UA talks about rush proposal

The Undergraduate Assembly made its second attempt to officially respond to the Commission on Strengthening the Community's preliminary report Sunday night, but failed to take action. UA member Quang O proposed an open letter to the Commission denouncing its proposal to delay Greek rush to sophomore year. After over an hour of amendments, motions, parliamentary procedures and debate, the letter was withdrawn from consideration and no final vote occurred. Two weeks ago, UA member Adam Strunk, a College freshman, proposed a letter advocating the Commission's randomized housing proposal. The letter was voted down, 20-9. In his presentation to the UA, O, a Wharton sophomore, said postponing rush would be detrimental to the future of the Greek system. "By deferring rush, we're hurting the people power and the financial situation of the houses," he said. "The Greek system is too important for this." After O's presentation, UA member Dan Debicella, a Wharton sophomore, proposed two amendments. Though one was a minor change in wording, the other asked to include a paragraph advocating the study of second semester freshman rush as an alternative solution. Debicella spoke first in the debate on his amendment, and said the current system forces freshmen to make a decision too quickly. "But I agree that moving rush to sophomore year is detrimental," he added. "Moving it to the second semester is getting the best of both worlds." In response, O said the UA should not "negotiate" with the Commission. He reasserted his claim that housing would remain a problem even if rush is moved to second semester. UA member Kirsten Bartok, a College senior, presented the second affirmative argument, saying a second semester rush would not be problematic. "It would give those students a little more time to meet students, find out what they want to do and find out about the other organizations on campus," she said. UA member Jessica Pollock, a College junior, completed the debate on the amendment by saying that sororities currently have problems filling their houses because they conduct second semester rush. "It could lead to closing their houses, then ending their charters," she said. "That will be the beginning of the end of the Greek system." Though a motion was made to extend debate, it failed. A 13-12 vote then passed the amendment. But, after a five minute caucus, O motioned to reconsider the amendment. After the body voted not to reconsider the amendment, O withdrew his letter from the table. "It isn't my letter anymore and this isn't what I want," he said. Debicella then reintroduced the letter with his amendment. UA Campus and Facilities Chairperson and College senior David Heimann motioned to table the issue until March 20, the UA's next meeting. That motion also failed. Heimann then motioned to divide the question, requesting two separate votes -- one on Debicella's amendment and one on the original letter. The motion to divide the question passed by a 13-12 vote. But before its approval, O motioned to adjourn the meeting. However, UA Chairperson and College junior Seth Hamalian overruled O's motion. "Either grab your balls and vote on it or don't and get out of here," he said. Though the body was prepared to vote on the divided question, Debicella withdrew the letter completely, ending the meeting. UA members were divided last night regarding the meeting's impact. "We're here to represent our constituency," UA member and College freshman Josh Gottheimer said. "Sometimes you have to use parliamentary procedures and delay things. "The whole meeting gave me more confidence in the system," he added. But Sher said the UA meeting was "disgraceful." "The UA did a tremendous disservice to the student body by not voting on the Commission report," Sher said. "We were not elected to manipulate parliamentary procedure at the expense of substantive debate." Andhe said he is "disgusted at the state of the UA right now." "Unless there are major changes, the UA won't get anything done," he added.