Conference Voting

This motion mandates that the Students' Union should evaluate different fee models for international students, comparing Cambridge's fixed-at-entry approach with a capped annual increase model (limited to CPI or 4% annually), and advocate for whichever provides better student value. The SU should gather evidence on fee differences between Oxford and Cambridge, consult students, and negotiate the preferred structure with the University.

This motion mandates the SU to improve its common room election platform by enabling returning officers to access and publish results automatically without manual SU intervention, and to implement automatic vote counting systems.

This motion expands the existing "EIRRS Position" policy to include ending all direct and indirect investment in arms companies, arguing that restrictions on "controversial weapons" alone are insufficient since arms manufacturers cannot ensure their products comply with international law. Oxford SU will advocate for extending investment restrictions to exclude companies that derive more than 5% of revenue from armaments production, sale, or brokerage.

This motion mandates the SU to facilitate water safety initiatives like 'Safe Celebrators' during post-exam celebrations, communicate with Oxford City/Oxfordshire County Councils about professional water hazard assessments at Port Meadow, and seek clarity from the University on post-celebration policies prioritising student safety over public relations concerns.

This motion resolves for Oxford SU to sign an open letter calling for the Home Office to cancel the reopening of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre and implement meaningful alternatives to detention in Oxfordshire instead.

The current Bye-Laws are in ‘pilot’, which means that we have been iteratively reviewing the effectiveness of the Bye-Laws against their implementation. A key part of this is reviewing the Conference of Common Rooms (CCR) model against the KPIs set by the Board and the Transformation Committee and taking on board live feedback from students and members taking part.

The baseline interim Bye-Laws were put in place ahead of Hilary Term in order to allow us to pilot the CCR model. A set of amendments, which we are asking you to vote on here, are being piloted at the 10th of June meeting. These amendments include: the addition of an amendments process, swapping consensus voting for Conference Policy with 2/3rds majority votes, and delegated authority for the Chair and Deputy Chair to reduce the burden on the Trustee Board for risk assessments of motions and amendments.

The model as a whole is being evaluated until the end of June, after which we hope that these bye-laws will be formally ratified by both CCR and the Trustee Board ready for Michaelmas full implementation.

A full description and explanation of the motions can be found here: Bye-Law-Amendment-Proposals.pdf

The current Bye-Laws are in ‘pilot’, which means that we have been iteratively reviewing the effectiveness of the Bye-Laws against their implementation. A key part of this is reviewing the Conference of Common Rooms (CCR) model against the KPIs set by the Board and the Transformation Committee and taking on board live feedback from students and members taking part.

The baseline interim Bye-Laws were put in place ahead of Hilary Term in order to allow us to pilot the CCR model. A set of amendments, which we are asking you to vote on here, are being piloted at the 10th of June meeting. These amendments include: the addition of an amendments process, swapping consensus voting for Conference Policy with 2/3rds majority votes, and delegated authority for the Chair and Deputy Chair to reduce the burden on the Trustee Board for risk assessments of motions and amendments.

The model as a whole is being evaluated until the end of June, after which we hope that these bye-laws will be formally ratified by both CCR and the Trustee Board ready for Michaelmas full implementation.

A full description and explanation of the motions can be found here: Bye-Law-Amendment-Proposals.pdf

The current Bye-Laws are in ‘pilot’, which means that we have been iteratively reviewing the effectiveness of the Bye-Laws against their implementation. A key part of this is reviewing the Conference of Common Rooms (CCR) model against the KPIs set by the Board and the Transformation Committee and taking on board live feedback from students and members taking part.

The baseline interim Bye-Laws were put in place ahead of Hilary Term in order to allow us to pilot the CCR model. A set of amendments, which we are asking you to vote on here, are being piloted at the 10th of June meeting. These amendments include: the addition of an amendments process, swapping consensus voting for Conference Policy with 2/3rds majority votes, and delegated authority for the Chair and Deputy Chair to reduce the burden on the Trustee Board for risk assessments of motions and amendments.

The model as a whole is being evaluated until the end of June, after which we hope that these bye-laws will be formally ratified by both CCR and the Trustee Board ready for Michaelmas full implementation.

A full description and explanation of the motions can be found here: Bye-Law-Amendment-Proposals.pdf