The ASUO constitution is one of many documents that make their home in the Green Tape Notebook, which tells student government officials everything they need to know about their jobs. But the constitution, just like state and federal constitutions, sometimes becomes obsolete or contains language that needs to be changed.
In this ASUO primary election, students must consider 19 ballot measures that would amend the constitution. Each measure has been approved by the ASUO Constitution Court, and students must decide whether to vote “yes” and amend the constitution or “no” and keep the status quo.
Being an informed voter in this election will take a lot of reading and a willingness to skip over the grammar errors and unclear wording in some of the actual ballot measures. With this in mind, the Emerald has explained the measures without reprinting them verbatim. The measures are divided into three categories: Major changes, minor changes and date changes.

Major changes
*5.4: Clarifies who appoints students to vacant student government spots. Voting yes would allow the ASUO president to make appointments to vacant positions on the Athletic Department Finance Committee, the Programs Finance Committee and the EMU Board, except for positions that are actually appointed by the EMU Board itself. Voting no would still allow the president to fill vacant seats on the ASUO Constitution Court and the ASUO Student Senate, but the rules would not be clear on who could appoint students to fill ADFC, PFC and EMU Board seats.
*5.6: Requires the ASUO president or designee to submit a budget recommendation at the same time each major program submits its recommendation to senate. Voting yes would synchronize the budget recommendation of the president, EMU, PFC and ADFC. Voting no would let groups and the ASUO president continue to decide independently when they make budget recommendations.
*6.14: Instructs the PFC to budget for an unallocated reserve, or surplus. Voting yes would make the PFC responsible for including in their budget an unallocated reserve of up to 1.5 percent of the student incidental fee budget, to be allocated to student groups by the senate. Voting no would leave the senate in charge of budgeting the unallocated reserve.
*6.15: Excludes maintenance and repair costs from the seven percent maximum allowable increase for EMU program’s building reserves. Voting yes would allow maintenance costs, like fixing a furnace or replacing light bulbs, to be excluded from the seven percent-per-year building reserve fund. Voting no would include maintenance and repair costs when factoring in the seven percent increase.
*8.1: Removes a position from the five-member ADFC and replaces it with a non-voting committee member. Voting yes would strike the Athletic Department Team Council appointed position and require the ASUO Finance Coordinator to serve instead as a non-voting member. Voting no would keep the Athletic Department Team Council appointment, even though the explanation of the ballot measure approved by the ASUO Elections Board says that the council no longer appoints anyone.

Minor changes
*2.4: Changes the word “handicap” to “disabled.” Voting yes would allow disabled students to receive the same protected access to student fee-funded activities as handicapped students. Voting no would keep the wording untouched.
*4.1: Increases credit requirements for students paid for ASUO-related positions. Voting yes would require students paid for ASUO-related work to enroll for at least eight credits per term, which complies with guidelines set forth by the Human Resources and University Payroll. Voting no would keep the minimum credit requirement at half-time, which usually means six credit hours.
*4.6: Prohibits ASUO elected officials from voting on budgets that could line their pockets in the future. Voting yes would modify the conflict of interest provision. Right now, it says elected officials can’t vote on ASUO or EMU program budgets in which they hold a paid position; the new clause would instead stop elected officials from voting on a budget in which they will hold a paid position during the fiscal year the budget is in effect. Voting no would keep the old clause intact.
*5.7: Defines in excruciating detail what “accounting of expenditures” is and who’s responsible for it. Voting yes would explain the ASUO president’s duty of submitting an accounting of expenditures of all ASUO programs from the previous fiscal year as “Postclose” and define who produces the document. Voting no would leave the phrase “accounting of expenditures” undefined.
*5.13: Clarifies that paid ASUO Executive positions are subject to the ASUO Stipend Model. Voting yes would add the phrase “in accordance with the ASUO Stipend Model,” a model approved by the senate in May 2000. Voting no would keep the old section intact with no changes.
*5.17: Clarifies the majority of senate needed to impeach the ASUO president. Voting yes would require that three-fourths of the seated senate vote for impeachment of the ASUO president; currently, the word “seated” is not used, which could create confusion if there were any unfilled senate seats or if there were any senators absent from a meeting where an impeachment vote was taken. Voting no would keep the old language in place.
*12.3: Removes archaic language from the Green Tape Notebook. Voting yes would strike 12.3 entirely. The section refers to a timeline that has been obsolete for eight years. Voting no would keep the section intact.
*12.4: Clarifies that only incidental fee-paying students can vote in ASUO elections. Voting yes would ensure that only students that pay incidental fees earn the right to vote. Voting no would not establish criteria for voting in the ASUO elections.
*12.5: Removes archaic language from the Green Tape Notebook. Voting yes would strike 12.5 entirely. The section refers to a timeline that has been obsolete for six years. Voting no would keep the section intact.

Date changes
The first four of these date-changing ballot measures have been proposed in order to give student government enough time to determine proper budgets before submitting the proposals to the University president on April 1 and to the Oregon University System by May 1.
*5.8: Moves the deadline for an incidental fee budget timeline from Jan. 15 to the end of fall term. Voting yes would require the ASUO president and senate to agree to a timeline for the incidental fee budget by the end of fall term. Voting no would maintain the Jan. 15 deadline.
*6.22: Moves the deadline for establishing and publishing a budget process schedule from Jan. 15 to the end of fall term. Voting yes would move up the budget scheduling process undertaken by the student senate, in conjunction with the ASUO president, PFC, ADFC and EMU Board. Voting no would maintain the Jan. 15 deadline.
*7.4: Moves the PFC requirement to establish and publish its own rules from Nov. 1 to Oct. 25. Voting yes would move up the PFC rule publication one week. Voting no would maintain the Nov. 1 deadline.
*7.6: Moves the PFC’s duty of assigning a “tag” to each ASUO program from Oct. 15 to Oct. 10. Voting yes would move up the PFC tag assignment five days. Voting no would maintain the Oct. 15 deadline.
*12.5: Requires the ASUO president to appoint an elections board chairman or chairwoman by Nov. 1. Currently the deadline is Feb. 15. Voting yes would give the board more time to establish elections rules and form a hearings committee in case of student complaints. Voting no would maintain the Feb. 15 deadline.