JCR Open Meeting Minutes for 11th March 2003

1. Minutes of last meeting

The minutes of the last open meeting held on November 14th 2002 were approved

2. Executive reports

James Bell, Treasury: been to two Finance Committee meetings, prepared mid-year budget. Maybe slight cuts to budget next year. Sports claims to be made next term.
Ross McElwain, Academic: aiming to increase study space in exam term by using Wilkins Room. 24-hour library opening deferred until secutity system is in place
Rachel Reeves, Green: Recycling bins - please don't abuse! FairTrade publicity drive.
Nick Drinnan, External: CUSU elections. New top-up fees demo soon - look out for posters
Farzana Hakim, Women's: handing out pregnancy tests and attack alarms
Matt Mayer, Communications: website going well with 2000 pageviews per day. Suggestions welcome. Staircase terminals being discussed
Tony Evans, Men's: Will be analysing results of Quality of Life survey
Ian: Solution being sought to problem of single people in double sets... Pats/LGB/Clare issue now resolved... second round of elections sees a new Services Officer (Malcolm Parry) and Welfare Officer (Katie Lawson)... Gents toilets to be refurbished over Easter, Ladies deferred due to lack of funds.

3. Motions

3.1 Saturday Brunch

The JCR notes that a JCR open meeting in November 2001 passed a motion endorsing a change to brunch from lunch and Breakfast on a Saturday. This was subject to reassessment at a later date. It is a later date

The JCR believes that the JCR should be one of the primary deciding factors in canteen arrangements. Its opinion on such a matter as Brunch on a Saturday is important. That once we've said we'll do something we do it

The JCR resolves to continually strive for the best working relationship with College authorities, and in this matter in particular that we should reinstate Lunch and Breakfast as separate meals. This should not be accompanied by a rise in the already very high Kitchen Fixed Charge. Indeed a reduction in the £114 charge would have been appropriate after a reduction in services, not the £5 rise on last academic year.

Proposed by Matt Dyson, Seconded by Sid Dhar

Views raised included
- Brunch on Saturday not considered satisfactory, it's just like having a late fried breakfast
- College will increase KFC whatever.
- Time should be in line with Sunday brunch
- Not enough choice, on Sundays there's scampi, burgers, etc
Friendly proceedural motion amended the motion to read

... we should continue the experiment with Saturday brunch, but bring it into line with Sunday brunch in terms of timing and the provision of a full brunch menu...

Vote: 22 for, none against, 2 abstentions. Motion passed, but meeting was inquorate at this stage.

3.2 Smoking ban in the bar

The JCR notes that there is often a smoky atmosphere in the JCR bar (in the Butterfield building) in the evenings. This leads to a proportion of College members feeling uncomfortable in the bar. The problem is particularly noticeable at the bar itself, where smoke can collect, and seriously affect the bar staff.

The JCR believes that, while everyone is free to choose to smoke, that this choice should not be allowed to affect the comfort of others.

The JCR resolves to extend the current ban on smoking before 9pm to all the time. This will either be an outright ban of smoking in the Butterfield building, or introduction of smoking and non-smoking areas. The existing ban on smoking will remain in place, and the legal requirement that no one should smoke at the bar will be observed.

Proposed by John Persaud, Seconded by Nathan Howes

Views raised included
- There has been much debate, especially on the JCR website forums
- Current rules ban smoking before 9, no ban thereafter
- The law probably bans smoking AT the bar already
- Smoking affects the enjoyment of other JCR members
- A smoking area wouldn't be practical, smoke drifts. Plus would take up too much space.
- Smoking ban would hit profits, people won't come to the bar
- It might encourage people to come who don't like the smoky atmosphere
- Not fair to make smokers go out in the cold and wet. Should be allowed to socialise
- Don't underestimate health risks of passive smoking - it kills
- Would make less attractive to visitors from other Colleges
- Would be unusual (eg only one pub in Cambridge) ... does this mean we shouldn't?
- Might stop people taking up smoking
- Proposal is unenforcable
Since the Bar is the DCAC Bar, this would have to go to a DCAC Open Meeting to be binding
A friendly amendment rephrased the motion from 'the JCR resolves' to 'the JCR favours'
Vote: 18 for, 10 against, 3 abstentions. Motion passed, but meeting was inquorate at this stage.

3.3 Restructuring of the JCR Committee

Formation of JCR Committee incorporating all elected officers and open to observation by any member of the JCR
Vice-President to take on the current duties of the external liaison officer
New elected positions: Event Director, International Students Representative, Sports Representative, Internet Officer
Change of voting rights: female JCR members only to vote for Women's Officer, male JCR members only to vote for Men's Officer
A streamlined executive committee overseeing work of separate divisions of entire JCR committee
An updated constitution to accommodate these proposals.

The changes to the constitution are available as a Word document, which should be referred to for the full extent of the changes. The changes consisted of three segments, which are summarised below, with references to the sections of the constitution they affect.

Proposed by: JCR Working Party (Nick Braddon, Hywel Room, Matt Dyson, Vicky Evans, Pete Sumner)
Seconded by: JCR Executive (2002-2003)

Segment 1: Election issues

s29-30 re Voting rights
s32 re Event Sub committee
s23 re delegation

There was a long and often heated debate on the most controversial of these issues, that of voting rights for men's and Women's Officers. Matthew Dyson tabled a hostile amendment as follows.

Remove section 30, replace with "All current students in statu pupillari per college statutes will be entitled to vote for all officers"
Add "Acts to promote gender equality in all aspects of college life" to job descriptions of men's and Women's Officer.

Views raised in the ensuing debate included
- In favour of amendment
  - We want equality, not segregation
  - The current definition of men's and Women's Officer emphasises gender differences
  - Men's and Women's Officer should work together
  - Taking to logical extension, only those who are LGBT should vote for LGBT officer, etc
  - Who decides who is a particular gender?
  - Shouldn't disenfranchise 50% of voters
  - Would cause damage to gender equality
  - Have faith in voters of both genders to remove extremists
  - Fundamentally wrong to discriminate
  - JCR positions should represent everyone's views
- Against amendment
  - We are one of only two colleges to do this. We are out of line with CUSU, out of line with women's council, we are out of line with students.
  - Men could block an overtly feminist candidate despite the wishes of women, just because they are in the majority
  - Can't change 800 years of male domination in 50-60 years
  - Women's Officer responsible for women, Men's for men, makes sense to only be voted for by those groups
  - Men would look for different things in a Women's Officer than women
  - The history of feminism is a female one. men don't force change for the better.
  - The proposed amendment assumes a non-existent equality at the moment. This doesn't exist.
Votes: 35 for, 5 against, 3 abstentions. Motion passed.

The remainder of the segment was much less controversial. Matt Dyson explained that delegation allowed for a more flexible committee, while the creation of an event subcommittee meant the June Event organisers could work more closely with the main committee.

Votes: 40 for, 4 against, 1 abstention. Motion passed.

Segment 2: Re-organisation of Committee

s19-23 re divisions
s26-27 re Senior Officer's Committee: purpose and composition
s45 re Senior Officer meetings and Committee meetings
s46 re Division meetings.

Views raised included
- Larger committee, meeting thrice termly means everyone has voting rights and no-one is marginalised
- Senior officers' committee (not 'Exec') meets often to ensure things get done and coordinate work between divisions
- Will Senior officers' committee have too much power, with no Green officer etc to hold them back?
Votes: 45 for, none against, no abstentions. Motion passed.

Segment 3: Creation of officers and time-delay

s10 (summary)
Appendix A (Job descriptions)

Views raised included
- New officers including Event Director, International Officer (no current provision), Sports Officer (was ex-officio Welfare Officer), Internet Officer (to help on website), all part of larger JCR Committee
- Changeover officer to help ease in new committee
- Time-delay allows abolished positions (eg External Officer) to keep their jobs, and doesn't fiddle with the make-up of the committee until next elections
- Vacant positions can be filled by choice of the Committee as Acting Officers
- What if Acting Officers do a bad job? They can be removed in a similar fashion.
Votes: 44 for, none against, 1 abstention. Motion passed.

4. Any other business

There was none.

The meeting was closed and everyone gave a collective sigh of relief.