After spending several months evaluating the future of the Student Conduct Board in Student Government, Student Senate met on Wednesday, Jan. 29, to place a question on the spring election ballot. The student body will decide whether to split the board from Student Government and, in its place, establish a committee that will provide judicial review over Student Government.

Graduate and Lifelong Education Sen. Paul Cray, a third-year Ph.D. student in comparative biomedical sciences and Appropriations Committee chair, gave a report on the status of appropriations.

According to Cray’s report, 218 student organizations have requested money this semester from Student Government for a total of $263,008.59. Forty clubs were deemed ineligible, bringing the number down to 178 organizations requesting a total of $218,745.59. As with past sessions, the requested amount is far more than the $106,914 available to Student Government this semester.

GB 105 The Special Review Committee Update Act – Passed in Consent Agenda

This deals with something known as the Special Review Committee. This body is designed to be quickly formed in order to hear appeals during election periods, and is comprised of the student body vice president, Student Senate president, student body chief justice, and chairs of two committees. Last spring, the body reviewed decisions made by former Board of Elections Chair Lilly Neal, resulting in an ultimately failed censure resolution.

This bill adds alternates to the members of this committee and requires a minimum of five members for the committee to conduct business.

SR 108 – Justice Department Referendum Act – Passed

This resolution is the successor to the controversial GB 69 and SR 70, heard during a Senate meeting last fall. The pieces of legislation seek to move the Student Conduct Board to be fully under the jurisdiction of the Office of Student Conduct. As it stands right now, the board is technically housed under Student Government’s Judicial Branch but does not interact with Student Government in any impactful way.

Graduate and Lifelong Sen. Miles Calzini, a second-year Ph.D. student in chemistry, wrote the resolution and described its changes at a high level.

“The first piece of it is striking all mentions of our current judicial structure, which is Student Conduct Board, from the constitution,” Calzini said. “The second piece is writing new language establishing a Justice Department and a new position of Chief Justice. It outlines what that would look like. Basically, it’s an appointed position, the Chief Justice, confirmed by Senate. Then there are four other members who are, ex-officio, other members of Student Government. This body would have the ability to make binding opinions on any act of Student Government or any Statute.”

As it stands right now, the board operates completely independently from Student Government and provides no judicial oversight. SR 108 and GB 109, which was discussed later, aim to update the Student Body Constitution and Student Body Statutes, respectively, to completely split off the board.

The difference between these new and old pieces of legislation is primarily a newly proposed Justice Department. As Calzini said, the department would be a five-person body that provides oversight over pieces of legislation and executive orders created by the student body president.

Because this resolution is modifying the Student Body Constitution, it requires a student body vote. Any changes listed will not be implemented unless a two-thirds majority of students vote in favor of the change.

The resolution passed with 45 votes in support, one against and zero abstentions. The referendum will be placed on the spring election ballot, and two-thirds of students will need to vote in the affirmative to update the Student Body Constitution.

GB 109 – Justice Department Establishment Act – Passed

This is a companion bill to SR 108. While the former alters the Student Body Constitution to remove the Student Conduct Board and chief justice, this bill eliminates references to the board and position from Student Body Statutes.

President Pro Tempore Coleman Simpson, a first-year graduate student in agricultural education, made an amendment to the bill. The amendment exempts decisions made by the Special Review Committee, the same body discussed in the previous GB 105, from review by the Justice Department. Simpson argued that membership between the two bodies is similar, and also said appeals through the Justice Department could delay election results.

Though this passed with 43 votes in support, one against and three abstentions, the changes in the bill are ultimately contingent on the passage of the referendum enacted by SR 108.

FB 114 – Spend Down the Budget Act – Passed

This bill moves money into the appropriations line, making more funding available to student organizations. In his report, Cray said the Appropriations Committee needs money to keep up with the demand of student organizations, and this bill would move several thousand dollars from the Social Justice Mini Grant and Finance Disbursement lines to allow organizations more funding.

Simpson brought up concerns about the amount to be transferred from the finance line. This is money available to the Finance Committee, which serves one-off funding requests outside of the normal appropriations cycle. The bill originally proposed moving $14,799 from the finance line, bringing the amount available to the Finance Committee down to $5,000.

Simpson and several other senators thought this amount of money would be too low, so an amendment was proposed to move $12,799 instead. After some discussion, this passed.

With 47 votes in support, one against and zero abstentions, the bill passed.

GB 117 – Board of Elections Minimum Composition Update Act – Passed

This is an adjustment to the appointment of Board of Elections commissioners. In the case that there are any openings in the Board of Elections, the Board of Elections chair has the ability to appoint members to serve as acting members of the board if needed. Previously, the chair could only appoint these members if the board had fewer than five members, but now that is possible if there are any openings at all.

With 44 votes in support, three against and one abstention, this bill passed.