Setting: In the Conference Room. WB (Stool) isn’t here yet. There’s tension in the room, the Presidential Election is looming…
Elections
SP: Read manifestos on the Steve Comm page if you haven’t already. Start with Presidential election.
SP: Campaign materials are up to SRO’s discretion. Concerned about Facebook profile picture frames therefore isn’t allowing facebook frames because anyone can use them. Not everybody is aware that using them is against the rules.
EJ: Why is it against the rules?
SP: It’s fine for campaign team members to use them. But using a frame is campaigning and only campaign teams can do that. Shouldn’t be accessed by everyone. Obviously campaign teams changing their profile pictures is fine.
SP: Discuss LN having visual aids. Wants to hold a cushion up with her face on it. With it being a cushion, it’s obviously meant to cause laughter. A normal picture on paper wouldn’t have that effect.
OM: so you’d be fine with just a picture?
EE: but what defines a picture of you? Can we control how much a picture is edited etc.?
SP: Is that an odd precedent for Method II elections? Will people always want a picture to be held up?
AK: Also how do we control what’s in the picture? For example someone running for Outreach could hold up a pic of them doing charity work.
EC: we’re extrapolating. We deal with situations like that with pictures in elections all the time hence GovComm having to approve the use of pictures.
OM: Can set basic guidelines e.g. picture of just you that can’t show your suitability to the role. And deal with other issues as they come.
EJ: agree. Got to be a picture, that has to go through us.
All: yeah so picture is fine.
EC: so we’re saying no to the cushion, yes to a picture that we’ve approved.
All: agree.
Action point: EC let’s LN know.
Presidential Election Materials
– LM Manifesto:
AK: Is this just an A4 page? No it’s definitely longer than A4. Could we get her to send it as a word document rather than pdf?
Action Point: SP ask LM to send it as an A4 document.
WB arrives wahoo.
EJ: What’s the seconds for seconds thing? Can she promise to do that?
AK: Yeah there a conversations going on with the uni at the moment about whether we’re allowed to do it or not so it might be a possible thing to do. But the uni might say that we definitely can’t make it so should she put it in?
EC: The uni won’t make the decision about that until after the election so think she should be allowed to leave that in as at present it is possible.
SP: LM sent him a message saying she wants this image as her image for the voting site.
All: approve the image.
AK: she’s said something about implementing a reclaims structure so that the pres/FCO can pay for things without people having to use their own money. That’s already a thing.
EC: the wording is about it being more efficient which is probably valid?
AK: yeah fair.
SP: she has things in her manifesto that are the responsibility of welfare to implement like drop-ins during Freshers’ week.
AK: Yeah but the President should be overlooking other committees.
All: think it’s fine.
EE: Should she be allowed to call the JCR cliquey.
WB: it’s an opinion but she’s allowed to put her opinions in there.
All: think it’s fine.
SP: going back to the seconds for seconds thing.
AK: I think the wording should be changed to something like ‘look into doing this…’
WB: surely if she’s put it in her manifesto it’s implied that she’ll try but might not be able to definitely do it.
EC: people might base their decisions based on things in manifestos.
All: think wording should be changed as AK suggested.
Action Point: SP tell LM to change wording of seconds for seconds point to ‘look into implementing this…’
– Side Note discussing LN husting in absentia
AK: does Laura get to choose who husts for her?
EC: Yeah she can, that’s happened before, as long as she is choosing someone in GovComm obviously.
WB: think she wants me to do it.
EC: look over it before so you can deliver it properly and within 3 minutes. We’re a little bit more lenient on time limits with absentia husts because it’s not them reading it.
– EM’s Manifesto:
EC: one thing I didn’t know whether to bring up was the part about her founding FRAMDA. Last year she said that in her hust for VP and two people were not happy about it, and I think emailed CM complaining about it as they believed it to be their initiative.
SP: so can we change it to ‘one of the founders’?
EC: yeah that could work
AK: I think those people were project leaders but that doesn’t mean founded.
EC: as in I got the impression it might have been there idea but I don’t really know
AK: do think if it was their idea that’s not founding.
EC: I really don’t know what the ins and outs were. But know there was a complaint.
AK: checks emails for complaint.
OM: if she’s put it in her manifesto she’ll be willing to defend it especially if there were complaints last year.
EC: don’t know if she’s aware of the complaints.
AK: can’t find complaint in President emails.
EJ: can plead ignorance because we don’t know enough about last year’s complaint.
AK: shouldn’t plead ignorance but have no record of what went on last year if they call us up on last year.
EC: we don’t know exactly what happened last year but we are aware that something went on. And don’t want to think of this in terms of getting another complaint, want to think of it in terms of is that claim true? Wouldn’t hurt to just ask.
EE: shall we bring it up with EM then?
OM: then at least we can say we’ve pursued it.
SP: messages EM asking about it.
– LM Hust:
AK: the part about getting international students to do a survey before they come about Freshers’ week, that wouldn’t be possible.
EC: think that could be about existing students because they’d be on the same facebook group.
EC: about creating a document with which positions are run and when all year. Everyone says that but it’s never done because it’s not feasible.
AK: it is really problematic but it can be done so she should get to keep it in.
EC: yep fair.
AK: accessibility bit. The bit about implementing a structure so that pres/FCO can pay for things without own people having to use their own money. It says that it’s not in place, but it is. Treasurer can pay for things directly for you so that’s not actually true.
SP: she says this in her manifesto though?
AK: but it’s a lot more vague in the manifesto.
EC: yeah, the manifesto says about making it more efficient whereas this says that the structure isn’t in place which isn’t true. Needs removing.
SP: she says “this seems unrealistic…” but it is realistic?
EC: yeah that’s the same thing that AK was saying, that structure is already happening so that needs to be removed.
Action Point: SP to tell LM to change that part of her hust.
Amy: about her volunteering to sit on uni committees. You don’t always get to sit on the committees you want to because of competition within govcomm. The wording of volunteering is iffy.
EC: can’t be too strict about wording as this is a speech and might change slightly as she’s doing it.
AK: about boat club reunion and alumni. That reunion is organised by college.
EC: in the context she’s saying that she’d like to put on similar things.
EJ: yeah she’s using it as an example.
AK: OK.
AK: final point of the hust. Reads: “There is one hundred percent things that can do done to make the election rules less cliquey – for example, this isn’t to attack the fact one candidate is proposing another just to highlight that it doesn’t sit quite right with me.” RJ is proposing RM.
SP: that’s negative campaigning.
EC: yeah I think that should be taken out.
AK: she should be able to say it as it’s her disagreeing about some of the rules. If she thinks it’s a valid point, she could word it differently so its not referencing anyone else.
EC: I think we should just ask her to get rid of that last bit.
AK: still think that if she thinks that’s something she would change, that is a manifesto point, she may have noticed that EM and RJ are doing that.
EC: it’s clearly a reference.
AK: yeah but if she words it differently then it’s fair enough. We can just ask her to word it differently.
EC: I think if we’re asking her it would be better to just ask her to take it out rather than run the risk of EM and RJ thinking they’re being referenced.
OM: can’t we suggest she changes the wording?
EE: yeah if she takes it out she might be questioned on what kind of election changes she’d make.
EC: which is fair, in that context I think she could then express that she doesn’t like that it’s possible for candidates to propose each other.
SP: yeah she is referencing an election rule that is occurring exactly with her competitor, not just any old thing.
EC: we could just say to her please can you take that out, if you want to word it a different way then give it a go and we’ll have a look.
– Returning to FRAMDA issue
SP: EM has replied saying that she was President but she would be happy to change it to ‘co-founder.’ She will make that change and send it back to me.
– EM’s hust:
AK: she’s said that she’s attended every meeting of every committee which is almost true but she has missed some so could we ask her to not say every meeting?
SP: OK.
AK: processing reclaims faster. That’s not the President’s role, you can’t guarantee the FCO is going to do that.
EC: it’s not but the President does oversee the Exec, it’s like LM making claims for the changes she’d like to see in welfare even though it’s not explicitly her role.
WB: SP you’ve made it to Cute But Awkard Boys! All very happy for him.
WB: issue with Freps meeting up with Freshers that live out in Freshers’ week.
EC: Would that be allowed?
AK: yeah it only says that it would be organised to meet up somewhere in town to walk with them. Could just post on Freshers’ page saying come meet Freps. Think it’s fine.
WB: about her receiving an award ‘along with her committee’. Can we ask her about that? Did she win it or was it her committee? Like John Terry could say that he won the premier league along with Chelsea but wasn’t just him.
SP: will ask.
Rest of Election Materials
– JC’s manifesto (for VP):
EE: can he say the thing about making sure FCO doesn’t sideline the role of VP?
All: yeah that’s fair, people had that concern with creating FCO.
Everything deemed fine.
– RJ’s manifesto:
EC: feel a bit weird about him saying he’s going to ‘rewrite’ the standing orders and constitution. Is that realistic and is it his job?
OM/EJ: could he say update instead?
AK: that’s not the primary role of FCO, they should be supporting other Exec roles.
SP: a lot of people have said about standing orders in the manifestos in the past.
AK: standing orders is fair, constitution is a lot less realistic.
SP: even if he spends 24 hours a day on this he can technically do it, it’s not impossible, so think its fine.
EC: not only our job to strike things that are impossible but also things that are really unrealistic or not feasible. Do we think that this is unrealistic enough to strike?
SP: think it’s fine.
AK: think constitution part is the main problem.
EC: think just flag it up with him and say we’re not overly happy with the phrase ‘rewriting the standing orders and the constitution’ because it’s a bit unrealistic, and ask how he might like to reword it? And he can come back to us and we can see what we think.
SP: he says 8 hours a day of work?
AK: that’s accurate.
No other issues with this.
(For Senior Welfare Officer)
– JG’s Manifesto
No problems with it.
– ES’s Manifesto
No problems with it.
– LN’s Manifesto
No problems with it.
Posters:
– LN’s poster
AK: should it have her proposer on it?
SP: No.
SP: says Lozza Nizza as her name at the top.
EC: does say LN (written normally) below so don’t think we can call her up for it.
AK: needs a signature on it.
Action Point: SP tell LN to add a signature.
– JG’s poster
No problems with it.
– ES poster
No problems with it
– RJ’s poster
No problems with it.
– JC’s poster
No problems with it.
– EM’s poster
No problems with it.
– LM’s poster
AK: shouldn’t have proposer and seconder.
AK: there’s a picture of her with Cat and with me.
SP: yeah that shouldn’t be allowed.
EE: why?
EC: because you’re not allowed to reference the incumbent, the person that held the position before you, in elections.
SP: wrong voting link. So it’s just those things that need changing?
All: yes.
Action point: SP to tell LM to change the signatures, pictures, and voting link.
General Things
EC: these following elections can get messy, people get very stressed running in elections and we can get a lot of complaints that need responding too. It’s therefore so important that if we post on the fb group about a complaint or for opinions that you comment. It’s really annoying having to tag people to get you to comment, there’s a lot of pressure on me and SP and we really want to know what you think.
EC: JROs for the meeting so important candidates do not see or hear each other’s speeches so please take them well away from the hall.
SP: on Wednesday we need to meet at 5pm. Need at least 4 people to reach quorum to open results, need you as witnesses. Declaring results from the balcony at 5.30pm.
All: say they will be present.
Organise a bad boi social and hope that EM can come when she’s back on the committee.
EC: we’ve been here ages. Going to post all of the motions on the facebook group. I expect a response from everyone in the form of a comment by 12pm tomorrow so they can go in the agenda.
All: agree.
Everyone goes home, EJ runs off because he’s got a hotpot party to attend.