Trinity Term General Meeting

Minutes of the termly general meeting on Thursday 7th Week, Trinity Term 2019.

OULD Termly General Meeting Agenda Trinity Term 2019

Thursday of 7th Week – 13 June

Opens: 6.10pm

Closes: 7.20pm

Members Present: Edd Peckston (President), Lauren Evans (Secretary), Ben Phillips (Campaigns Officer), Finn Conway (Ex-President), Oliver Tushingham (Ex-General Committee), Oliver Besley (President-elect), Hannah Kidner (Communications Officer), Joseph Hayat (Social Secretary), Damayanti Chatterjee (Ex-President), Rohan Kaya (General Committee)

Omasan Harriman (General Committee) enters 6.18pm

Sheyrus Ganesh (Treasurer) and Anjali Pai enter at 6.19pm

Anjali Pai leaves at 6.20pm

Omasan Harriman leaves at 6.53pm

Ben Phillips leaves at 6.54pm

Hannah Kidner leaves 7.00pm

Omasan Harriman enters at 7.06pm

President’s Report

We are compliant with Section 2, OULD has had a strong term - including an excellent effort on campaigning action days, on polling day, and in getting the student vote out in central Oxford

Alumni relations are off to a strong start and Edd Peckston thanks thanks Damayanti Chatterjee and Nick Brown in his absence, we had a good profit off the alumni dinner and all the guests really enjoyed it, of particular note one of our alumni is now an MEP, and we have laid a strong basis for future terms

We have done a good variety of events this term such as going to Westminster, having a visit from the current leader, a large number of socials, some very strong SDs, and a successful transfer to Catz where we have gotten strong turnout despite it being Trinity term

Points for improvement: a main problem going forward will be gender diversity on our committee, which ought to be addressed very soon, the European elections made it difficult to do any policy campaigning and we should be able to get back on that next term

Social impact: perhaps we could have done more, but through Hannah Kidner we did arrange a shift with TSHA and this is a solid foundation from which to do more

Closing words: we are in a very promising place and Edd Peckston notes that he trusts Olly Besley to lead to society to new heights, he wishes OULD the absolute best while he is away and states that this last term has been a pleasure for him

Amendments for TGM

Constitutional Amendment 1: BLOG TO BECOME JOURNAL – Olly Besley (President- elect)

Olly Besley explains the amendment. He wants to replace the blog with a journal mainly because current-events writing is better published in student media.

Hannah Kidner asks about whether the format of the journal would be hard copes or electronic and Olly Besley replies this would be at the discretion of the committee.

Finn proposes removing “written by members of the Society”, which Olly Belsey takes as friendly.

Ben Phillips asks what the difference between a blog and a digital journal is, and Olly Besley replies that there is not a massive difference except that a digital journal gives more flexibility.

The amendment in whole as amended passes unanimously.

Constitutional Amendment 2: ABOLISH SENIOR AND JUNIOR OFFICES – Olly Besley (President-elect)

Olly Besley explains the amendment. It is aimed at removing the hierarchical element of the society as all roles have their workload and importance. He has slightly edited to role of General Committee to let them get involved more broadly.

Shreyus Ganesh suggests changing “committee with portfolio” to “officers” and removing the “without portfolio” by General Committee, both of which are taken as friendly by Olly Belsey.

Finn Conway asks whether this maintains General Committee and only removes the junior/senior officer distinction, Olly Besley confirms that this is the case.

Ben Phillips asks about changing the elections nomination requirements to only two campaigning points and how it might create a problem with people rushing to get them at the end of term, Olly Belsey acknowledges this potential issue but states it is there to prevent entryism.

Ed Peckston states he found it useful to have a small group of people (the Senior Officers) with whom he could speak for second opinions on welfare decisions and press releases and asks if Olly Besley intends to carry this on.

Olly Besley responds that this is probably the main counterpoint to his amendment but thinks it generally helps if there is a wide pool of people for consultation. Damayanti Chatterjee states she does not think this amendment entails the removal of a separate groupchat for sensitive issues with only a few committee members.

Shreyus Ganesh asks if Olly Besley foresees a split between General Committee and Officers with this amendment (similar to the split in the OUCA committee), Olly states that that is a potential issue but it would ultimately be dependent on how a President runs their committee.

Hannah Kidner asks about how access officers fit into this as they are not referenced, Ed Peckston and Finn Conway clarify that this is because they exist separate from the committee and in a largely consultative role.

The amendment in whole as amended passes 11 in favor, 0 against, and 1 abstaining.

Constitutional Amendment 3: TABLE OF SENIORITY – Olly Besley (President-elect)

Olly Besley explains the amendment. It is intended to change the prerogatives of ex-presidents and to make current committee members more senior than ex-Officers.

Damayanti Chatterjee suggests and amendment to put “Ex-General Committee members in order from first election” to below “Ex-Social Secretaries in order from first election”, which Olly Besley takes as friendly.

Hannah Kidner asks where to place appointed officers and proposes an amendment to place “appointed officers in order from first appointment” on the table of seniority below where ex- General Committee currently is, which Olly Besley takes as friendly.

Finn Conway proposes an amendment to remove the above friendly amendment, to which Olly Besley rescinds the friendly-ness.

Hannah Kidner proposes the newly-unfriendly amendment

Finn Conway speaks in opposition: he argues it goes against the ehtos of holding elections in the first place and there ought to be no seniority among appointed officers, he argues that he sees this amendment as pointless because the table of seniority is only for the purposes of filling vacancies and organizing disciplinary committees, thus he rejects the argument that it is important for the culture of the society.

Shreyus Ganesh speaks in agreement with Hannah Kidner’s cultural argument because the table does provide a sense of hierarchy despite its stated official purpose.

Oliver Tushingham points out “why not” include the nice cultural element in the table.

Damayanti Chatterjee wonders why we need ex-Officers at all in this table of seniority.

Olly Belsey states that the debate has shifted form the domain of his intention and restates this is amendment it intended only to avoid a technical situation in which one doesn’t know who’s technically in charge, he reiterates it is purely practical.

Oliver Tushingham move to vote on the amendment to the amendment, which passes unanimously.

The amendment passes 5 in favor, 4 against, and 3 abstaining.

Oliver Tushingham proposes that “General Committee members in order from first election” be changed to “General Committee members in order of election” and that “Ex-General Committee members in order from first election” be amended to “Ex-General Committee members in order of election, from first election”, which Olly Belsey does not take as friendly as he argues it is currently implied by the wording.

Oliver changes his proposal to be that “General Committee members in order from first election” be changed to “General Committee members in order of election”, which Olly Besley takes as friendly.

Shreyus Ganesh moves to vote on the amendment on a point of order, which passes with 9 in favor, 2 against, and 0 abstaining.

The amendment passes with 6 in favor, 1 against, 4 abstaining.

Olly Belsey moves to vote on the amendment as a whole, which passes with 9 in favor, 2 against, and 0 abstaining.

The amendment in whole as amended passes with 9 in favor, 0 against, and 2 abstaining.

Constitutional Amendment 4: AMENDMENT OF CO-OPTION – Olly Besley (President- elect)

Olly Besley explains the amendment. Its purpose is to clean up the current constitution and to change votes from secret ballots to in camera.

Finn Conway proposes deleting “pursuant to”, which is taken by Olly Belsey as friendly

Finn Conway proposes changing “If the vacancy to be co-opted occurs outside of full term” to “if there is a vacancy to be co-opted out of full term”, which is taken by Olly Belsey as friendly.

Oliver Tushingham asks for a clarification of the phrase “to reject or accept a motion resolving outcomes of co-option, re-opening of nominations and order of election.” Olly Besley states he believes it is clear that it means one has to reopen nominations and decide an order of election if one does not decide to use co-option.

Ben Phillips believes we should clarify “notice is given”, but Olly Besley states that he believes this is a stylistic change and therefore unnecessary.

Olly Besley moves to vote –which passes with 9 in favor, 1 against, and 0 abstentions.

The amendment in whole as amended passes with 9 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstaining.

Treasurer’s Report

Shreyus Ganesh reports that OULD currently has £2156 pounds and no debt and that our finances have gone smoothly, at the start of term the society had about £1500 and the main profit this term has come from SDs as our Spirits Officer has been very cooperative in getting costs down

OULD broke even from the Ashdown Club dinner as we did not get the “deposit” back from Somerville because it turns out it was actually a down payment, so the profit was £50 profit rather than £350

The charity payments from 7th week SDs are pending and will come out to about £65 to either charity

Edd Peckston asks if everything is sorted at MetroBank, Shreyus Ganesh responds that the situation is complicated due to a signatory situation requiring a manual bank transfer and of standing orders

Omasan Harriman asks how much money comes to the society through in standing orders, Shreyus Ganesh answers it is £80 per month

Edd Peckston accepts the Treasurer’s report and proposes a motion of thanks to the Treasurer, which passes unanimously

Share this post on social media: