UA REFORM, First in a Series

Students would vote by geogrpahic district under Debicella plan Students would vote by geogrpahic district under Debicella planEditor's Note: This is the first of a series of stories outlining the various proposals for constitutional reform of the Undergraduate Assembly. Today's story focuses on UA Chairperson Dan Debicella's plans for revamping student government. Followers of the University's student government may need a constitutional scholar to help them understand the next few months of debate. Within a week of the beginning of the spring semester, student leaders have released nine separate constitutional proposals. Each one represents a major break from the current constitution -- which has been criticized by almost everyone involved in the movement to reform the way student government works at the University. "Constitutional reform is desirable," Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson and Wharton junior Dan Debicella said. "The UA right now has proven that the current structure can work, but no matter how well you're doing you can always do better." Debicella put forward seven proposals this week. Of the constitutional plans released so far, Debicella's most closely resemble the current constitution. All the proposals he put out this week are merely options for the University's student government to discuss, according to Debicella. He declined to endorse any specific plan at this time. While Debicella said he still has faith in the constitution, he cautioned that his drafts still mark significant departures from the present structure. "Actually, [the drafts are] hugely different," he said. "But I think the basic framework we have now works." Debicella focuses all of his plans on electoral reform, rather than a change in the balance of power within student government. All of his plans would change the election system from the current school-based proportional representation. Debicella would implement 33 geographic districts, each of which would elect one representative to the UA. He said the basic problem with student government lies solely in the operations of the UA -- not in the other branches such as the Nominations and Elections Committee, which UA representative and College senior Dan Schorr has suggested disbanding in his own reform proposal. "The other branches of student government work very, very well," Debicella said. "If you just do structural reform without electoral reform, it's just shifting the power around within government." He listed the accomplishments of the Student Activities Council and the Student Planning and Events Committee as reasons that a new constitution should not focus on those branches. But Debicella said all his options include increased UA supremacy over the other five branches of government. "In general, the branches of student government could use to work closer together," he said. "I think you definitely want the elected body of student government to be the final power in all decisions." Most of Debicella's other changes pertain to internal UA matters, he said. Two proposals put forth the idea of creating two positions for UA commissioners, who would study specific areas of the school. Debicella's proposals would make the commissioners responsible to the UA for all information in their area of expertise. "At each Assembly meeting, each Commissioner shall be required to give a written report to the Assembly consisting of recent events in their area?" reads the third of Debicella's proposals. "Failure to produce this report is grounds for removal." In addition, two of his proposals call for a general election for UA officers -- rather than the internal UA election that currently determines who holds office. "The main benefit is that it would make people feel much more attracted to their student government," he said. Rather than structural reform, Debicella said he wants to see an increase in students' understanding of and participation in the UA. "People shouldn't put so much emphasis on constitutional reform as a cure-all for any problems student government might have," he said. "I think that what we need to do beyond just constitutional reform is to get students more involved in student government." Debicella pointed to the UA's recent reports and proposals as evidence that the UA is quite active -- contrary to what he said is the general public opinion at the University. "The UA has gotten a lot done this year," he said. "Structure is important, but more important is what this UA is getting accomplished." Several other student government leaders -- each of whom have reform proposals of their own -- had comments on Debicella's plans. "Dan Debicella doesn't understand what the problem is," SAC Finance committee member and College junior Mike Nadel said. Nadel said electoral reform is not the solution to the problems facing student government, but that he is willing to include it in his plan. "[I am] open to considering electoral reform," he said. "[But] I haven't yet heard ideas that [I] consider good." Schorr said he also thought electoral reform was a secondary issue. "I don't think that's the big problem," he said. "It's being blamed for a lot of problems that are really the result of poor management." Tomorrow, part two of the series will examine UA member Dan Schorr's reform plan.