EDITORIAL: Something to talk about

The Undergraduate Assembly'sThe Undergraduate Assembly'snew plan to improve communicationsThe Undergraduate Assembly'snew plan to improve communicationshas potential, but its progressThe Undergraduate Assembly'snew plan to improve communicationshas potential, but its progressshould be closely monitored.The Undergraduate Assembly'snew plan to improve communicationshas potential, but its progressshould be closely monitored.___________________________________ We're not surprised. An organization that has proved repeatedly that it can't do anything concrete to better the lives of its supposed constituents doesn't usually generate a high profile for itself. The UA's history of inefficiency, ineffectiveness and scandal doesn't help to improve its do-nothing reputation among students or administrators. Still, two-thirds of 120 students polled last week by the DP indicated that they "would like to learn more about the UA." Fifty-five percent said they would contact the UA with issues of concern, although only three percent actually had. With the aptly named Door-to-Door and Phone committees now constitued, it seems the UA will work to satisfy students' desires to be more informed about student government. We are encouraged by the fact that for once, the UA is being proactive in approaching its own -- and campus -- problems identified as priorities by the DP poll. But we are left wondering what makes this Undergraduate Assembly plan to improve communication with constituents so different from past, failed efforts. The UA newsgroup, for example, still exists. But the last time anything resembling the body's minutes was posted there was November 15, 1995, and that was only an update on the work of the Student Life Committee. UA meetings are now held at Chats, but students haven't rushed to attend just because they're in a more central, public location on campus. Only 17 percent of students polled by the DP knew the UA holds office hours. And we can't forget the dismal 13.6 percent voter turnout for last spring's UA elections, a total too low to pass revolutionary constitutional reform proposals that were also on the ballot. It's going to take more than just telephone calls and door-knocking -- both good old-fashioned vote-gathering techniques -- for the UA to gain legitimacy as the voice of undergraduates at Penn. But this new communications plan has potential. We'll be watching, and maybe even polling again in a month or two, to see how things are going.