In EM’s flat because the conference room is booked, although EM isn’t present. SWC has made herself at home behind the desk.
Present: JC (Vice-President), KB (JRO), WE (Stool), SP (SRO), SG (JRO), BT (JRO), SWC (Chair)
Apologies: EM (President)
Method III Election Rules Motion
SWC: The changes are appearing in believes not orders. And nothing is repealed.
SP: I have an updated version with a repeals section.
SWC: The other comment is the flow of the 1.3 section. I’m happy to rewrite that.
SWC: It seems weird to create a facebook event for it. When people will have specific slots to show up.
SP: If it’s an event then people get notifications, and people get used to them.
SWC: I’m not sure it works for interviews.
JC: In my head the event was for applying and the time of the event was the deadline, rather than being for the interviews themselves.
WE: If people don’t show up to interviews that’s slightly self-selecting.
SWC: We could just post about application deadlines.
KB: When applying for jobs, the company might post to remind people they only have a few days left.
SP: Maybe we should split it so that it’s still shared by the elections page. That increases reach. Let’s change it to a post that advertises the deadlines.
SWC: Also please put which order this is going in.
PhD Levy Motion
Election Questions Motion
SWC: We need to work out where in the orders this will go. Meetings of the JCR order is mainly about my section of meetings. There’s not much about election procedure. So let’s make a section for that.
Campaign Videos Motion
SWC: We should discuss whether or not this is appropriate. It’s within our jurisdiction to present an opinion.
WE: I would be inclined to say it’s a good thing. The method in which candidates run is quite monotonous. A video gives a candidate a chance to showcase a different side to themselves. If we’re limiting campaigning and how people can access candidate’s profiles, this would provide more information.
BT: I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea, because some people might not be very comfortable appearing in a video. The capability to make a good video is also important.
KB: Not everyone can edit or has friends that can edit. Campaigning already takes a long time.
SWC: Although this is optional, people will feel pressured to do it.
SP: Candidates are trying to find more unique ways to stand out. So some of them move towards cringey memes. But I think that’s less informational than a video could be. It would also increase engagement. Graphic designing skills on the manifesto already matter. There are multiple different ways to do a video, and people hust already. It’s a different creative outlet that can get information across. You already need specific skills to run.
WE: It’s very valid to say that people aren’t comfortable doing it. But if you want people to vote for you, being someone who people want to engage with is an important skill. And people should be able to showcase that. Our format doesn’t allow voters to engage with candidates.
SWC: Husts are already filmed and posted on facebook.
WE: A hust is already very confined.
SP: It’s tough campaigning. It takes a lot of time. But a lot of time is spent trying to reach people through limited channels.
SWC: A lot of the recent moves we’ve had. RJ’s motion about changing campaigning period was aimed at reducing election spam. Arguably this could be considered as exciting and new, or as a new way of spamming people.
WE: If people feel like it’s spam, that’s a broader campaign issue.
SWC: I’m concerned that this isn’t an accessible method of campaign. If people don’t have their own computer or the right software, they’ll really struggle. I’d prefer it to be more restricted, and allow candidates to be filmed by gov comm. But then that’s basically just posting their hust. If gov comm is split, I think it should go to a JCR meeting.
SP: This is a way more comprehensive method. It combines lots of things that people already do. It might engage voters in a more funny way.
WE: Do we know how long people watch hust videos for? It would be interesting to see.
SWC: My main concern is the pressure that this will put on people to do this.
KB: I second that.
SWC: Everyone experiences pressure at different points, but while running for big positions, people will feel pressure to do it but might not have time. I think people will still do other things.
SP: I think this is an issue with campaigning in general.
SWC: People can already do more than just post a manifesto and poster.
SP: In my time as SRO, no one has asked me about doing additional campaigning methods.
*3 Votes in favour of going to the meeting, 4 against. So we decide to send it to the meeting.*
SWC: This is trying to clear up how it works. Originally there was a motion to do it for Summer ball. It’s been done since but it’s not in the orders. So this is aimed at clarifying.
JC: I disagree with the notes that it’s unclear. Also can the last line please be rewritten as a coherent sentence?
*No further comments*
Welfare Campaigns Team Motion
WE: SMALL GOVERNMENT, SMALL GOVERNMENT
SWC: There’s now only one campaigns manager. This is a reflection of that, as well as this year’s experience.
JC: The mandates section isn’t very clear about what will be protected, who will have accounts etc.
JRG (Male Welfare)
SP: A week ago JG emailed me wanting to run for male welfare. I sent him all the deadlines. On the day of deadline, he didn’t send anything or any comment, so I assumed he’d decided not to run. At 5.30pm the next day, I created the group chat for candidates. So the list of candidates became open knowledge. Then at 6.15, JG sent his manifesto and summary. 23 hours late. Initially he offered no explanation. When I asked him about why it was late, he said that he had sent the email earlier, but it must have bounced. I asked him for evidence, to which he said that his laptop automatically deletes things after 2 days. He’s arguing that we should take into account that he’s happy to be sanctioned. He mentioned that we have given candidates leeway in the past, and it would unfair to stop him running. He says that it should count in his favour that he emailed a week in advance.
WE: I’d be inclined to have him bring his computer and show the edit history.
SWC: I don’t think we’re the police and that’s quite intimidating. If people offer excuses that we can’t disprove, I’m inclined to accept them. We’re running a JCR. We have no evidence to suggest that he’s lying. We need to first establish if he should be allowed to run.
SP: We have precedent. When I ran for SRO, I left a gov comm meeting before it was announced that it was uncontested, then applied later. The president said that I might have heard and that was why I was running. So they said I wasn’t allowed to run that time and had to run in the next round.
SWC: The difference here is that he claims he did send it before the deadline. I would be inclined to allow him to run. If he admitted he was just late then it would be different.
SP: But why didn’t he say that the first time. When he sent me the manifesto he acted as if it was the first time he sent it. Not “I sent this but haven’t heard back”.
SWC: I don’t think that’s good enough evidence.
WE: We’re not denying him the position by making him run next time. He could still run for it because there are no candidates this time. So it would level the playing field.
SWC: If he sent it on Wednesday, then that’s that. I want to fall on the side of believing students. If we rerun it again, it’s not necessarily a level playing field.
JC: I think that if we just believe every excuse no matter the impact or how believable it is then it starts to devalue the rules. If people know that they can bend the rules and then give us an excuse then they’ll start to do it more. In this instance, it was late enough that it could have been impacted by people finding out who was running. And the excuse isn’t particularly believable. In the past there has been leeway for people who are a few hours late, but I think there should be a hard limit on that after the candidates have been told who else is running.
WE: I have very little sympathy for missing deadlines.
SWC: There’s no way to prove it either way.
WE: Do we view it as the proof being that he said he sent it, or that we didn’t receive it?
SWC: If we allow him to run, we’re acknowledging that he sent it in on Wednesday, in which case why would we sanction him? I think it’s all or nothing.
SG: I was inclined to originally say heavily sanction him, but not after that comment. I think it would have been different if he’d done it before the group chat was made. I’m inclined to not let him run because his email wasn’t indicative of someone that had already sent it.
WE: If this was me, I’d be very confused by and be asking about why I hadn’t been entered.
BT: I agree with what SG just said. I don’t find it convincing at all. How often do emails bounce? I think especially as it’s uncontested he shouldn’t be allowed to run.
SWC: He’s emailed you a few other times and they didn’t bounce right?
SP: Yes. The one thing I still think is that I don’t think it’s all or nothing. We can acknowledge that we don’t know.
WE: I think that makes us look too wishy washy. If we’re going to say that we believe him, we should believe him.
SWC: I’m fine with whatever conclusion we come to as long as we can justify it. I’m fine with saying that we don’t have evidence for him having sent the email, or that we believe him, but I’m much less comfortable saying we’re not sure so he can run with sanctions.
WE: Let’s discussion sanctions after the vote on whether he’s allowed to run. The key thing for is his timing in relation to the creation of the group chat.
*EM calls in*
EM: I think that we don’t have the proof that he’s lying so we should believe him. But I support the idea that if we do believe him then he shouldn’t have sanctions.
* 3 votes in favour of letting him run, 4 against*
*EM hangs up without saying bye*
MR (Communities Officer)
SWC: My only issue is the budget point. Comms comm will have a budget anyway. I think he needs to amend that or remove it. He could say what he’ll use it for.
ES (Senior Welfare)
SWC: Welfare freps have been under discussion for a long time. Maybe she should talk about reopening discussion. There are wider discussions about how welfare works in Cuth’s and in Freshers’ Week.
SP: The question we should ask is whether they would have the power to do this if elected?
SWC: No. It’s a substantial change to a system that senior welfare isn’t in charge of. So I don’t think she can promise to do it.
KS (Senior Welfare)
HB (Female Welfare)
EBM (Female Welfare)
SP: How much is the subscription? Would we be able to afford it?
BT: It wouldn’t be too much. We subscribe to journals.
*JC goes to omgyes.com*
*No further issues*
JMG (Female Welfare)
EO (Female Welfare)
SWC: What does she mean by act during strikes? I think she should clarify.
SWC: What does Cuth’s event host mean?
JC: I don’t understand what he means by the IntoUniversity section, or whether he could do it.
SWC: I think he means he’ll see what we be can done to contribute to access schemes.
SP: What does tandem language partners mean?
SWC: I’m unsure about the dedicated budget bit, and so is EM.
EM: He’s not the longest serving student trustee.
SP: He sent this at 3.11 am, saying that his poster and manifesto were the same document, and that he wasn’t sure which deadline to go on. When this has been done before, people have used the earlier deadline.
SWC: I think that’s a late submission and should be sanctioned.
SP: Normally we restrict campaign hours for something like this. We could also restrict campaign team members. This is late submission not pre-hiring. I think as it was 8 hours late, we should restrict him for something appropriate to that.
SWC: His excuse isn’t very viable. I think around 11 makes sense.
*Agreement that he’ll be restricted on campaigning until 10am*
IC (Music Rep)
*No issues with the manifesto*
SP: This was also a late submission.
SWC: When I posted I told people to read the election rules and contact SP. I get the impression from so many people that they don’t bother reading the rules and that’s a big problem. Most people here can read relatively fluently, and the rules are there. If it’s because he didn’t read the rules, that’s his fault.
SP: He submitted it at 4.30 am.
*Agreement that he should be restricted to an hour later than DT, and not campaign until 11am.*
TB (Sports and Socs)
WE: Poland is just sad Czech Republic.