SAC's UA reform meeting ends early

Student leaders accomplished little at an "emergency" Student Activities Council meeting last night. They spent much of the meeting -- which was scheduled for a discussion on constitutional reform -- complaining they were wasting their time. They adjourned before completing their agenda. In a startling move as the meeting was being adjourned, however, Wharton junior and Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Dan Debicella told the body not to vote in next week's election. He later clarified his views, saying he wants people to vote for UA candidates but does not want people to vote on the referenda because they would create an "all powerful UA called the Undergraduate Senate." But College senior Dan Schorr, a UA member, said Debicella was advocating apathy. "It would be unfortunate if our attempt to fight apathy was killed by apathy," Schorr said. And College junior Mike Nadel, a Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, said he was appalled and disgusted by Debicella's remarks. Only slightly more than half of SAC attended the unplanned meeting, although most representatives had learned about it Monday. And although SAC Chairperson Richard Chow called the meeting to discuss proposals for student government constitutional reform, SAC representatives did not focus on the content of the actual referenda. Chow, a Wharton senior, had enlisted the Nominations and Elections Committee to make an "unbiased" presentation on each of the four referenda that will appear on next week's ballot. But some had called the NEC's objectivity into question since one of the constitutional proposals abolishes the body. Before the meeting began, Chow ruled that none of the referenda's authors could speak or answer questions, because he said, he did not want the meeting to be a "beauty contest." This became a point of contention later in the relatively brief meeting, after SAC representatives expressed dissatisfaction with the NEC presentation. Difficulties began when NEC Chairperson and College senior Rick Gresh presented referendum "B" -- a proposed amendment regarding electoral reform. SAC representatives requested specifics on the plan, proposed by Debicella, which would create geographic voting districts. They were told, however, that the NEC did not have that information. "I can only give what is factually stated in the document," Gresh said. "It is not my job to do interpretation." This became the theme for the rest of the meeting, as representatives became frustrated with the answers and information they received. After College freshman and NEC member Diane Casteel began to read aloud sections of the A1 constitution -- authored by Schorr and Nadel -- representatives began to call the discussion "useless." Citing the public availability of both proposals, College junior and SAC representative Michael Rutner asked if the body could overturn Chow's decision to prevent the authors from speaking. Although Nadel and Schorr were present to speak for the A1 constitution, no one took responsibility for the A2 proposal. College senior Sharon Jindal, who has admitted that she contributed to the A2 proposal, was present at the meeting, but said afterward she felt she could not "properly represent the entire proposal." "I came as a SAC representative and nothing else," Jindal said, adding she was upset that her proposal was never discussed during the meeting. A motion to overturn Chow's ruling overwhelmingly failed. College junior Paul Pimentel, a SAC representative for Penn Players, then motioned to adjourn the meeting. The body was practically unanimous in agreement. Elections will take place next Tuesday and Wednesday. To pass any of the referenda, 20 percent of undergraduates must vote and a majority of them must be in favor of the proposals.