Amendment A spells disaster for new student government
Reporting about the SGA, not a record of it: The Johns Hopkins News-Letter published this and the SGA did not write it, file it, or approve it. The archive holds it because the article itself uses the phrases “student government” and “student council”.
Summary
- This News-Letter article covers the writer’s concerns about proposed Amendment A and compares it with Amendment B.
- The News-Letter reported that Amendment A would move social programming to a new board or commission, leaving Student Council more able to handle policy issues such as meal plans and upperclass housing.
- The paper reported that the SAC allocates more than $400,000 to student groups and said that voiding current bylaws could stop more than 120 groups from requesting or spending funds for summer activities.
- The article adds that work on new documents could begin no earlier than May 1 and that the SAC would need an extra General Assembly during finals to approve them.
- The reporter writes that, when asked to delay Amendment A until 2003–04, Stephen Goutman and Eric Leslie said they wanted to have something in place before graduating.
- According to the article, the referendum was submitted well into the class-officer election season, creating uncertainty about candidates’ positions and responsibilities if Amendment A took effect on May 1.
- The article says Amendment B would make smaller constitutional changes while allowing the existing bylaws and group constitutions to remain intact.