Sunday, 21st April (TT Wk 1) 4.

00pm in the JCR SU Meeting: Minutes A: Officers Reports NEW CHAIR John Owen PRESIDENT Rent Negotiations Tortoise Arrivals Budget Review Wadstock with Entz Elections OUSU Review Gym Coffee Machines VICE PRESIDENT Constitution SU Guide Talk to Alex if interested TREASURER Money meeting Budget Review MCR New MCR President elected Constitution Amending MCR representation in SU ACADEMIC Equality Policy ACCESS Nothing ARTS ARTS WEEK All sorts of fun activities to do with little effort/dedication See emails BAR Volunteer training sessions

Booze for Wadstock CHARITIES Charity Nominations Ceilidh, Friday 2nd Week COMMUNICATIONS OUSU Council on Wed ENTZ Wadstock Shifts on the door for SU Officers FOOD Arts Week Bake-Off, Thursday Guest Dinners INTERNATIONAL Potential drinks LGBTQ Crewdate SARAH LAWRENCE Potential Movie Night SPORT Gym: Gone for Weights over Cardio Good range of equipment TECH Fixing stuff for Wadstock TORTOISE ARRIVAL: Wed 2nd Week WELFARE New Welfare Reps to be elected Events: Finalists Dinners in 2nd/3rd Week Zumba sessions Peer Support sessions Jelly & Ice cream available WOMEN Re-imbursements NUS Womens Conferece

B: Motions 1. CONSTITUTIONAL MOTION: SECOND READING Proposed by Alex Cibulskis, SU Vice President Second reading today (first reading from previous term) Clearing up inconsistencies and clarifications: Reps Officers setting up committees OUSU Motions Addition of possibility of breaks in long SU Meetings Questions Why was there no outreach? Emails were sent out asking for feedback First reading was at end of last term Whats the full deal with reps? One-officer policy introduced last year = smaller SU Some trickier positions still require more people (eg entz) Reps formalised into constitution What is the purpose of allowing the chair suspension of procedural rules? So as not to waste time bogged down in procedures Which rules get suspended? Rules pertaining to meetings e.g. amendments Discussion Suspension of rules SU Chair fills role as essential interpreter of the constitution Only to be used by chair in emergencies when: Procedure bogs meeting down Rules impede a constructive meeting Shouldnt the updated constitution have fixed this? This clause ultimately allows Chair to get to the point. Similar clause implemented in other JCRs Can anyone suspend the rules? Only on unanimous agreement Objection re: reps Not clearly defined position More structure on what they are Less accountability = simple lackey to main officer? Reps = Practically the same as current situation Informal helpers Shouldnt the SU officers be more cohesive? Eg Food Officer does food for Wadstock, not Entz Hard to get enough people who will follow through

Q1. A1.

Q2. A2.

Q3. A3. Q4. A4.

What happens if people dont want to be lackey reps? Elections roll over until filled Roles filled by others in meantime Positives for reps More involvement in SU Good for freshers aiming for bigger roles with more time commitment later Comparable to Freshers team Janitor reps? No Shouldnt there be meetings between committees? Could be an idea but not enough turnout Suspension of Rules is a problem Procedure should be used rarely but better than ignoring rules outright Conclusion AMENDMENT To remove clause on Suspension of Rules Vote taken Amendment passes Outcome Some opposition on concept of reps Vote taken Motion passes New constitution accepted 2. ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY Proposed by Sarah Pine Implementation of zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment Perpetrators of harassment/assault to be ejected from Wadham events New policy to be informed to college authorities/Welfare/Womens tutors Discussion Some points arguing against College welfare procedures already well covered in handbooks Handbook doesnt cover it properly; not preventative Reported instances already get passed on to tutors (not sure) Any information passed on confidentially Procedural motion request this motions vote taken as secret ballot Do we agree with it being secret? Suggestion box instead of raising hands? Where would a sexual harassment perpetrator go once ejected? Garden events (QF, Wadstock): eject them from garden Bop events: Not so sure Current situation is difficult/unsupportive for victims of S.H. Talking to womens/welfare tutor as option Because sexual harassment is a legal issue, it shouldnt happen? Having to go to the police is a big deal to make

Very difficult to prove Sensible to give private security the right to eject people? Toss-up between: Erring on side of caution = someone kicked out of one event Not erring = someone might get sexually harassed Policy works for big events but tricky to implement at bops Already measures in place for such instances: e.g. college member banned from attending bops AMENDMENT To include the College Ball as an event where policy will be implemented Amendment taken as friendly Very difficult situation for perpetrators who get falsely accused Arguably worse situation for someone sexually harassed Isolated incidents brought up with welfare/womens tutors (harassment officers) Appeal Process Proposal for automatic appeal/hearing with people concerned and H.O.s If amicable solution reached, reimbursement for ejectee Very bad to have harasser and harassee in same room How can innocence be proved (current system allows it) Appeal doesnt have to be automatic, just requested Is this not already the case in current system of dealing with S.H. Mandate Pres and Womens officer to check current policy with H.O.s Afterparties for QF/Wadstock: ensure ejection by confiscating wristband Clarification on quote unwanted or persistent Can be read rather as unwanted and persistent Doesnt cover awkward failed hit-ons etc. More serious cases of S.H. which are threatening Specific definition emphasises feeling of threat AMENDMENT To instate possibility of hearing/appeal process with H.O.s If requested, SU Welfare/Womens Officers can attend hearing Amendment taken as friendly Clarification of motion New policy introducing ability for security to eject threatening offenders No similar policy dealing with S.H. was previously in place Hearing/Appeal can be requested by either party to try to resolve/reimburse Will be dealt with by professional H.O.s Inter-college policy? Policy will allow for people from other colleges to be ejected/appealed Clarification that hearing process is not part of the punishment (ejection is) Is a no-tolerance policy a flawed system? Conclusion PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT To take the vote as secret ballot Vote taken Amendment falls

Outcome Some opposition Vote taken Motion passes C: OUSU 3. LUCY MEADOWS Proposed by Sarah Pine Same motion to be discussed at OUSU Council Motion to condemn publication of article portraying LM incorrectly Plus, specific to Wadham: Mandating of SU LGBTQ Officer to write letters protesting LMs portrayal Questions What was police involvement? Written in attached article Discussion Opposition Freedom of speech Clarification of offending points in original article Blatant transphobia The school didnt have a problem with LM The article was simply wrong on many points Outcome Some opposition Vote taken Motion passes Wadham OUSU Reps to vote in favour of motion at OUSU Council D: Matters for Discussion 1. RENT NEGOTIATIONS Proposed by Jahni Emmanuel, SU President 123 increase next year Still not enough to be covered by maintenance loan; college recognises Yearly book tokens to be removed Money from there to be used for hardship funds Living out grants to increase THE END.

Q1. A1.