Present: AK, SM, EM, JC, AB, JG, LM, MP, EP, EB


Apologies: JB, MM

Setting: I’m really happy because the president’s flat has clearly had a good tidy and that makes me so happy. Also everyone is that level of stress where they just laugh a lot. Especially EC.



Women in Cuth’s (AK)

Catering Thoughts (AK)

New College Checklist (AK)

PG/M Rep Living In (JC)



Women in Cuth’s (AK)

AK: There is no development officer in college next year because the Uni decided they weren’t of use to them so now everything has to be student led and working with EA. There are hopes to have an event/ several events to commemorate 50 years of women in Cuth’s for which we will need a committee. We were going to invite the president of femsoc next year to get involved and work with EM. We need someone who is here next year to head this up with them. It could be anyone, but HLE said it needs it needs to be someone who is already invested.

It is established that there is no female in the group who can automatically commit to this.


Catering Thoughts (AK)

AK: Phase 2 of the operations review has already started and presidents are going to have a meeting next week about the review. This phase (unlike the last one) might be of benefit to students as its about reforming the meal plan and I will send around the notes from that meeting. If anyone has strong opinions about how catering is now then let me know because at the moment I think flexibility would be good and that’s most of my comments

EC: is this the operations review?

AK: yeah, so the getting rid of bursars and staff was phase 1. Their minds were already set with all of this so that’s all already happening already.

JC: I’ve heard rumours that they are getting rid of hot breakfasts and not cut costs which is not good.

JG: I’ve heard they are considering cutting lunch options without price cuts as well. I don’t know if that is to having fewer options or to just Deli stuff.

Michael: Any arguments about flexibility is invalid for Cuth’s as Cuth’s is already very flexible.

JG: How will it be more flexible for other colleges

AK: they tested it in Trevs I think where they had a prepaid card.

JG: They had them last year for some Hatfield and they could use it in other Yum cafes etc around the Uni. So that would be a positive for lunch times?

AB: Linking to that, does this link to MC?

JC: Is this already a thing?

AK: I don’t sport.

JC: Is this false advertising to pre fresh if we are going to have to cut things?

AK: Same can be argued about balls and large events as well. Arguably, yes.

SM: do we know who is losing their jobs et because of phase 1 yet?

AK: They haven’t got their letters yet but there are people who are integral to us running smoothly who will likely lose their job. Now they are getting rid of admin assistants etc etc it’s all an absolute joke. The thing that is a concern is that after phase 2 and they have completed the review, the next thing they can look into is student support and make similar level of cuts which would be awful as they are already so overworked.

Everyone: ☹

EC: Some students are proposing a motion for the JCR to condemn the operations review so we can put all the info you get from Pres comm in a folder from in there.

JG: Can you also talk about how serving staff act as some freshers’ friendly faces when they come to university which can stop problems before they even start.

ACTION POINT: AK upload the Pres comm impact report.


New College Checklist (AK)

AK: This is just me, I’m on the working group for the new college and we are working on a list of all the things they need in place before the freshers arrive in October so I wanted to create a google doc on the exec group so we can add all the things from our job that would need to be in place. If we have a checklist they can go through it.

JG: Who is going to run their JCR?

AK: They have kind of decided on how they will have a president. Freshers will just get allocated there but they will also have refurees where people from different years and different colleges who decide to move thereIt’s what they did with JoBo in 2006.

EC: Traitors.

JG: It should be like duel residency- duel colleges.

EC: Do they have a name for it yet?

AK: No.

EC: Maybe put that on the checklist?

JC: Do need to think of physical things?

AK: Like yeah but umbrella stuff; i.e. sports equipment, not specific things like tennis rackets.

AB: Could there be an issue about people who move not wanting to move their sports teams?


AK: The way they want to market it is that it’s the opportunity to move and be part of shaping a new college which could appeal to a lot of people.

JG: Is there a limit on how many people from a college could leave? Could we leave lots of Cuth’s?

EC: Can we just make it an extra Cuth’s?

AK: The church has a lot of money…

MP: Should we play up our religion side?

ACTION POINT: AK to upload google doc to the exec group so we can add things the college needs.


PG/M Rep Living In (JC)

JC: Seeing as senior welfare isn’t live in we have another space that could be bailey or parsons. We could make it PG rep. They would be useful at either site because at Parsons they would be with all the PGs in Brooks and have a good network or Bailey where they could interact more with college staff.

JG: How much is this fuelled by you wanting to live in?

JC: It’s not.

SM: Is this an option to live in in one of those or in or out?

JC: To have the option of either or living out.

AK: Why not international rep?

JC: Because I’m PG rep and I thought about me.

JG: Would it be subsidised?

JC: Nah.

EC: There are two flats at parsons and two up here?

JC: We used to have 3 here but that’s not happened in a really long time. Not since my second year have all the people with the option to, lived in.

EC: Have we got the rooms to make it a choice about which one we want to live where?

JC: We have 3 on the Bailey and 2 in Brooks, so as it stands PG and facilities would need to decide between them who gets which site

AK: International rep living in has the same benefits. The main reason it should be PG rep is that you are representing people and it would increase visibility. International rep should be having a similar role and the only thing that would swing PG rep over international is that all PGs live in Brooks but international reps live everywhere.

JG: With internationals finding it hard to find accommodation, would we have internationals running to be reps for the accommodation?

AB: Does Brooks fill out?

JG: There is a waiting list.

Ella: It’s easier to avoid a role when you’re not in college.

EC: Does international rep have to talk to college as much as PG rep does?

AK: No.

MP: Parsons is still pretty close to the Bailey.

AK: So is where EM lives in the Viaduct.

AK: Having a PG rep would encourage them to come to college more and we do struggle with PG engagement.

JC: Given that it’s been a long time since all the live in places haven’t been filled out, then we could have 5 positions that are live in and then if those aren’t all filled in then international rep could be live in.

MP: Or have a waiting list all the way though the exec positions based on priority (as a joke).

Everyone: Good idea MP(not seeing it as a joke).

AK: What if lots of people wanted to live in?

Everyone: We make a list of priorities.

SM: My role doesn’t need to be live in.

JG: Even though I don’t think facilities should be exec, it should be live in optional.

JC: It is.

LM: Senior welfare probably shouldn’t live in. they would be keen at the start but then it would go bad and it blurs the lines a lot. It would be hard for you to set the boundaries and burn out. I’m forced to go home at the moment. They don’t need to be live in.

AK: Senior welfare living in is unrealistic and doesn’t work in other colleges. Welfare aren’t parents. I don’t think they should have the option.

JC: Should I write a motion about the order of the exec in order of preference for parsons and bailey?

Everyone: Yes.

ACTION POINT: JC to write this list (to be approved by the exec) and then following motion.




Do we want an Alumni Officer?

EC: So, due to the operations review, we have no alumni officer?

AK: Exactly. We could create a position?

Ell: Someone on the exec?

AK: I don’t think it should be on the exec so it’s not a lot to do.

SM: Comms could just oversee it like they oversee webmaster.

EC: But doesn’t HLE have a whole job?

AK: He does development as well.

SM: All I do overseeing the webmaster is asking OW if he is okay and then leaving them to it. I could oversee something else.

AK: WN wants a families officer.

EC: I’ve heard other people want that.

AK: That would mean comms wasn’t such a big role in first term.

SM: I’ll have a think about what made first term so bad, but that would help make freshers’ week less stressful.

AK: There is merit to having alumni officer as an exec.

JG: Could we lump it on the FCO?

AK: Yeah, for some of the first year for sure because the Trustees are holding back on what the FCO can do.

JC: We should still have someone dedicated to it. I personally don’t think they should be on the exec because it’s not specifically JCR exec.

AK: One difficulty will be GDPR and whether college could give us information?

JG: Would the FCO have more scope with that?

ACTION POINT: AK to talk to college about what an Alumni officer would be able to do with this position.

SM: It was hard enough to get a list of freshers’ for college families.

JC: It might be possible for the JCR to nominate someone who then volunteers for college.


Library Gossip

EB: There might be some changes to library things in the distant future that might benefit students [paraphrased].

AK: I don’t think EB understands the idea of gossip.

ACTION POINT: Everyone to send in their Exec reports.



Further points loosely discussed include:

WN comes in and finds college have thrown out a cupboard with his stuff in.

CCTV would be best for the music room rather than key cards.

If 4 people go to the gym and 2 people leave then there are 2 people in there – JG
CCTV would work. It’s a deterrent.