Internal Affairs Committee Meeting — Minutes (09/06/26)

WelcomeReintroductions (If necessary)Agenda Amendment or ApprovalQuestions from last GBM

All Present

Resource OverviewConstitution JHU SGA Constitution April 2026By-Laws JHU SGA Bylaws (Amended April 2026)Template Bills Template Bills

S-B.114.09.01.26-1 Fast-Forward Finance Bill – Intr. Peter TarpleyDiscussion: Peter: SIF, this Friday, no materials left, can the Finance Committee work with Exec to spend $500 (tentative)?Peter: First reading fast-pass; switch from $500 to $1000?Shreeman: sounds okay, a lot of money, but things like table cloths can get expensive quicklyBoyi: CMC?Shreeman: seems best for Peter and Amy to decidePaul: What counts as the policy bill?Peter: No conflicting Bylaws in the billShreeman: Largest part seems the "in-between" semesters; had to discharge Active-minds survey bill because of the funding; needed pass immediately since nothing could be done over the summer; now the Finance Committee doesn't need a summer GBMCole: the part we're talking about… "any funding bill's request, regardless of…" this is just about spring, not summer? If there's anything after the first GBM, sometime in the Spring, it's also kind of killed between then and then 2nd GBM, just seeking clarificationShreeman: I misspoke about the Active Minds, we had much in the GBM, Peter can you explain?Peter: not sure when line is between 2025-2026 vs 2026-27 use, the idea is to allow the Senate to spend remaining money; the promotional materials would be from the previous allocationChanges Made:Decision: Motion by ShreemanSecond: Demarri, BoyiAye: Shreemann, Boyi, Paul, Demarri, Ella, Mamadou, Cole, SaanviNay: Abstain: Pass with Positive recommendationS-B.114.09.01.26-4 Clarifying Legislative Roles and Processess Act (CLeRPA) – Intr. Shreemann PatelDiscussion: Shreeman: added LGBTQ. There currently exists a mismatch between Constitution and Bylaws; Bylaws says IA needs only update the next GBM, Constitution requires more.Suggestion: don't change the CLERPA Caucus. Thoughts?Cole: Sounds good to me.Paul: these signatures, is there a clause that says they have to be senators?Shreeman: No;Shreeman: 48 -> 72 hours, it takes more time to email the whole student body; clarify any undergraduate may nominate themself or other undergraduateShreeman: something talked about; do we even need a minimum? let's ask an expert, PeterPeter: I would say, maybe not, we have 9 right now (not including Amy)Shreeman: And that's enough tot get all your stuff done?Peter: Yeah, especially with switch to annual allocationShreeman: Peter asked at last meeting why not that we have constitutional amendments no matter; at the end of the term last time, we had such a bill and weren't sure whether to pass or not; so instead, the Chair of IA, Pots, and parliamentarian (vpots) will look over it and provide their thoughts (not ruling)! What do we think?Paul: really hard process, more readings can take a lot of time, simultaneously though, shouldn't hurt, but little value in doing 2nd reading when people don't have interest, hence, current proposed amendmentsShreeman: are you suggesting that second committee requirement for all of them works?Paul: it couldn't hurt, but just another hurdle; provides introduction and more; not going to be bad in any situationShreeman: goes through 2 readings, not necessarily comittee review in the middle. at least maintaining the initial check by ia, pots, and vpots; goes through 1st reading, by default 2nd at next meeting, still option to discharge by ⅔ voteBoyi: I think we should have the 2 readings, so people in the meeting can have some time to look through the Constitution… once it gets mentioned, the 2nd reading allows people to go through it again if necessaryShreeman: Case and point right in front of us. I'm hearing 2 in favorcole: I would be in favor of 2nd reading + check by committeeShreeman: so you're proposing committee review as wellPaul: clarification on proposed processShreeman: We could alternatively let it follow normal proceedings… but my problem, I don't know if the constitution already mentions IA, but the way the committees work, okay it does, but specific committees other than IA aren't mentioned since the Bylaws are supposed to prescribe them. This is the idea behind the precheck by IA/POTS,VPOTS, thinking it might be confusing to directly mention IA, but since the Constitution does, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Any thoughts?cole: precedent in the constitution exists so it doesn't seem like it will be an issueshreeman: sounds good to me, more eyes will be on it alsoCole: Jackson sent a messageJackson (text): From the peanut gallery — I don’t think committee review should be required (the chair of IA could kill a bill through delay); I think, if you believe that this should slow down the process, it should require more than a 2/3 vote to skip to second reading (as for a bill to pass it needs 3/4 anyways). I’d recommend unanimous consent to discharge second reading."Shreeman: True, the only way to kill a bill in Committee is to never review it; we can leave as it is, although there may be conflict of interest since IA may be amended by the billShreeman: thoughts on jacksons idea? screening, reading, … Jackson: also, we could have normal process where it gets referred to IA, if no genuine reason, should go through normal channels. Main point was between ⅔ vs ¾ vs unanimous; unless people care, proposer will not considerShreeman: this is why we need more uncs; let the record reflect i referred to jackson as unc. … to pass 1st reading, must be ¾, for 2nd reading, must also have ¾, hence not screened by ia/pots/vpots; adding a comment so you don't have to watch me make the exact changes to reflect this. does that sound fine? i see… thumbs ups. and thank you for your input JacksonShreeman: Represenattive Senator may be a confusing term; pleonasim in constitution. Did poking around, found "affinity groups" or "advocacy senator" (problem with RSO senator); want to open floor to other names; we still refeter to them as represenattive senator, just not caucus. but i don't wna tit to be confusingJackson: since i put comments on it, i should probably give an idea; i think that ( i came up with affinity as a possibility) only problem is that sometimes (jHU hasn't said anythign about this) if they're lokking to do a deep dive on DEi, affinity groups would be one of the things to b e cracked down. we could rightfully name them "diversity" senators, but do we want this to show up to this somwhere? I don't really care, it's find either way; the nice thing about caucuses is that whatever they serve in in actual congress, they are in a lot of causeses, but few committtees; many things tey care aboutShreeman: e.g. congressional black congressJackson: you want more members of SGA, you're really recruiting other people of SGA, there's also an element of strength when you speak to admin and say "i am a representative of black caucus" compared to affinity group; that is a term of the art, it's not necessary, if you have something stronger i would support it; SDS has made use of this many times, and this has been fruitful; this is no tthe same with all caucuses, but there is precedence that htis can workShreeman: realistlically, the name is the least importa part of it, so i'm fine with keeping it caucus senators, but the idea of official caucses as comittees would be eliminated; and i talk about this more in the consultative commitees, people who meet etc, unlike current "every senators must have cuacus" does anyone actually ahve a caucus with at least 10 membgersJackson: yes the disability has at least 10, since everyone in DISCO will likely join the disabiliyt caucus, we have 10, but that would apply to like no one elseShreeman: i was speaking to someone who said "where will i find student athlete" there are few like cole who would care or actually be interested; i suppose i digress; i am find with keeping the title "caucus senators" Jackson" i agree with changing the name from more of ao comittee view, i think they shoudl be forced to talk to bpeople, i don't like represenatives not interacting with anyone, but maybe the bylaws are not hte way to tod this, maybe we perscribe this to someone. i know the vp has had this task before, but maybe not hte best idea. question is how to set something like this up, how to make it easily joinable, how to make it less work or lest customable on each person, so it's easier to administarte every termShreeman: i think that 's a good idea, same way the finance has their guidlesin, maybe caucses has document for guidliens, obvioulsy not happening now in this meeting todaycole: shreeman, something about you and jackson spoke about, less on semantics, part of the role is to talk about how caucus senators don't hold their represenattive accountedshreeman: or how they are not held accountable to their represnattivescole: meausre sfor accountable repsresenation; one of the things to bringup in 4.1.3 of what you're writing, there's a lot of language that says the representative MAYshreeman: very good point…cole: may choose to participate in another form of research, maybe they can't find enough people, there should be required to perform at least one measurable observable effort to connect with and advocate for; to actually connect with the group they're supposed to representShreeman: agreeCole: and i say they are held accountalbe to their represenatiion group; if you scroll, you see may be subject to impeachment by negligence… but then.. well impeachment is definitely disciplinary, the 30 signature petittion, i don' thtink people in the group outside of SGA cares enough; there should be some even if it's small a modicum of reach to the group theyre representingShreeman: agree with you, let me clarify, each senator, must do one of them, because alternate outreach "MUST BE" anyw ay described below cole; i understand, but main mechanisms, or one, petition of 30 signatures of undergrads, a lot of the people they represent don't actually careShreeman: cuts off; yeah i understand Jackson cutts off; one piece of context, why 10 students specifically, SGA requires that all organizations must have at least 10 people or we will take away funding; seems we should also have this requirement for fairness; used to be the only check on the number of caucses, dont have to be member of the group, according to constituion. no easy answer, any accountability will proablby backfire or less likely to do it; do you think the senate will ever take ⅔ vote to approve caucus members' alternative? no, they're just do it, most likely unless someone really does not like tha person, i thinkwe'll have to play around more with it; this is a good step, we should see if it works. we haven't necessarily found sound footing; next question is for RSOsShreeman: or even class council senators; all senators are accountable to some constituent group. to circle back to cole, i added (); it's submitted to the senate, even if it's not something that is used, at least i's able to be used; i understand that if we required it it might never happen. does that make sense? cole; wasn't taking issues, leans a lot on people who don't really care about it; any time you lean on represented group for accountability, that is really out of our hands. sorry, not trying to beShreeman: i understand. and then jackson, for accoutnability, agree that whatever we do will be difficultk, main thing was the lack of accoutnabiliyt b efore, very good theat the disibiliyt caucuses exists because of disco, but i don't htink ay other does; any reasonable other form will get approved; depends on trust of SGA; in the future we can look at more accountabilityJackson: less of whether they would or would not approve; what do you imagine the conversatioun looks like? outreach at the end of the semseter?Shreeman: senator's not voting on whether they think they will do it, rather whether their actions/proposed actions are approved by senateJackson: no one's specific role, it was previously the vice presidentshreeman: believe it's the job of the POTS for accountaibliyt of class coincils, RSOs, and caucus. let me check .not much the pOTS does aside from taking substitute role, but that's one of them…i'll keep looking, in constitution somehwereJackson: i'm almost asking regulate us harder, not very smart, but i can see someone getting away with this, jsut one person "do better, get out" impeachment will not look pretty, no matter what, even if done nothing entire semestershreeman: added must be communicative to student body secetary, potsJackson: i think that phrase is great, but we jsut passed our 2nd GBM, will this be added?Shreeman: this is 2nd reading; if you guys think you need more timeJackson: that's greatShreeman: coolShreeman: this section(8) is not, historically these pauses clutter the bylaws. there is precedence for this last term, hwo to enact without cluttering bylaws, just to explain what it is. we will rename and update constitutional review process. once i make those changes I will put them in the folder and you may review before GBM. so anything else, all on clerpa? and jackson small semantic stuff went rhogujackson: there are a couple still there (disability caucus) and if you change anything else, check with chair, it does mean they have to rename, awkward constitution, shreeman: renaming does come under ia judicial reviewjackson: hope everyone can give shreeman a round of applause, not an easy meeting last gbm going over in 10 minutes, he definitely deserves some kudosshreeman: don't want to hold you guys for too long; we will vote. motion to pass with positive. i propose we table, lot left. jazz and i have been working on this last bill, ther ewere many problems last semeseter, they would accumulate many excused and unexcused yet maintain position; currently more accountable; give your thoughts, we will review next committee. open forum? Demarri you wrote somethingDemarri: tableShreeman: motion to adjournChanges Made: Add "undergraduates" to be specific to the requirement of signatures for interest for "representative senators" No longer need "list last updated" Remove 4.1.2.3.1 added "as any of the following" communicative to pots and student body secretaryDecision: second: ColeAye: Shreemann, Boyi, Paul, Demarri, Ella, Mamadou, Cole, SaanviNay: Abstain:

Committee Chair

Accountability ActSGA-B.26-27 | The Accountability ActGeneral FeedbackOpen ForumGrammar, syntax, readability

Shreemann PatelAll Present

ClosingAdjournment: 4:36motion: ShreemanSecond; demarri, coleAye: Shreemann, Boyi, Paul, Demarri, Ella, Mamadou, Cole, SaanviNay:

All Present