Discussion focused on the parts of the constitution related to the budget committee.
The original draft of the proposed constitution mandated that clubs submit budgets annually to the committee. At an SGO meeting the Wednesday before spring break, the SGO voted to amend the constitution and revert to the current system of submitting one budget each semester.
"Things happen continually throughout the year that you don't take into account," said Student Finance Committee (SFC) subcommittee chair Irv Rakhlin '04, criticizing a yearly budget system.
SFC members were in favor of the semesterly budget system because they learn a lot during the fall that they later apply to spring budgets.
"[Subcommittee chairs] could be overbudgeting or underbudgeting for the whole year and you can't correct that," said SFC subcommittee chair Dave Jaquette '02.
"I was shocked that the Senate made the decision to stay with a semesterly budgeting process, especially because we had barely discussed the reasons for having an annual budgeting process," said Mike Flood '03, a member of the constitution committee.
"The ad hoc committee spent a good deal of time soliciting opinion and consulting other schools and we decided that an annual budgeting process made much more sense than the hectic semesterly budgeting process we are currently operating," Flood added.
At the end of the meeting before spring break, by a vote of 17-5-4, the SGO approved an amendment to the constitution draft to include budgeting by semester.
The proposed constitution that was approved Monday night creates a system under which clubs will have to submit budget proposals once in October and once in March. Following decisions of the budget committee, clubs will have five days to appeal, after which the committee will have approximately nine days to review the appeals.
Once the committee has reviewed the appeals, the entire Senate will have to approve the decisions of the budgetary committee. Some members of the Senate felt this final step was unnecessary, expressing concern that the process would become complex and lengthy. However, it was left intact in the proposed constitution.
The proposed constitution mandates that the budgetary committee will present an operating budget to the Senate each semester. The budget must include a breakdown by percentage of the amount of funds to be used for the four major areas of expense, which include administrative, discretionary, programming funds and appeals. The constitution states that, "These percentages shall vary by no more than three percentage points from the numbers set in this constitution."
Some senators felt that this three percent would not give the budgetary committee enough flexibility.
"One issue is the [budget of the] Social Council, which hasn't been increased in eight years. Marking the number at three percent means you can't fix errors like that," said Eric Osborne '04.
Jun Matsui '03 pointed out that problems like the one Osborne pointed out will not be an issue because the three percent is directed only at the major area of funding, not at specific line items like the Social Council. "Within the programming funds there is still flexibility," said Matsui.
The Senate approved the three percent figure in a straw vote.
Marisol Thomer '02 and Meredith Block '02 proposed an amendment to the constitution that would separate senate positions from student faculty committee positions. The student body would elect students to both senate and student faculty committee positions. Students elected to student faculty committee positions would not automatically become senators and, thus, would not have to attend Senate meetings.
Under the currently proposed constitution, students would be elected by the student body to serve as senators. The Senate members would then elect senators to various student faculty committee positions.
Thomer and Block said that the proposed constitution mandates much more responsibility for senators. They felt their amendment would alleviate some of the work.
"I feel like this is the best of both worlds," said Thomer. "It's about letting students have more of a voice."
Objections to the amendment centered on the fact that committee members would not have enough involvement with the Senate and would not be able to accurately represent the views of the Senate.
"[The committee members] are supposed to take Senate opinions back to the faculty committees," said Flood.
After extensive discussion, the amendment was rejected.
At the beginning of the meeting, Stacey Kennard '03 addressed a recent proposal at a faculty meeting to mandate distribution requirements as a part of receiving English honors.
"From talking with students, I feel like [they] tend to prefer no distribution requirements," said Kennard, introducing a resolution stating the SGO's opinion that the requirements should not be a prerequisite for English honors.
The resolution passed and Kennard plans to present the opinion of the Senate if the issue comes up at the next faculty meeting.
At the SGO meeting before spring break, Lincoln Mayer '04 proposed three amendments to the constitution.
The first amendment stipulated that senators elected under the current constitution serve in their positions for the duration of their contract. The amendment would affect senators, like Mayer, who were elected this February to fill a two-year position on the committee on Priorities and Resources.
Recently appointed SGO Vice President Matt Moses '02 amended Mayer's amendment, stipulating that all senators elected under the current constitution will retain their positions until no later than Spring 2003. The Senate approved Moses' amendment 21-4-5.
"I abstained from voting because Matt's revised amendment was no better and no worse than the original language, vacating elections before the end of a term in the interest of convenience," said Mayer. "I proposed the amendment because it is important to honor elections that were freely and fairly conducted under the terms proposed at the time of election."
Mayer also proposed two amendments to the section of the constitution concerning diversity senators. One amendment changed the wording of the constitution that currently reads that diversity seats will be given to groups that have been "historically silenced." Mayer proposed that the seats be limited to groups that had been "historically silenced on campus."
Mayer's also proposed a change in wording that would change the name "diversity senators" to "special club senators." Mayer said,
"My reason is that it is impossible for diversity senators, which are elected by clubs, to be considered representatives of the entire community of people from similar ethnic backgrounds," said Mayer.
Both of Mayer's constitutional amendments were rejected by the Senate.
Thomer proposed another amendment at the Wednesday meeting allowing all students to attend meetings of the Association of Amherst Students (AAS)-the new manifestation of the SGO under the proposed constitution. These students would be allowed to speak to the Senate when recognized. The amendment passed by a large margin.