COLUMN: Democracy works better

From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98 From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98 After reading my column about the effects of Penn's oligarchic decision-making process, some of you might have thought, "So what if many faculty members and students harbor animosity toward the administration? Decisions are being made faster than ever and the University is moving ahead regardless." Unfortunately, in many instances, such is not the case. For instance, if the administration had sought consultation earlier in its outsourcing agreement with Trammell Crow, it could perhaps have avoided restructuring its entire deal and an embarrassing lawsuit. Delayed since last summer, the handling of the vending issue has been equally ineffective as the administration has proceeded with plans that were designed with minimal input from students or faculty members, producing major backlash among the University community. Further, the administration did not realize that its snapshot decision to move the Faculty Club into the new Sansom Common hotel could be illegal until former University Provost Frank Rhodes published a scathing letter in Almanac informing administrators that they are under contractual obligations to remain in the present location. Penn could avoid such snafues and function more effectively by better utilizing structures, such as University Council, which is already in place to promote a more participative, democratic approach. But in order to empower Council to provide informative advice, three organizational changes must take place: reporting should be minimized, committees should actually assist with planning and the body should more readily take positions on issues. Council must no longer serve as a pulpit for administrators and faculty members simply to dispense information and present plans. More often than not, undebatable topics are presented, such as the employee benefits redesign package or the floor plans of the new bookstore. Such information should instead be included in issues of Almanac and sent to Council members, so that the majority of each session is not consumed by reports that do not require "advising." If such reporting was eliminated, Council would actually have time to add crucially needed input to pressing University issues. This relatively simple organizational change would begin resolving the attendance problem that constantly undermines Council's ability to be an "advisory body." If members felt they could contribute significantly to important decisions, rather than listening to countless reports that seem to have no relevance to their lives, then they would be much more inclined to take two hours out of their day and come to Council sessions. Outside of specific sessions, the administration must use Council committees as planning bodies to ensure that its decisions are properly informed. For the most part, the committees serve merely a legitimizing function, considering issues after major decisions have been made and acting only in the implementation stages -- looking into floor plans for the bookstore, etc. There is also often little direct correlation between recommendations put forth by Council committees and decisions made by the administration. When committees do devote considerable time and effort to planning decisions, their reports are discarded by the administration with no discussion at Council. For instance, Graduate and Professional Student Assembly representative Scot Kaplan said that while on the New Building Committee last year, "I spent hundreds of man-hours compiling reports, and I found that all of my recommendations were thrown in the trash." To eliminate this frustration, the administration needs to commission committees to work on specific planning issues. The dozens of committees that now exist should be reduced to four: physical planning, managerial, student life and academics. Although the chairperson would remain constant, administrators, faculty, students and trustees would rotate depending on the issue. The groups would then actually be able to advise the administration on pressing decisions before they are made and present carefully considered recommendations to Council for discussion. Further, Council must begin taking a position on issues. Now, in the rare event that a committee does present a proposal, the recommendations seldom come to a vote. The lack of quorum in the past has been a hindrance to taking votes, but if members felt opportunities to take clear and cogent positions were more likely, they would begin coming. Voting would connect the work of the committees to Council, while allowing members to leave meetings with a sense of satisfaction that they have in fact advised the administration. While many professors and Council committee members are giving up of seeing any change, I have hope. I have hope that the administration can begin creating its "consensus driven planning process," as outlined in the Agenda for Excellence, by allowing University Council to actually advise. For, if Penn truly desires to push forward into the 21st century with a revitalized and restructured campus it must recognize the benefits of a democratic process. Otherwise it will begin the new millennium with remnants of misinformed decisions slowing each of its strides.