UA wrapped up in procedural red tape

When the 25 Undergraduate Assembly members were elected last spring, they hoped for a solid year of change and accomplishment. They pledged to look carefully at the system and strive to meet the goals they set out for themselves. After being elected UA Vice Chairperson last April, College senior Scott Sher said he wanted student government to do more than just pass resolutions. But at the group's meeting last Sunday night, UA members were unable to pass any resolutions, let alone do more than that. And since last spring, the UA has done little more than pass resolutions and debate issues. At Sunday's meeting, the UA debated the recommendation from the preliminary report of the Commission on Strengthening the Community's to postpone fraternity and sorority rush until sophomore year. Originally, UA member and Wharton sophomore Quang O submitted an open letter to the Commission denouncing the postponed rush plan. UA member and Wharton sophomore Dan Debicella amended the letter to support the study of second semester freshman year rush as an alternative solution. A 13-12 vote supported the amendment Supporters of the original letter became angry and withdrew their support of the new letter. What ensued was a complicated set of parliamentary procedures, motions, debate and amendments. No vote was taken on the letter, no resolution was made and nothing substantial was accomplished. Several UA members were disillusioned and disappointed after Sunday night's meeting. "It made me furious," UA Chairperson and College junior Seth Hamalian said. "All year, I and other people have had the burden of expressing an opinion held by the minority well enough so we would get majority support." "These people, when faced with the same task, quit and manipulated parliamentary procedure to their advantage," he added. UA member and College senior Kirsten Bartok voiced similar sentiments. "They spent an extra hour bickering, boosting their own reputations, and getting nothing accomplished," she said. And UA member and College sophomore Dan Schorr said he was "disgusted at the state of the UA right now." "The UA right now can't deal with an issue without everyone attacking each other," he said. "Unless there's major changes, the UA won't get anything done." Those who supported the original proposal said their actions are justified. "I had no problems with [the parliamentary procedures]," said UA Campus and Facilities Chairperson David Heimann, a College senior. "I didn't think we were trying to manhandle the situation and I didn't feel exasperated by what was happening." UA member and College freshman Josh Gottheimer perhaps characterized the group's "system" best. "That's how the system works," he said. During the past year, the UA has been divided on almost every issue it has discussed, from speech codes to assigned housing. And this division has made it difficult for the body to take concrete action. Most recently, this inaction can be seen in the group's response to a letter proposed by College freshman and UA member Adam Strunk advocating the Commission's proposal on assigned housing. By a vote of 20-9, the UA voted not to send the letter. Orderly debate, although vehement, took place during this meeting and a vote was held without delay or parliamentary procedures. Votes without major parliamentary procedural motions have been held on other controversial issues as well. Last fall, for instance, the UA debated the Racial Harassment Policy. Sher submitted a resolution that supported the existence of a so-called speech code and asked Interim President Claire Fagin to develop an alternative plan to Part II of the Racial Harassment Policy. The motion passed after much debate and after Hamalian cast the tie-breaking vote. One of the few unified actions taken by the group was the approval of a letter asking Fagin to decide on a new racial harassment policy by April 1. And although there are several others, Sunday night's meeting is the culmination of a divisive year in which the UA had great difficulty in acting as a united body. Though everything was done legally at Sunday night's meeting, UA Budget Committee Chairperson and Wharton junior Eric Leathers said parliamentary procedure was not used for its proper purpose. "Parliamentary procedures' main goal is to protect the integrity and order of the body," he said. "Some people were just trying to block something from coming to the floor." Bartok, a UA veteran, said this is common for the UA. "They do it sometimes when it's not necessary," she said. "It's pretty typical and I'm used to it by now." UA members said this meeting may have added to the disillusionment some members of the body already felt. "There are a lot of intelligent people who have seen this and other things, and take it as a bad experience," Schorr said. Hamalian said Sunday's meeting "was an appropriate conclusion to the year." Beginning on a promise for action, the UA slipped into a pattern of indecisiviness and inaction, failing to meet the expectations which Sher envisioned last spring.