U.A. Past, Present, Future?

The effectiveness of the Undergraduate Assembly has been a long-standing issue surrounding the University's only, fully representative student government. In light of recent events, including the attempted impeachment of UA Chairperson Dan Debicella, the Assembly has come under fire. In fact, many have questioned its ability to remain functional as a cohesive, dynamic organization geared toward addressing students' concerns about the University. But UA members from past and present boards give their opinions on how the body can improve its effectiveness by learning lessons from the past. Many students have asked whether this year's UA will be able to represent with efficiency the needs and concerns of the student body. Several UA representatives who have been involved since the onset of their undergraduate careers at the University, point out that one determining factor may be the internal structure of the organization. UA Steering Committee member and College senior Dan Schorr said he has been a part of four different bodies that have operated under very different internal structures. Under former UA Chairperson Mitch Winston the body was mostly self-governing, Schorr said, because "Mitch never seemed as involved, and the vice chair was young and inexperienced." "It was run well by [former UA Vice Chair] Ethan Yudarian," Schorr said. "He did an excellent job making sure committees worked on projects...good things were done." The structure that contributed to the success of that term's body is described by Schorr as having "eight to nine committees with specific projects being worked on that weren't nebulous." "Not including this year -- it's too early to tell -- this is the most successful [UA] I've been on," he added. The "moronic Mitch Winston administration," as Debicella calls it, along with the previous two administrations headed by Jeff Lichtman and Seth Hamalian, "each had a flavor all its own with different members and different direction." Debicella gives credit to Lichtman for rebuilding the UA "from being a total joke on campus" to what it is today -- "a super committed body towards student advocacy." "I think the difference is the level of commitment that the UA members feel and I've honestly been so pleased with the work members have been doing," he added. Serving on the UA for the third straight year, Debicella said previous UA boards were too involved and "bogged down" with debates dealing with ideological issues, such as last year's racial harassment policy, freshman randomized housing and delayed Greek rush. "If these ideological issues come up, my idea would be to hold open forums for students to come in and discuss these issues," Debicella said. "I think that the UA's job is a facilitator of discussion and debate rather than a final decision maker." The role of the Steering Committee has never been set in stone, although it is the only committee other than the UA's internal Budget Committee that is mandated in the body's constitution. In the past it has taken on ever-changing roles as the directional unit of the UA. The UA's past three years have seen the coming and going of three very different Steering boards. They have varied from being structured and rigid, to decentralized and informal, where the main body was given almost all of the power, Schorr said. "I don't think any of those structures so far are good enough," he added. "[What would be a good structure is] power in the body and the strong role of steering in advising members on how to accomplish things." Debicella, who as chair of the UA heads the Steering Committee, agreed with Schorr's assessment. "I think that Steering's role is to nudge the body in the right direction, not to order them or tell them what to do," Debicella said. "When the body starts to get bogged down, it's our job to give them coordination." UA Vice Chairperson and College junior Tamara Dubowitz said "being a member of steering is [a] two-fold [job]." "One, is to work with the body in a helpful and resourceful way; two, is to work with other steering members in directing the body in great directions," she said. Dubowitz explained that she also sees Steering in an untraditional way. "I don't see it as a hierarchy but as a link to join together a circular chain," she said. An example of this year's Steering directional guidance came when the body debated the group's internal committee structure. After Debicella proposed his long-term oriented committees for Project 2000, many members said they were concerned with the amount of time they would have left to work on short-term, action-directed results. UA representative and College junior Eric Tienou said Steering's decision to choose the format the committees would take was the right one. "[I'm] happy to have this resolved tonight," he said. "I'm a very action-minded person and Steering understands this [about the body]." Several former UA members said another important factor for achieving a body's goals is its sense of "cohesion." "I think we worked together exceptionally well," said former UA member and Engineering senior Ha Nguyen. "That's the difference -- this year's body doesn't seem to have the tendency to hang out as much in the office." College junior and former UA member Erika Brown, who along with Nguyen, served under the body headed by Hamalian, agreed that a socially united body is key to an effective student government body. The socially conducive environment was caused by a three-committee umbrella group structure adopted during that particular year. "I got to know everyone in the UA, and I didn't expect it," Brown said. "Under the three umbrella groups that the UA was divided into, idealistically you had to work together for those issues. "It just shows that even if you have different views and goals you could still work with the person," she added. Differences of opinions were none more apparent than in last year's body when debating ideological debates, College junior Lance Rogers said. "It is imperative that we don't shy away from attacking issues that may divide the body," he said. "These issues are commonly the most important issues that any UA will deal with." A goal of the UA, said Rogers, is to "show the students that the UA does bear direct relevance on their lives here. We should be seen as a resource rather than as bureaucracy." Debicella agreed. "I think students' cynicism stems from [the idea of] what is student government going to do for me," he said. "They don't feel our direct impact and the fact that we're touching them many different ways every day they are here -- from all student activities we indirectly fund through SAC to Spring Fling."