In the conerence room on a sunny afternoon. There’s a cardboard train track in the middle of the table.

Present: EM (President), JC (Vice-President), SW (Chair), SG (JRO), SP (SRO), RSD (Student Trustee)

Apologies: WE (Stool), KB (JRO)


Year Abroad and Placement Committee Members Motion

JC: Need to specify where it will be ordered, terms of office and election time, and possibly update to include people about to go on a year out if they’ll be elected in Easter term. Terms of office might be automatically specified.

SW: It’s from success of application until 30th June, so she’ll need to edit that if she wants to select in Easter Term.

Joint Campaigns or Slates Motion

SW: If it’s controversial we’ll run a procedural motion to split it and discuss joint campaigns and slates separately. A joint campaign is multiple people running for a position together. A slate is two candidates for different positions officially with one campaign.

SP: Supporting each other will still be fine but the campaigns need to be distinct.

Motion to Support Strike Action

*RSD enters to discuss trustee view on this*

RSD: Trustees have been reviewing this. There’s been debate about this. Our main concerns lie in that we’re not certain if this is allowed in that it doesn’t inherently support our members. It’s possible that ramifications of this strike action wouldn’t help members of the JCR. We’re also unsure how it fits into our charitable aims. There are also concerns around the language. It’s aggressive and lacks supporting documentation. Some members of the board were supportive as it’s a pertinent issue. Current consensus is that while it’s important that members can show solidarity, it wouldn’t be tenable with our aims and objectives to support it as a CIO. But we can support members in engaging with it, such as with an open letter. But the charity itself can’t support the strike action. This hasn’t been voted on yet by the trustees.

SW: I think there is a case to be made that it is a part of the charitable aims. The most relevant one is that the JCR is a representative student society. If students vote on it then it is right to represent that view. In terms of how political it is, it’s not affiliated to any political party. We could ask CG to amend the wording.

EM: I agree it’s poorly written, but I’m annoyed that no one has pointed to specific issues with wording. I’ve spoken to CM (former President) about a previous attempt at such a motion. But CM was worried that turnout at the meeting would mean the vote wouldn’t be representative of the views of the JCR. I think that’s rowlocks. Come along if you care. I think we should run the motion, and if trustees choose to veto it and prevent action then they can after students have had a chance to say what they think.

SW: Charities commission is aware that it’s a grey area, as long as we can point to a charitable I think it’s fine.

RSD: My issue is mandating publicising why students should support staff. It’s one thing for us to have a position and state it, but it’s another to say that members should support it.

EM: I have no issue with that being changed.

RSD: I think that’s also SB’s (chair of trustees) issue. Showing solidarity and making a statement as a common room is fine, but saying why students should support it is a step further.

Action: SW to ask CG to remove the further action and act of malice bits and moderate her language.

RSD: Maybe also note that this will affect members. Because that’s why it’s important. Writing a letter is probably fine, as long as it’s JCR members. Not the JCR itself. Informing students of reasons why staff are striking is fine, as is why we’re choosing to support it, as long as we don’t tell people what we want them to think. Remove mandates section. Then it becomes communicating views of JCR members. Should be circulated today.

Action: Amended motion to be circulated to trustees in next few hours, JC to publish agenda for this meeting as soon as possible.

*RSD leaves*

Ethnic Minority Rep Motion

SW: I think WCS was missing from that clause in the original, I’ll try to get it back in. In the notes he can change “myself” to current PoC rep.

Sports and Soc Elections Motion

JC: 10 days is excessive.

SP: 7 days?


JC: publishing 40 S&S on JCR elections will be very difficult.

EM: I disagree.

JC: Can we remove it from Team Cuth’s then?


EM: Maybe one big post of when they’ll be.

JC: People won’t know far enough in advance for a single post.

SW: Could do it as a google doc with a shared link.

*There will be one large post early in term*

JC: I don’t like anyone being allowed to vote for free societies.

EM: Clubs should have registers.

SP: We need to draw a line. I think one event is sufficient.

EM: Imagine if someone nasty ran to be president of a society, the society liked them but other people showed up because they didn’t like them and stopped them from being elected.

EM: Let’s say people have to have attended at least one session.

JC: Request New Candidates and RON aren’t the same.

EM: Also only people who have been to at least one session should be allowed to run for positions.

EM: 1 session ever in their University career.

JC: Hust length should be maximum length is minimum 1 minute, not minimum hust time 1 minute.

EM: May be backlash over but I agree with it. Our charitable aims are to provide these opportunities for people in Cuth’s, not across the University.

SW: This year Big Band picked a drummer from another college.

EM: Picking voices and instruments is fine if it can be justified, but an exec member shouldn’t be based on that. Those should go to a Cuth’s person first because those are the opportunities we should be providing.

SW: I understand that, but what if the Cuth’s person who runs is really bad?

EM: I’d be happy to allow the second election to be open to anyone. But I’m concerned that a Cuth’s society might not be very Cuthsy. We don’t know how a certain society works because their exec aren’t Cuth’s. They don’t understand how we function because there aren’t enough influential Cuth’s people in the society.

SP: It’s important to be able to hold societies to account.

SW: I think there are other things that should be done then. The S&S chair needs to be more on top of this.

EM: Having a good sound isn’t in our charitable aims, it’s about providing opportunities. Being exec is very different to being a member.

SP: Being on the exec uses other talents.

SW: I want to prioritise Cuthspeople but I don’t want to harm how our societies run.

EM: How would we feel if someone wanted to run for JCR president, but someone from another college went for it because they had more experience? We’d want the Cuthsperson.

SP: We exist for Cuth’s students.

EM: If a society follows the procedure with no intention of anyone running in the first meeting, that’s fine as long as people have the opportunity to run.

SW: it’s very indiscriminate. When we let people into JCR societies, it needs to be justified. But here no one can.

EM: If a society is really opposed to this they can work around it.

SW: If we’re going to do this, we need to enforce our rules.

EM: We probably need to enforce them as gov comm rather than relying on the S&S chair.

EM: Does this explicitly apply to all sports and societies? It should be specified.

ES Manifesto

*All fine, once everything that’s required is included*