Sunday, 5th May 2013 (TT Wk 3) 4.

00pm in the JCR SU Meeting: Minutes A: Officers Reports PRESIDENT Student Support Job Opportunities Finalists Fling Tortoises College policy finally finished Gym bid finally approved VICE PRESIDENT SU Guide Temporary website Please email feedback Please run for SU positions TREASURER Officers who worked at Wadstock email for reimbursement New budget written up COMMUNICATIONS New website OUSU motion on Student Finance next week OUSU Council this week WELFARE Support for exams Jelly & ice cream MCR Money for gym WOMENS WomCam party in Wadham FOOD International night Vote for favourite food, served in 8th week TECH Talking to bands about what equipment needed

ACCESS Access report really good ACADEMIC Tutor report not happy with feedback CHARITIES Ceilidh on Friday New officer elections upcoming; ask Will INTERNATIONAL Japanese international night New officer elections upcoming Sarah Lawrence Presentation night ENTZ Handover meeting Wadstock success BAR & SOCIAL Wadstock success Cocktails sold out SARAH LAWRENCE Sarah Lawrence Presentation Night Find out what SL is on Wed ARTS Arts week success Film night planned in JCR SPORT Gym success (discussion upcoming) New officer elections upcoming Amalgamated Clubs meeting TORTOISE Coming this Friday No joke today

B: Points for Discussion 1. RENT NEGOTIATIONS Proposed by Jahni Emmanuel, SU President 4.5% increase Living out grant increase by 20 Already informally accepted

2. WHAT TO DO WITH 3000 FOR THE SU? Proposed by Jahni Emmanuel, SU President We've saved 3000 Things to potentially invest in: 1. College Bike Scheme 2. Bands Room 3. Gym 4. New projector Discussion Suggestion: Subsidising travel for internships. Often comes up at the money meeting. Possibly good to add more to that Inherently for individuals, would be better if college-wide Prices of above suggestions: 1. Bikes = 3000 2. Bands room = about 1500 3. Gym = 5000 4. Projector = 1700 MCR Budget? About 1/3 of SU budget Clarification on bike scheme Will rent out about 10 bikes. Works at other colleges. Not sure about Wadham, can vote on it later.

C: Motions Procedural Information At any SU meeting, there is the option to propose secret ballot if desired. Can be proposed like an amendment and voted on Can a secret ballot be proposed in secret? Possibilities, secret ballots always granted if no objections 3. SU GYM CONTRIBUTION Proposed by Omar Salih, Sports Officer 5000 needed to cover cost of gym Questions Aren't college keen on this gym? Yes, but they won't pay it Outline of overall cost? MCR paying 700 Boat club paying up to 1200 Wadham Society bid could be anything from 0 to remainder College will pay for one piece of equipment (1000?)

Q1. A1. Q2. A2.

Total = 5452 Q3. A3. Q4. A4. What happens if we don't put money forward? Nothing will happen, gym will just be crap Which equipment is the one college is getting? Suggested weights, we'll see Discussion PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To pay remainder of Wadham Society bid, then reimburse MCR 2/3 If we pay as SU then we are ready to get the equipment, not by waiting But cheeky to ask college to cover everything, even if it's college facility. College already did a lot for the gym e.g. clearing the space Clarification of amendment: For us to wait to see what Wadham Society pay before committing to money Conclusion Amendment not taken as friendly Vote on amendment. Amendment fails.

Outcome Amendment proposal counts as opposition Vote taken Motion passes. 4. REPEAL OF ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY Proposed by Luke Buckley Proposer recognises last weeks motion to improve policy as honourable However, dangerous and irresponsible Dangerous possible outcomes: Victimisation of sexual harassment, therefore counter-policy necessary. Removal of perpetrator by security" causes spectacle and drama. Means that power removed from victim as less likely to report. Questions Why do notes go up to #13? Formatting error maybe Why has sexual assault been left out? Sexual assault is covered by law. Not necessarily true. Discussion FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: To include sexual assault in the motion.

Q1. A1. Q2. A2.

Objections to motion: Constructive to discuss, but: Passing zero-tolerance was good, progressive move. Repealing it would be reactionary. Sends out bad message. As well as repeal, this motion suggests updates to college policy Improve efficacy, rather than implementing zero-tolerance motion. As result of last motion, college is already discussing and updating policy. Not accurate. College-wide discussion hasn't been implemented. College is discussing specifics of previous motion. Inaccuracies in this motion: Welfare officers already discussing with warden, chaplain etc Keyword from last week: "threatened". Victim also has choice in making report. This motion already in an unfortunate light. Key objections are to zero-tolerance i.e. zero-tolerance of act of S.H. Old motion implies zero-tolerance of accusation Zero-tolerance implies binary policy in which someone will be ejected Should be witness-based accounts when the report is made Can a report of S.H. not result in ejection, but simply report and request to keep an eye out? Old motion specifically implies that all perpetrators will be swiftly removed Zero-tolerance should be the last-ditch emergency situation when the victim feels unsafe from the presence of perpetrator Victim has the responsibility to make the accusation This process puts anyone ejected into position of disrepute Defamation. Subsequent appeal process isn't a further punishment Chance for reconciliation and mediation Process of defamation is irreversible Stigma of conviction of S.H. sticks with perpetrator If someone is reported, is it a social burden? After being discussed by college and working group, does the motion have to come back to the SU? Fundamental review suggested by repeal is the question of zero-tolerance Proposer of repeal has borne in mind many discussions that have been had But there are flaws with the zero-tolerance motion eg data protection act. Also SU meeting atmosphere does not provide confidence for all participants This is university-wide and statewide. No current empowerment for people to come forward to report. Zero-tolerance provides empowerment No public means to prove innocence to the crime without defamation False accusations no less than other crimes. But they don't have zero-tolerance

No grounds for being accused publically Someone being ejected isn't necessarily defaming Disagreement with SU Believes... e.g. inevitable leaks of accusations against law. not likely PROPOSED AMENDMENT To remove some SU Believes points. Above leaks. Point on "shit sticks" Points #8 and #20 Phrasing of SU Believes quote not quite accurate Still wish to project amendment, even if not remembering rightly? No, move on FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To have point #8 removed from SU Believes We should keep zero-tolerance policy but we can amend and review it in line with proposals this week. Emphasis on assumed guilty before proven guilty? Rather, action taken before proven guilty. Important to err on side of caution. Percentage of false accusations far less than actual acts of S.H. Subdean: Under no circumstances would it be right for authorities to remove and condemn someone without a process or evidence Point that it's hard to prove, but immediate action better than condemnation Subdean: Explanation of current process First, consultation with lodge, so as to get more judgement. Physical assault is more obvious due to witnesses Harassment alone is more difficult. Requires more negotiation. Zero-tolerance against S.H. not problematic by name. However, assumption that immediate action will be taken without consideration is problematic Importance on removing risk of feeling unsafe for potential victims. Much more important to remove risks for victims than for perpetrators Not all physical assault has witnesses/evidence e.g. things done behind a wall In reply to subdean: Main priority of ejection is for the perpretator to not be present Current situation consists of two processes. 1. immediate action. 2. negotiation process. More emphasis on aftermath process Perpetrators can turn this policy on its head and accuse victim of S.H.

What was discussed when talking to Warden? Importance of discretion Someone can ask for someone to be kept an eye on Second meeting with Warden amendments for policy changing language for clarity Information campaign will be released with new policy PROPOSED AMENDMENT To revoke policy for now (for the ball) Then we have 6 months to discuss and amend policy for next year Amendment not taken as friendly because of problems with zero-tolerance Examples cited from press Problem with this objection because examples far removed from Oxford/NUS Amendment will be dropped because it should be separate to this motion. If passed, postpones from the ball, but also hard to get behind all 32 pts System should not put as much pressure on perhaps drunk/vulnerable victim to have to make claims to subdean It should be up to discretion of sober staff, not drunk students Vulnerable not just being drunk but stressed etc What is the difference between these policies in fact? Only fundamental difference is whether people get ejected or not The fundamental question here is Do we symbolically repeal a zero-tolerance policy as Wadham SU? The actualities of the policy will sort itself out in meetings with H.O.s etc Subdean: The current policy still requires intermediary discussion in any event. Will be happy to eject, but as current, needs discussion Conclusion Vote to take secret ballot: 51 vote in favour Just over 2/3. Final points: AGAINST MOTION: Vote against for safety/security of students. False accusations aren't a problem. Symbolically vital not to repeal. Really good policy in the works. Will bear in mind points of other side. Ultimately, a symbolic message FOR MOTION: Not symbolic. Fundamental problems as mentioned in motion. Discussions in SU atmosphere not conducive to constructive discussion Point of motion is not to approve S.H., but to open up further discussion

Outcome Vote taken 51 votes against 37 votes in favour Motion fails. THE END.