In a surprising turn of events, a second referendum for student government constitutional reform will appear on the March 28 ballot, along with two additional referenda for constitutional amendments, Nominations and Elections Committee Chairperson of Elections Roy Fu said last night. The College senior added that the second plan proposes a constitution that is almost identical to the current Undergraduate Assembly constitution. Fu said he did not know who authored the proposal. The two constitutional amendments that will appear on the ballot involve electoral reform and the UA's power over Social Planning and Events Committee, Fu added. The new referenda follow on the heels of another proposal for constitutional reform put on the ballot earlier this week by College senior and Undergraduate Assembly member Dan Schorr and Daily Pennsylvanian columnist Mike Nadel, a College junior. According to Schorr, he and Nadel were told that the NEC's deadline was Tuesday. Therefore, he said the three referenda recently added to the ballot are past deadline. But Fu said there was never an official deadline and Tuesday was simply the "ideal date" the NEC chose. Schorr said he does not plan to contest the issue. This year marks the first time that a constitutional reform proposal has ever graced the UA ballot, Nadel said. And Fu said this is the first time in "recent history" four referenda will be on the ballot. The second constitutional reform proposal involves changing the UA to an "Undergraduate Senate" -- a change also found in the Nadel-Schorr proposal. "We're not surprised that there's another proposal that maintains the same structure but changes the name," Schorr said last night. "It will help confuse the ballot on election day and that's why the name was chosen." In addition, the second proposal changes the make-up of the steering committee -- it would continue to have standing committees, although Senate members will be more actively involved in them. But unlike the Nadel-Schorr proposal, the NEC would remain intact, although the Senate would be able to revoke any appointment made to the body. Also, a Senate Coordinating Committee would be established to "facilitate effective general student advocacy and student presence." The Student Activities Council would contain boards of representatives from related activities -- such as a "publications board" for student magazines. One representative from each board would attend SAC meetings. SAC decisions could be appealed to the Senate. In contrast, the Nadel-Schorr proposal would replace both the UA and NEC with a body called the Undergraduate Senate, which would perform all UA and NEC functions. The Senate would also allocate funds to SAC groups. SAC would still be able to recognize new groups, communicate information and overturn Senate funding decisions with a two-thirds vote. In addition, a "Constitutional Administration Council" would oversee Senate operations and elections, according to the plan. A flurry of rumors about UA constitutional reform have swept through campus this week -- although few have been substantiated and some have, in fact, proven false. Many students who claim to be involved in constitutional reform proposals other than the Nadel-Schorr plan have refused to provide details about their efforts. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson and Wharton junior Dan Debicella said earlier this week that Wharton senior Eric Leathers and College senior Seth Hamalian had drafted new student government constitutions for the March 28 ballot. But both former UA members denied Debicella's claims, and he acknowledged Wednesday that he was wrong. Leathers said he thought the rumor regarding his participation in constitutional reform may have been started because people thought his roommate, College senior and NEC Chairperson Rick Gresh, was involved. Hamalian said he, too, did not author a constitution, -- although he has offered advice to others, whom he refused to name. And College senior Sharon Jindal said Tuesday night she is circulating a petition for another constitutional reform proposal for an unnamed friend. Both Jindal and Hamalian have refrained from revealing those student leaders believed to be behind their constitutional plans. Some have speculated that the two students have been working together on one plan. Neither was available for comment last night and Fu said he did not know if the second constitutional proposal on the ballot was associated with either of them. Schorr and Nadel said the second plan does not have enough student input, adding that they discussed their own plan with students for four months. "How are students going to be able to make a judgement on a constitution that they've never seen and whose authors are unknown?" Nadel asked. If either new constitution passes during the March 28 and 29 voting, both amendments on the ballot -- whether they fail or pass -- would be void because they are considered amendments to the current constitution, NEC Chairperson Rick Gresh said. One amendment, authored by Debicella, involves electoral reform. Thirty-three geographically based electoral districts would be formed and general elections would be held in the fall. The second amendment, proposed by Social Planning and Events Committee, would make SPEC a standing autonomous committee of the UA -- similar to the NEC and SCUE. Currently, SPEC is a committee falling under the jurisdiction of the UA. The majority of 20 percent of the undergraduate population must vote for a referendum for it to be adopted.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.