Minutes of the committee meeting on Monday 7th Week, Michaelmas Term 2018.
OULD Committee Meeting Minutes
Michaelmas Term, 2018 7th Week
19th November, 2018
Present: Finn Conway (President), Damayanti Chatterjee (President-elect), Jake Olenick (Treasurer), Edd Peckston (Secretary), Olly Besley (Spirits), George Wright (Returning Officer), Patrick Chapman (Campaigns), Shreyus Ganesh (Comms)(late with apologies), Hayden Searle (Social Secretary), Abbie McGhee (General Committee)(Late with apologies), Lauren Evans (General Committee), (arrived late with apologies), Ben Harris (General Committee) (late with apologies), Zahra Farzanekhoo (General Committee) (late with apologies)
Action points to take forward:
Meeting starts at: 6.06pm
FC: Seeing as people are coming later, we’ll do in camera later. So basically I just want to talk about constitutional amendments
Abbie McGhee enters the room
FC: It makes sense to decide as a committee what we should propose. First DC. George: it says that we needed a week for the DC. It took more than a week to get the response last time.
GW: Different interpretations, the constitution has now amended. We made it tighter on how we deal with in camera stuff.
FC: In terms of procedure?
GW: I arranged for the meeting to happen, I don’t have anything to add on procedure.
FC: Damayanti: the amendment on DC when it’s a legal matter?
DC: It’s a hole in the constitution that we deal with everything internally. I was going to submit an amendment that the have to submit to higher authorities when what we’re dealing with is a potentially legal matter.
GW: Would that discourage people coming forward? At the moment it’s possible to have the complainant anonymous.
DC: We should adopt university policy – when something is reported we should go through normal procedure.
GW: If that’s feasible that’s fine
Ben Harris enters the room
OB: Is there a way that we change things to refer to matters as a whole? Then take the Uni’s view? We are currently judge and jury. We shouldn’t be expected to make legal decisions.
FC: Current party policy is that we report legal matters to the police.
Shreyus Ganesh enters the room
FC: The police are required to do things with finer restrictions.
DC: Is that a requirement?
FC: When press charges they do it beyond reasonable doubt
Lauren Evans enters the room
PC: There is a problem with our standards
FC: Yeah, we should mirror the party. Lauren, this is about DC procedure
DC: Is it summed up succinctly in the party?
FC: No. Could you include protection of anonymity?
BH: Can you complain to a central body?
EP: Yes, the proctors.
FC: That raises the question of which body. Keep it just to the University.
JO: Will the DC be able to send it off to the Proctors as a separate course of action?
DC: I wasn’t going to make it a punishment, but rather a requirement? Was planning on allowing us to that that as well.
DC: Ok just DC
OB: We can’t oblige the society to keep stuff secret if it’s a criminal matter.
FC: This is the legal advice that the party got as a whole. Are we satisfied as a whole?
DC: Insert after guilty verdict?
JO: Add it as an option to recuse.
OB: This doesn’t totally throw people off to the uni completely. People can come to us.
Damayanti to write DC constitutional amendment
FC: This is a precaution for the future. Campaigning requirements – was a bit of a kneejerk when we introduced them. We have seen shortcomings in that the campaigning this term takes a lot of time. Last time it was easy to do. This term takes an hour bus. Make more fair?
GW: Exceptional circumstances are already written in the constitution
FC: Will be a recurring problem, especially this year. Campaigning requirements are a must
JO: I’m wary of changing campaign requirements. We should be ambitious with the campaigning that we do.
Zahra Farzanekhoo enters the room
JO: A few thoughts that I have on this. We have the RO’s discretion. They are not required for co-option. They aren’t as much of a restriction as they seem. There will be a vacancy that gets filled anyway. Add charity as a requirement?
FC: There is a problem of having campaigns officer being able to lots of events and others not being able to go to many with other commitments. Eg. The Social Sec
EP: OUCA use activist points. There is a formal way of counting up points.
PC: Not comfortable with the idea of some campaigning events counting for more.
OB: Current requirements very useful – not happy about charity requirement. People would do charity events just because it’s a requirement to run. Might help if RO had a clear number of events. The biggest discrepancy at the moment is Social Sec.
GW: Problem with some people having more of an advantage if you give out a clear number of events.
OB: Say expected numbers we are going to reach, based on the kind of events we have on in terms. At the moment people can’t plan their terms.
FC: Move to in camera now? Not yet
SG: I disagree with Olly, you will always get people who do stuff just because they have to. Charity work aligns with LD policy.
PC: There is a difference. Charity is a more moral thing
BH: Have more of a points system. On the basis of fairness – things have different impacts. A points system is fairer. Points are used in OUCA and the Union. We can decide upon the tally earlier.
EP: Example of polling day – not fair that some people are out for hours and it only counts as one events.
PC: Problem of complexity for the campaigns officer.
DC: I agree with Ben and Shreyus about charity – we have points as an incentive to go. We accept that campaigning and charities sometimes require the same effort. There is the problem of local campaigning getting further away. Is whole day campaigning going to be so rare?
FC: I don’t know – we can still run phone banks from the city. We can book a room. If we’re doing stuff in the city we’ll just get the leaflets. Not sure how we accommodate the change in election cycles.
JO: Change in campaign days – don’t just copy OUCA. Optics.
HS: Judge policy on its merits.
JO: We can still not just adopt a visibly OUCA policy.
OB: In terms of the principle – will it make it easier or harder? I like the sound of points, but it could make it harder.
FC: I will draft the motion make the system more flexible.
Finn Conway to draft campaigning amendment
DC: To summarise: what we’re trying to do is make things more easier. Qualify what counts as a events. Some events messed up people’s totals.
FC: Charity? – Yes, Points? – Yes , only count events that appear with a week’s notice –
EP: Problem with bonus events
FC: I’ll speak with George afterwards about this
FC: Moves to go in camera.
Passes nem con
In camera discussion
Vote to move out of camera
Passes nem con
FC: Move back up to alumni relations officer – annual appointment – ensure that we have.
OB: Agree – very important
DC: Constitutional problems?
FC: We created stewardship last term – we made it potentially too stringent. Social Sec is always a bit of a dead end role. Lots of people bin from the role. We are in danger of creating a dead-end role.
HS: I’m worried that the role needs to be defined more. In the constitution it’s states that liaison with Welfare is required - not happened.
OB: Lots of ideas – clearing up steward role. Hard to do much to prevent anything during crewdates.
FC: The president can appoint a steward to replace the Social Sec.
DC: Knee-jerk reaction to events of last term. Stewardship is the impotant thing.
HS: Cover stewards costs
FC: £1 increase required
JO: Sober person can do a lot to help. For the good of the society we can cover points
FC: Multiple stewards.
JO: Divide between drunk and not drunk
EP: Problem in making an arbitrary distinction
HS: Difficult because there’s nothing institutionalised
FC: Could you spell it out so I can make notes
HS: Not sure
OB: The Social Sec has a variety of duties that aren’t clear- grossly unattractive
FC: End discussion
JO: Pub quiz?
Meeting ends 7:23pm