New student gov't plan will not go on spring ballot

As the 5 p.m. deadline for submission of a new constitution passed yesterday, so passed most hopes for having a new government approved by the student body with the spring elections. Student government leaders yesterday said they were disappointed that no proposal was completed and approved in time. The deadline was missed after the constitution failed to achieve a two-thirds majority approval in the Undergraduate Assembly Wednesday night. Undergraduate Assembly chairperson Duchess Harris said she was unhappy with the vote by the body and that members did not do their duty to the student body yesterday. "I thought the UA reps did a disservice to the undergraduate body," she said yesterday. Both Harris and UA Vice Chairperson Mike Feinberg criticized many representatives who voted not to put the constitution on the ballot for failing to attend constitutional conventions held throughout the year and for not trying to learn about the proposal. "There are some [UA members]. . . who put in no effort at all to educate themselves on the constitutional issue," Feinberg said in a letter to all UA representatives yesterday. "They were clueless due to complete, unexcused negligence." But Tex Roper, the first constitutional convention delegate to criticize the document openly, said the representatives who voted against the document "voted responsibly." "The convention had more than enough participants," he said. "If it had a deficiency, it was in having too many delegates and not too few." He added that the sheer number of delegates prevented a solid consensus from forming. The deadline, imposed by the Nominations and Elections Committee several weeks ago, sparked a rash of eleventh-hour meetings and compromises by the constitutional convention. Many of the compromises, some delegates said, were made solely to complete a proposal in time for the deadline. "Unfortunately in the course of things and trying to accomodate the shifting coalitions, you discovered that you were trying to build a castle on shifting sand," said Roper, a constitutional convention delegate. "When they got done and looked at it, they were embarrassed." "There were issues in the final version that 80 percent of the constitutional convention did not agree with," Emily Nichols, an at-large delegate to the convention and former chairperson of Connaisance, said Wednesday night "It wasn't a good working constitution," she added. "You couldn't run a student government under this constitution." Before the vote Wednesday, UA leaders called on the assembly to place the document on the ballot to allow students to decide on its merits. But members refused, saying they had not had time to become familiar with its content and that the student leaders who prepared it no longer supported it. Even though the document will not be placed on the spring ballot, leaders said the work of the year-long convention was not for naught. "I don't think all was lost because it wasn't done this spring," Harris said. "I think it brought together student leaders that wouldn't have gotten together. It increased communication and gave people a great working knowledge of the five constitutions [of each of the government branches.]." The government which failed to win approval called for increased communication within an envisioned "Student Government Association." Much of the power of the structure would have been focused within a redesigned Undergraduate Assembly. The assembly would have been increased from 33 members to over 40, with the change coming primarily from the addition of student group representatives to the body. Most representatives would also have been elected by their classmates, rather than by those in their home school, as in the current system. While some said they were disappointed that the document will not be voted on, they said they are counting on UA members to continue the work of redesigning government next year. "I don't think they should put the idea aside," Harris said. "I don't think if it continues in the fall that that's a failing [of this year's work.]" They also look for the new convention delegates to use many of the goals which were set throughout the course of this year's convention. Roper said the process was "instructive" since it increased awareness of student government leaders of each others' concerns. "A number of important issues were explored," he said. "Those who participate will remember what those issues are and may be able to reach a consensus in the future."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.