UA members vote down constitution

Undergraduate Assembly members voted last night not to place its newly-drafted constitution on the spring ballot, defying the wishes of the UA leadership and possibly killing the work of the year-long constitutional convention. After debate that raged for over an hour, UA leaders could not muster the required two-thirds majority to make the constitution a referendum, to be voted on by the student body. The assembly voted 17 in favor and nine opposed with two abstentions -- well short of the 22 positive votes required for passage. While the possibility exists that the constitution could still make the ballot, leaders would have to gather 200 signatures of undergraduates to do so. But it is unlikely that leaders will get the signatures by today's 5 p.m. Nominations and Elections Committee deadline. Jon Wachs, an author of the proposal, said some delegates to the convention are still "considering entering the referendum at a later date." This would force the undergraduate government to hold two campus-wide elections. At last night's meeting, UA Chairperson Duchess Harris stepped out of character by taking sides on the issue, calling on representatives to put the constitution on the ballot. "It's irrelevant if you like it or not, at this point," Harris told them. "Our responsibility to the undergraduate population is to let them decide." A year ago, Harris almost singlehandedly brought together student leaders to rework the structure of student government. But despite Harris' urging, members voted it down, outlining various reasons why they opposed the constitution. "We should definitely not refer it to students," said sophomore representative David Rodstein. "Students would be voting on a proposal that doesn't serve their best interests." Most members who did not vote for the proposal said they were either opposed to it because some convention delegates are still not satisfied with their product or because of the short amount of time they were allowed to consider the document. "The wording was so bad that there were ambiguities and omissions that rendered it a dysfunctional document," Rodstein said. "I don't think it should be put on the ballot," said at-large convention delegate and former Connaissance chairperson Emily Nichols. "This document doesn't represent the unified voice of student leaders on this campus." "If the version of the constitution that was presented tonight was put on the ballot, it would be a travesty," she added. After the vote, Harris said she was "disgusted" with the assembly's vote. And some Convention delegates felt that the UA didn't allow the student body to consider the constitution for itself. "The UA just took the decision to change student government and they made it themselves," said delegate Mike Gordon. "The UA members don't trust the people who elected them to make an informed decision." "The point of student government is to give students a choice," added representative and convention delegate You-Lee Kim. College and Wharton senior Sue Moss, the chairperson of the Student Activities Council and a delegate to the convention, called on UA members after the vote to continue work on the convention next year. "The work of this year's constitutional convention is certainly in jeopardy," she said. "If they do not continue the process next year, then everything this year was in vain." Several members said they were upset that they were not familiar enough with the eight-page final draft, which had been handed out just minutes before the meeting. "If a constituent said to you 'what's in it?'," representative Rodstein told his colleagues, "you wouldn't know." At one point during the meeting, Kim asked the assembly take a 30-minute recess to review the document, but UA leaders opposed the motion and it was defeated. UA leaders dismissed such complaints, saying that previous drafts of the constitution had been available since Sunday and that UA representatives should have attended the year-long conventions. "There were those educated UA members that felt that this was a workable document," said UA vice-chairperson Mike Feinberg. "There were other UA members who voted 'no' just because they didn't do their jobs." Tex Roper, a Wharton junior and at-large convention delegate, said he felt the UA leadership was trying to strongarm the constitution onto the ballot. "I think the UA leadership made a very serious tactical mistake by trying to shove the proposal down the throats of the membership," he said. Nichols agreed, saying that "people felt 'I want to see something happen before I graduate,' without considering whether it would be good or bad." "It wasn't that we decided that it was bad," Rodstein said. "It wouldn't fulfill its purpose."

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