text: SP is over half an hour late, and RSD had to be called to wake him up from a nap.
  Present: EM (President), JC (Vice-President), BT (JRO), WE (Stool), KB (JRO), SG (JRO), SP (SRO)
  Beef Ban Motion
  WE: It says that Durham Students support the ban – is that a majority?
  BT: Probably not but a majority of the people that responded.
  EM: Maybe it should clarify who should write the letter?
  *WE tells a cow story*
  Communications Officer and Local Students Motion
  EM: Why is the rep on SU comm but not communities comm?
  JC: Communities comm doesn’t exist.
  KB: It seems fine, it’s just an amendment of her position to how she’s done it this year.
  Amended VONC Motion
  JC: it doesn’t currently cover Method III positions.
  SP: There are two routes. We could have it done by voting within the committee, or as a method II vote.
  EM: If there’s one person on outreach comm who’s not contributing, there would then be a vote among the other 6.
  SP: It could be done by secret ballot, but I think it would be better to do it in a JCR meeting. Within a committee is a small number of people to vote, and the candidate will still know the numbers.
  WE: Do we trust the JCR to make these decisions?
  SP: We already do.
  *Agreement that Method III position VonCs will voted on via Method II*
  SP: There’s also the issue of Method IV VonCs. I think it’s best to have a joke VonC for a joke position.
  Joke Motion Motion
  JC: I think for something that’s affecting JCR procedure we should vote on orders not intent. So we should rewrite this as changes to orders, and see if she’s alright with that.
  Action: EM to rewrite motion more legally.
  EM: I don’t like the inconsistency in full stops.
  Communities Officer Motion
  SP: CG submitted her manifesto at 8pm instead of 7.30. The excuse she gave was “pretty serious family stuff”.
  WE: 30 minutes isn’t a big deal. Especially as it’s serious family issues.
  *Agreement to not penalise for this*
  SP: There is a screenshot showing pre-campaigning for MP by more than 72 hours, and joke bribery. The person who has done this is a fresher. If this is the extent of the violation I recommend banning her from campaigning. If she’s on MP’s campaign team and not proposing or seconding then MP has violated the rules by recruiting a team before he’s allowed to. It’s important to know whether or not it was MP who broke the rules.
  WE: So if she’s a proposer or seconder then it’s only her that’s broken the rules but not him?
  EM: Yes, and it’s a possible honest mistake in not communicating the rules.
  SP: So if that’s the case the sanction should be lighter.
  WE: I think the main thing to take issue with is the act of campaigning and not the following discussion of bribery. But the “rewards to be offered” is an issue.
  EM: Even though we know these people are joking, there are a lot of people in this chat and this is bribery. Out of this we do need to explain to people who aren’t on campaign teams that they’re not allowed to campaign if they’re not on a team. A lot of people don’t know.
  SP: We should discuss this on the facebook page when we know the full information.
  Action: SP to post on the facebook groups tonight about not campaigning unless the person is on the campaign team.
  SP: There is an additional complaint about MP. MR was supposed to propose CG. He dropped out from this role because MP is also his friend. But this could be MP approaching campaign team members early as well.
  EM: Conceivably, CG asked MR in sufficient time, and then later MP asked MR to propose or second him.
  SP: There was 2 days between the events. We can’t be as sure of what this was, but I’d like to know if he was pre-campaigned to.
  Action: SP to share campaign advise for candidates with gov comm.
  WE: I think we should wait and react once we’ve seen the full extent of the issue.
  EM: There’s a lot of name dropping
  SP: We should tell him to stick to positions.
  EM: Should he say what society he founded?
  JC: I don’t think it’s necessary for him to tell the full truth as long as he doesn’t lie.
  JC: He knows free frep jumpers have nothing to do with him, but is he allowed to say he’ll lobby?
  SP: He can lobby.
  JC: I don’t understand what he’s saying about images appearing in feeds or whether he can.
  SP: I’ll ask him to clarify.
  SP: Is the year in review a VP job and not one for communications?
  JC: it would be fine for either.
  SP: Is it possible to get a printed handbook with fold out pages?
  JC: It’s possible but might be expensive.
  EM: We need clarification on whether she actually means fold out pages.
  Action: SP to ask for clarification on “big pages”.
  SP: Is the participation fund usually fully used?
  EM: This year we gave everything that was asked for Cuth’s activities but less than half for DU sports.
  SP: Is the new building public knowledge yet?
  EM: No, it’s gone back to UEC.
  SP: I’ll ask that she amends it to “likelihood of a new building”
  EM: I talk constantly with the SU anyway. Her statement about dialogue with the SU is pretty empty but it’s not untrue. I’d like clarification on what’s meant by “seek to enter into dialogue with the SU”. It’s part of the job to communicate with the SU. I’m concerned she’s misunderstood the relationship between president and SU.
  JC: I’d like clarification on improving reclaims system.
  SP: I think she just wants to make it more user friendly.
  JC: Has anyone checked the numbers on halving the Cuth’s day tickets?
  JC: Halving Cuth’s day ticket prices would cost £11,000, and this year we’re only expecting a surplus of £6k.
  EM: She shouldn’t just say half them, she should talk about reducing and how. Possibly using cuts elsewhere.
  Action: JC to discuss this with MW.
  SP: No exec shirts or bar staff shirts while husting.
  SP: SWC reading her own exec report?
  EM: It should be read by whoever’s chairing.
  SP: And other exec members who are running.
  SP: Last year campaign team members all had to consent to being on the team having read the manifestos. There are two ways to do it. One is via private conversation, the other is to create a group chat with all members and the SRO and ask people to respond.
  EM: I think we should avoid the peer pressure of the group chat. It should all be done privately.
  SP: Should we rule that we only accept private conversations (with screenshots)?