NEWS ANALYSIS: At term's end, an appraisal of the UA

Ending a long year of audits and judicial charter drafts, the 1995-96 Undergraduate Assembly's term came to an official close on Sunday as the new UA met for the first time, bringing a two-week transition period to an end. But how well did the outgoing UA perform, and what still remains for the next UA to tackle? Former UA Chairperson Lance Rogers came into his position last April with an ambitious platform calling for reform to take a new direction. The College senior emphasized co-operation among the members of the UA, communication with students and action in setting goals and conveying them to the University community. One year later, the UA has reached some of those goals, while other initiatives failed or fell by the wayside. The 1995-96 UA's achievements include its work on the Judicial Charter draft and Dining Services. But some feel that this is not enough. 1994-95 UA Chairperson Dan Debicella, a Wharton senior, said his UA had many more major accomplishments. Office of Student Life, Activities and Facilities Director Fran Walker said the inherent problem is not within the UA, but instead comes from how the student body -- and as a result, The Daily Pennsylvanian -- evaluates student government success. "Students feel that if the UA does not accomplish major change they are not significant," Walker said. "I feel that if the UA worked very well as a group and had a lot of smaller accomplishments they are significant. You can not expect people who are on student government for one year to change the face of student government." UA cooperation improved over the last year due to a decrease in the level of political fighting within the body itself, according to Walker. And Debicella admitted that Rogers' UA succeeded in getting away from the personal bitterness and bickering that plagued his UA. The body's proceedings have become more efficient in some ways, but less so in others. While UA Treasurer and College sophomore Steve Schorr's early preparation of the budget shortened this year's budget meeting, some meetings during the year dragged on endlessly, as members lost enthusiasm by the minute. And, although Rogers' platform called for committees to establish and tackle specific issues, many members felt the structure was too rigid and bureaucratic, causing many of last week's Steering Committee election candidates to call for a modification of the system. Rogers' call for increased action on issues seems to have produced results. Fueled by veteran members and enthusiastic freshmen, the body took on many issues. A concerted effort by the UA led to changes in the latest draft of the student judicial charter. And College freshman Samara Barend spurred valuable changes to Dining Services. Rogers now calls the UA's action on the judicial charter a "defining moment" for the body, claiming that it established the UA's ability to mobilize students and work with the faculty. But many issues that started off with a bang seemed to have become lost in the University and UA bureaucracy. Although the UA began to address topics such as advising and safety, the body has yet to produce results on the issues. "Steering did a good job setting up committees, but we really did not know how to tackle some issues," new UA Chairperson and College sophomore Tal Golomb said. But relationships with the faculty and administrators have improved. Provost Stanley Chodorow attended a UA meeting and University President Judith Rodin cooked dinner for the entire body. Communication with other student groups and the student body, however, has seen little improvement. "The UA underutilized connections to other branches of student government and student groups," Walker said. The "ivory tower" syndrome of last year's UA -- as UA representative and College freshman Marc Sagat termed it -- was a concern to many candidates for Steering at last week's transition meeting. Many of them called for more cooperation and even suggested formal liaison programs to encourage input from organizations such as the United Minorities Council, the InterFraternity Council and the Panhellenic Council. Golomb said this lack of communication was a direct cause of student allegations that the UA failed to adequately represent them. The first action of last year's UA was to move meetings to Chats and establish an open floor time during which students could address the body. Yet only two students used this opportunity during the entire year, and UA office hours are constantly neglected by both the members holding them and the student body itself. However, Golomb did say the UA took major steps by simply bringing the meetings out of seminar rooms in Houston Hall and encouraging student input. The UA undertook a massive door-to-door communication program in February, handing out information to students in their dorms, as suggested in Rogers' platform. Two weeks after the program began, an informal DP survey indicated that 78 percent of students had not received the door-to-door information and that 99 percent had never contacted the UA. An earlier poll showed that 34 percent had no interest in learning more about the UA and 45 percent would not contact a UA member even if they had an issue to discuss. Those statistics bring up questions as to whether student government -- even a good student government -- can ever muster the full support and enthusiasm of the entire student body. Walker said she has her doubts. She explained that no matter how good the student government is, the student body views it as a joke, adding that she has heard from colleagues that this is a problem at many campuses. Others involved with student government, including Rogers, Golomb and former Student Activities Council Chairperson and College senior Graham Robinson, said they have difficulty believing students are completely apathetic. "Students are not necessarily apathetic," Golomb said. "They are very involved in their own activities and those activities have their issues. The UA has to tap the interests of students in those activities." In a year of both victories and losses, the UA has set itself on course for success, recovering from past divisions in the body and taking steps to develop relationships with both students and administrators. Whether the new UA can harness these victories and move towards a stronger student government remains to be seen.