Oriel JCR is reviewing their constitution after the results of their referendum on OUSU affiliation were disputed and a number of constitutional issues raised.
In a referendum that was held in eighth week of Michaelmas term, 76 out of 125 voters were in favour of disaffiliating from OUSU, with 37 against and 12 abstaining. However, with only 60.8 per cent of the vote, the motion did not achieve the two-thirds majority necessary and was pronounced to have failed.
This week, concerns have been raised about how the abstentions were counted after students discovered that there has been an issue with the referendum results.
Reasons to disaffiliate which were put forward by the proposition include the observation that OUSU costs are disproportionate to its effects on student life, and Oriel JCR’s belief that OUSU does not adequately represent JCRs or student views. What worries many students is also that, since it is no longer financially accountable to the colleges, OUSU has had these issues for many years and has shown no signs of improvement. As such, Oriel students feel a review of the failed motion is necessary.
As the Oriel JCR President and Vice President jointly stated, “There were procedural issues stemming from a lack of concrete guidance in the JCR constitution, from which we are keen to move on in a constructive manner. In order to do so the JCR has asked an independent adjudicator to review the referendum and provide suggestions, which the JCR has agreed to accept as binding.”
The motion to bring in an independent adjudicator was passed through the JCR on Sunday, not without some controversy.
One third year criticized the idea, stating, “The JCR committee are basically just removing themselves from blame which isn’t what they are voted in to do. They were chosen to make decisions on behalf of students, not to off-load them onto members of college who don’t particularly care about the intricacies of student life.”
Members present at the JCR meeting raised concerns about deciding pre-emptively if the external adjudicator’s decision would be binding.
The independent adjudicator, identified to Cherwell only as a fellow at Oriel, will pull together an independent report. This will “look into the procedural issues surrounding the referendum with a view to providing formal recommendations“. Depending on the results of the report, it is still possible that Oriel JCR could have another referendum on their OUSU affiliation.
Oriel JCR has also passed a separate motion requiring the Vice President to formally review the constitution with the help of a focus group comprised of JCR-approved individuals. The recommendations put forward by the focus group would then be voted on by the JCR. This safety check is designed to “highlight any issues and oversights in the JCR constitution”.
Generally, the JCR welcomed this extra step for constitutional revision, with only three individuals voting against it. As a medic present at the meeting commented, “If our constitution cannot tell us what to do in the case of a referendum, then no doubt it is missing vital information in other areas as well.”
An undergraduate who seconded the original motion to have a referendum remains convinced that Oriel JCR should disaffiliate. They stated, “It’s an unspoken fact that we all know OUSU is dominated by certain political cliques who use petty factional politics to further their own ends. I’m surprised they think they’re fooling anyone when these people claim its legitimate democracy, or that we can change anything from participation, as you will just be shot down. They can do this all they want, but not in our JCR’s name.”
However, some questioned whether the original frustrations with OUSU had lost their focus and momentum. “A minor issue in the voting system has been blown out of proportion and the easiest option would simply be to re-run the referendum,” one first year commented.
OUSU President, Tom Rutland, was quick to point out that even if Oriel chooses to break links with OUSU, individual students remain affiliated with OUSU regardless of their JCR or MCR’s affiliation status.
“The common room affiliation model is largely outdated, and is a leftover of the age where OUSU was funded primarily by common room affiliation fees. These days, disaffiliation only results in that common room losing their votes at OUSU Council – thus silencing their members,” Rutland said.
“Given that OUSU Council’s voting membership is almost entirely made up of JCR and MCR representatives, the best way to effect a change in policy is to stay affiliated and have your members’ voices count at OUSU Council.”
Trinity is currently the only college disaffiliated from OUSU. Stuart Sander, JCR President at Trinity commented, “Trinity disaffiliated in 2007, during a period which saw a spate of OUSU disaffiliations. Following funding reforms which meant that OUSU affiliation did not directly cost JCRs money most of the disaffiliated colleges trickled back, so for the last few years Trinity has been the only disaffiliated JCR.
“By convention we hold a referendum each year on whether to re-affiliate and students have always voted against such a move. Last year the referendum took place in Trinity term and the result was 66% wanting to stay disaffiliated and 34% voting for re-affiliation, indicating that Trinity is happy with its disaffiliated status, which is a matter for the students to determine.”
