion fails, unfortunately. JCR Secretary would have quite liked to go to Monte Carlo, even as collateral. Ho hum.

Amy stops being Independent Chair. *Sniff*.

Meeting closed: 9.32pm