Clubs registered with or looking to register with the University are being required to amend their constitutions to meet new University regulations. The new rules came into effect in October 2013, however, clubs that were already registered with the University were granted an academic year’s grace before they had to conform to the regulations.

Clubs run by Oxford University students, which are open to students from various colleges are eligible to apply to register with the University Proctors.

The Proctors’ Office acts as the administrative hub for the Senior Proctor, Junior Proctor and Assessor, who are elected by colleges annually. The Senior Proctor and Junior Proctor have responsibility for ensuring that the University, including clubs affiliated with it, operate according to its statutes.

Clubs not registered with the University are forbidden from using ‘Oxford University’ in their names or to use the University’s coat of arms. After a club has been registered with the Proctors for at least two complete terms, it is then eligible to apply for special permission from the Vice-Chancellor to use the University’s name and arms.

Registration enables clubs to receive support from the University Clubs Committee, which is chaired by the Assessor. Support offered by the committee includes discounted access to insurance cover, minibus hire and photocopying. The committee also gives small start-up awards of up to £200 to new clubs.

However, some clubs have been unhappy about some parts of the new pro forma constitution that incoming regulations require affiliated societies to conform to, except in cases where the Proctors’ office has approved any deviations.

The pro forma constitution of non-sports clubs requires clubs to ensure that at all times the activities of the club in question are conducted in accordance with University policies and codes of practice, which includes its Integrated Equality Policy, Code of Practice on Harassment and Bullying, and Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech.

Other requirements include that every member of a club’s committee and every officer of a club are “entitled to be indemnified by the club against all costs, charges, losses, expenses and liabilities incurred by him or her in the execution or discharge of his or her duties or the exercise of his or her powers, or otherwise properly in relation to or in connection with his or her duties.”

The pro forma constitution also states that a club “may be dissolved at any time by the approving votes of two-thirds of those present in person or by proxy at a General Meeting.” A club may also be dissolved, without the need for any resolution of the members, on not less than thirty days advance notice from the Proctors to the Secretary of the Club, or if at any time the Club ceases to be registered with the Proctors.

In addition, under the rules, if a club is being dissolved, its assets are required not to be automatically distributed amongst the members, but paid to or at the direction of the University.

President of Oxford Scandinavian Society Erik Hammar commented, “The Oxford Scandinavian Society initiated the process of registering with the University some time ago. However, we were informed that it had since recently become a requirement that all clubs bring their constitutions in line with a standard version. My committee and I were surprised by this reply. The specimen constitution is extremely detailed, attempting to govern the fine details of the club’s administration. More importantly, however, it grants final interpretative powers to the proctors, and further it demands that the club’s assets must be “paid to or at the direction of the University” in the case of dissolution. In the light of these highly questionable clauses, we have halted our registration process and are currently discussing how to proceed.”

A spokesperson for the University commented, “Clubs registered with the Proctors are required to follow the rules laid out in the constitution. This is the implementation of a decision of the Rules Committee which took effect from October 2013 with an academic year’s grace period for existing clubs. The Proctors’ Office is happy to advise individual clubs on specific issues as necessary and to listen to feedback on the constitution. A review of the general oversight of clubs has been agreed and will commence shortly.”

A University committee has recommended that the Oxford University Council approve a paper calling for the implementation of the Living Wage for all staff in University central buildings and departments. The paper was discussed by the University’s Planning, Resources and Allocation Committee on Tuesday 27th May. The committee has now agreed to recommend that the University should support the principle of paying the Living Wage, on the understanding that it should seek accreditation by May 2015.

The Oxford Living Wage Campaign had campaigned for members of the Committee to support the paper. The campaign also held an event outside the meeting, offering cookies to members of the committee and information about the Living Wage.

To become eligible for Living Wage accreditation the University would have to commit to paying the Living Wage to all staff in central buildings and departments. The value of the Living Wage is set every year by the Living Wage Foundation.

The recommendation by the Planning, Resources and Allocation Committee follows a similar recommendation made in Hilary term by the University’s Personnel Committee.

The University Council will now reach a decision on whether to adopt the measure, prior to the beginning of Michaelmas term 2014.

Andrew Grey, Chair of the Oxford Living Wage Campaign stated, “I am delighted that two senior university committees have agreed that it is both right and feasible for the University of Oxford to accredit as a Living Wage employer. If approved by the University Council, this decision will impact the lives of hundreds of staff, and sends a clear message that the University values all of its staff.”

Daniel Tomlinson, OUSU Vice-President for Charities and Community said “The University is now taking the idea of paying a Living Wage to all of its staff really seriously and I’m really happy that this penultimate committee is recommending that the University of Oxford should become a Living Wage employer.

“This has been a long time coming, but hopefully by the end of next year (if University Council agrees with the recommendation) there will be no staff in the central University paid less than the Living Wage and the University will have made a public commitment to fair pay that will stand for many years to come.

“The focus now must return to the colleges, many of whom are paying a Living Wage but not taking the positive step of accrediting as Living Wage employers. The Living Wage Campaign began in colleges and it will now be going back to where it all began. I encourage students who want their college to accredit to get in touch. We have now built up a network of favourable University staff who we would love to put interested students in contact with.

“There is certainly more to do but the decision today is the biggest step in the right direction this campaign has seen since it formed over 6 years ago”

A University spokesperson commented, “The Personnel Committee and the Planning and Resources Allocation Committee recognise the potential advantages of a commitment to the Living Wage, but further work will be needed to explore the implications of accreditation before Council can make a final decision.”

Students have organised a 27 hour demonstration, to raise awareness about the 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide.

JustLove, a Christian student group, took turns to stand in central Oxford last weekend to encourage people to demand that clothing and food supplies be free of trafficking. Over 1,000 people signed two petitions, one calling for an end to trafficking, and another calling for the United Nations’s 2015 Development Goals to focus on reinforcing public justice systems.

The event, entitled ‘Stand for Freedom’, was originally suggested by the charity International Justice Mission.

Hannah Coate, a student at Jesus College, organised the 27 hour protest. She said, “The idea of Stand For Freedom came from the charity International Justice Mission who send lawyers, investigators and after-care professionals to countries all around the world who then work with local police forces and lawyers to rescue victims of trafficking and prosecute traffickers.”

She continued, “We thought that by taking it in turns to stand in the centre of Oxford for 27 hours over a busy weekend, we would be able to draw attention to the problem of trafficking and encourage people to demand that clothing and food supply chains be free from trafficking.”

Coate commented that the event was success. “We were also able to talk to people who had never heard of human trafficking and who were shocked to hear the statistics and about the extent of trafficking in seafood and cotton industries especially.”

JustLove’s campaign will continue in Michaelmas, when students will be called to engage with the Modern Slavery Bill, which is currently being debated in the Commons.

OUSU has voted unanimously to back the student union’s budget for the academic year 2014-15. The motion for OUSU Council to recommend the budget was proposed by OUSU President Tom Rutland and seconded by St Anne’s JCR President Christina Toenshoff. Council asked several questions about the budget to OUSU President Tom Rutland, before it was passed without opposition.

The budget was compiled by the interim Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the OUSU President and Vice-Presidents, as well as other OUSU trustees.

Prior to being put before OUSU Council the draft budget was also approved by the Budget Sub-Committee of the Finance Committee of the OUSU Trustee Board.

The budget for OUSU in 2014/15 will be £648,191, with OUSU’s subsidiary Oxford Student Services Limited (OSSL) possessing a budget of £277,470 for 2014/15, making a total of £925,661.

Spending on the OUSU website is set to double from £10,000 in the 2013/14 budget to £20,000 in 2014/1, while the amount allotted to publicity and marketing shall increase from £2,000 to £10,000.

OUSU campaigns will get a £100 increase in their budgets, including two new campaigns ‘It Happens Here’ and ‘On Your Doorstep’.

Other budget items include £1,000 allocated to stationery; £2,000 allocated to office supplies and £2,000 allocated to telephone costs.

OUSU President Tom Rutland commented, “I’m very pleased that Council voted to recommend OUSU’s biggest budget ever yesterday. We’ve channelled more funding into the services student need the most – better academic representation and a Student Advice Service that can see more students more quickly – as well as increasing spending on our communication, which has been a longstanding issue for OUSU. I made increasing our block grant from the University the cornerstone of my manifesto when I ran back in Michaelmas 2012, so I’m glad I’ve been able to deliver that.”

The Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) has passed a constitutional amendment introducing gender-balanced electoral colleges that allocate 50% of the voting power in executive elections to people who do not self-identify as men.

In Termly General Meetings, when the executive committee is elected, voters are now divided into two electoral colleges: those who self-identify as men and those who do not.

Each electoral college receives equal weight when voting. Anna Coombes, Women’s Officer Elect for OULC, said, “The motion passed with considerable support, with only one vote in opposition and two abstentions. The main concern raised at the meeting was concerning one person, one vote.

“However, the policy does not act to remove this, as each voter still casts only one vote. The idea of the policy is that the women’s voice within the group carries the same weight as the men’s. This does indeed mean giving women an advantage, but we (women in attendance of the Women’s Working Group where the motion was first discussed) felt that such action was necessary in order to address the considerable imbalance that currently prevails within the club.

“Considering that women make up over half of OULC’s membership it is undemocratic and unacceptable that women consistently make up such a small proportion of the executive.

“Looking at this, there is no doubt that there is a problem of womens’ turnout within OULC. This is not due to a lack of trying; the motion was proposed as a last resort after many other initiatives have been tried.”

Representation of women on the OULC executive committee averages at below 20%. In Hilary Term a Women’s Working Group was set up in order to devise measures to tackle the low levels of participation and representation of women in OULC. One student pointed out that, judging by past turnout to Termly General Meetings, women could have 5 times the voting power of the men present.

The motion was also criticised for giving women an unfair advantage in the democratic process. Alastair Holder-Ross, a member of the OULC, said, “I think it’s incredibly important to promote women’s roles within the club and support Helena Dollimore especially in all she has done to that end. However, I think sacrificing fundamental democratic principles is not the best way to serve the cause of gender equality. The amendment does not deal with the causes of the gender imbalance within the club, even if its intentions are noble.”

Rebecca Grant, OULC Women’s Officer who proposed the motion, said, “It does indeed give women a disproportionate advantage – this is the aim of the motion. The turnout of women is a sustained and serious problem which needs to be tackled. One of the best things about the motion is that it adapts as its aims are fulfilled; if more women are encouraged to attend meetings, the relative weight of each vote will go down.

“We have to remember that men have always had, and continue to have, a ‘disproportionate advantage’, and positive and decisive action is needed to redress the balance. It seems odd to be worried about privileging women when women make up less than 20% of the Labour club executive, on average.”

The amendment was passed in a Constitutional Convention on the 6th constitution. OULC were required to reform their constitution after a decision was made by the University Proctors to set a standard for all university-affiliated societies. This raised concerns about how the amendment was to be repealed and whether it needed to be passed on two separate occasions.

Other criticism included the fact that the email detailing the Electoral College motion was sent only 2 1⁄2 hours before the meeting. In response, Grant claimed, “The circulation of the motion prior to the meeting was entirely in line with constitutional requirements. Some other constitutional amendments, such as proxy voting, were introduced and passed at the meeting with no notice at all given beforehand.”

Nick Hilton, a member of the OULC, commented to Cherwell, “Imposing a uniform constitution on Oxford University societies and clubs has worrying implications for their autonomy. The new OULC constitution has been rushed through in order to meet a deadline, mainly so that we can retain the ‘U’ in our name and get a discount on our Fresher’s Fair stall. The proctors are trying to avoid societies embarrassing the University, to which they are affiliated, and, by doing so, control their operations. I think this is a significant and deliberate overreach of their authority.”

A University spokesperson said, “Clubs registered with the Proctors are required to follow the rules laid out in the constitution. This is the implementation of a decision of the Rules Committee which took effect from October 2013 with an academic year’s grace period for existing clubs. The Proctors’ Office is happy to advise individual clubs on specific issues as necessary and to listen to feedback on the constitution. A review of the general oversight of clubs has been agreed and will commence shortly.”

Academics have expressed concern at the revelation that the University has spent £10 million more than originally planned on an IT system which has now been delayed by several years.

A Freedom of Information Request submitted by Cherwell revealed that spending on the Student Systems Programme has been revised to £17.2 million, having originally been set at £6.6 million. The final components of the system, which was commissioned in 2011 and originally scheduled for completion in August 2013, are now due to be delivered in August 2015.

A University spokesperson explained that it was realised in January 2013 that the original schedule was unobtainable, and the resulting increase in budget principally relates to the staff costs of the longer schedule.

Progress reports on the project circulated to staff between 2011 and 2014 allude to the failure to meet the original budget and deadline. However, the reports do not refer explicitly to the extent of the overspend or the rescheduling of the project.

Peter Oppenheimer, Emeritus Fellow of Christ Church College, told Cherwell that the project going over budget was a “clear indication of mismanagement, and a hopeless confusion of objectives”.

He continued, “While the humanities and the social sciences are threatened with budget cuts and the loss of posts, the University has managed a sensational IT overspend in short order. While college administrations work to budget constraints, the University passes on shortages to the likes of the humanities.

“Of course, this is a capital project, not a recurring overspend. However, if every capital project were overspent, the results would be disastrous.”
Likewise, speaking on the condition of anonymity, a senior figure within the University commented, “It is remarkable that a university such as ours has got into such an administrative muddle.

“One can’t be too self-righteous, as all government IT projects go over budget, but they were not realistic about the budget at the outset.”

Madgdalen Fellow Dr John Nightingale, Chair of Oxford’s IT committee, which was set up in 2012 to ensure more effective scrutiny of University IT, acknowledged, “The original budget and associated planning for this project was not up to scratch.”

However, he clarified, “The University has learnt hard lessons from this. The project has been scrutinised very carefully by the key University committees.
“Tough decisions have been taken and there is now real confidence in the leadership team that has been put in place and its ability to deliver the rephased implementation plan.”

Dr Nightingale also pointed out that the revised programme will now also include an admissions system.

There have also been concerns expressed at the fact that no reports had been made to Congregation (the University’s Parliament and sovereign body) on the situation.

Peter Oppenheimer told Cherwell, “The failure to report the blunder to Congregation is not indicative of any particular cover-up, but of Wellington Square [the University’s central administration]’s general lack of deference and respect for Congregation.”

The same anonymous senior University figure similarly remarked, “Congregation simply has no oversight of the administrative division, meaning that Wellington Square is a bit of a mystifying world. There is a very real sense that academics have lost control, and that the administration has become a force in itself.”

However, Dr Nightingale pointed out, “For better or worse Congregation does not take an active role in such matters unless its members request a debate.”

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell, “This new budget is in line with the cost of new systems of this type at other universities. Every university now has such a system; a quick survey of Russell Group peers suggested that if they were embarking on a replacement project it would cost £15-20 million.”

The spokesperson continued, “The new system will support many aspects of teaching and learning and has been developed in close collaboration with academic and administrative staff and students from across the collegiate University.”

The Student Systems Programme is intended to replace the former Oracle Student System, as well as incorporating systems including the online tutorial report system, OxCORT, and the Graduate Supervision System.

Students have reacted with outrage to news that the University has refused to rescind the Sultan of Brunei’s Honorary Doctorate in Law after he revised the country’s laws earlier this year to make same-sex sexual activity punishable by stoning to death.

To be publicly LGBTQ in Brunei was previously punishable by a 10-year prison sentence, but following a number of changes this year, the death penalty has been introduced. Any person who declares him or herself to be a non-Muslim is liable to face the same penalty.

The Sultan, however, currently holds an Honorary Doctorate from the University, and sponsors a fellowship at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS).

Both the University and OCIS have refused to review this situation in the light of this news. A University spokesman told Cherwell, “At present, the University will not be rescinding the Sultan of Brunei’s 1993 Honorary Degree of Civil Law by Diploma. We have no further comment at this time.”

A spokesman for OCIS said, “The fellowship was endowed a number of years ago and all due procedure followed at that time. We do not think it would be appropriate to revisit the matter, or make any further comment.”

OCIS has accepted donations from a range of further controversial figures. Another fellowship is sponsored by Sultan bin Abdulaziz, former Sultan of Saudi Arabia, whose £2 million donation to the Ashmolean Museum in 2005 prompted criticism in national news.

The Sultan of Brunei was condemned by the United Nations when the laws were first passed on April of this year.

Speaking to LGBT news site PinkNews at the time, a spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights remarked, “Application of the death penalty for such a broad range of offenses contravenes international law.”

He added, “Under international law, stoning people to death constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and is thus clearly prohibited.”

International law also prohibits the criminalisation of consensual relations betwen adults in private, which violates the rights to privacy, quality and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

The news of the University’s refusal to reconsider the honour in response to questions from PinkNews prompted swift reaction from students.

An emergency motion was put to OUSU Council on Wednesday, proposed by Dan Templeton, LGBTQ Officer for the student union, mandating the LGBTQ Campaign to write a letter to the relevant authorities, explaining the situation for LGBTQ people in Brunei, and asking the University to clarify the reasons for its decision and to strip the Sultan of his honorary degree.

The motion also mandates the campaign to ask the University to reveal any funding it has received from the Sultan of Brunei. It passed quickly and by unanimous decision.

Dan Templeton told Cherwell, “The current lack of action by the University is highly disappointing and shows a serious lack of regard for LGBTQ students in Oxford. The fact that OUSU passed a unanimous motion to condemn the Sultan of Brunei’s honorary degree and call for its revocation demonstrates the anger felt by Oxford students.

“We hope that Oxford University will reconsider its position regarding the Sultan’s degree and look forward to working with the student unions in King’s College London and Aberdeen to achieve the same; only then can these institutions claim that they support LGBTQ rights.”

The Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, became Sultan in 1967, at the age of 21.

His 1,800-room palace, the Istana Nurul Iman, is the largest private residence in the world, and his family’s fortune is estimated to be £7.75 billion.

Since Brunei gained independence from the UK in 1984, the Sultan has been awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 1992 and honorary degrees from other universities, including the University of Aberdeen and King’s College London, where the Sultan holds an Honorary Law Doctorate awarded to him in 2011.

All of these institutions have so far refused to reconsider their initial decision to uphold the honorary degrees.