Update E-Board eligibility and term requirements to align with Campus Life requirements

[charlottegeo]

Check one:

• Semantic Change: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Change: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of change(s):
Adds clauses to 5.A.3.A, 5.A.3.B, and 5.A.7.B requiring good academic and conduct standing.

• The Student Organization Handbook states that all officers must be in good academic standing and cannot be on disciplinary probation or higher.
• This amendment makes this explicitly required in order to be on E-Board, and an officer's term will be abbreviated if they no longer meet the requirements.
• A candidate can run for E-Board while not meeting these requirements, but must meet them while in office.

[shaeespring]

We may be wrong about where these go. Candidates might be in bad academic standing, but they should be able to run as long as they aren't in bad academic standing at the time that they're selected

[shaeespring]

Suggested change

	\item Candidates must be in good academic standing with both RIT and their academic department and may not be on a conduct sanction of disciplinary probation or higher during the term of office.
	\item Candidates must be enrolled students at RIT, must be in good academic standing with both RIT and their academic department, and may not be on a conduct sanction of disciplinary probation or higher during the term of office.

[shaeespring]

But actually, now I have questions.

Must candidates meet these requirements? Or is it instead that they must meet these requirements upon selection

[shaeespring]

We have "during the term of office", should it be "during the term of office that they are running for?" (alternatively "for which they are running")

[charlottegeo]

But actually, now I have questions.

Must candidates meet these requirements? Or is it instead that they must meet these requirements upon selection

Candidates don't have to meet the requirements while running, but by the time they actually assume office they should meet the requirements. I agree that it might be better somewhere else, maybe in 5.A.4 (selections) or 5.A.7.B (term). I don't know why I didn't realize that sooner oops

[charlottegeo]

We have "during the term of office", should it be "during the term of office that they are running for?" (alternatively "for which they are running")

Maybe "during their term of office"? If not I like "for which they are running"

[shaeespring]

"during the term of office" is fine actually, as that's how it is in the current constitution. It leaves the taste of lead on my tongue, and I don't know why. But it's fine

[shaeespring]

Fixing indentation

[shaeespring]

Since this is changing the constitution to align with RIT Policy, can this be treated as a non-semantic change?

[Qelxiros]

According to 3.B.2.B, you can only treat a semantic change as a non-semantic change if it "is made due to an update in NY law or RIT policy," which this is not. It depends how pedantic you want to be.

[shaeespring]

According to 3.B.2.B, you can only treat a semantic change as a non-semantic change if it "is made due to an update in NY law or RIT policy," which this is not. It depends how pedantic you want to be.

Ah, and since RIT policy wasn't updated, it's semantic. This is fine.

[charlottegeo]

Additionally, 3.B.2.B is specifically for changes to Article 9 which this is not.

[shaeespring]

Needs discussion at HM

Fixed