COLUMN: Putting teeth into the UA

From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98 From Samara Barend's, "Verbal Ginseng," Fall '98To some students, the UA is just an acronym on campaign posters during election time. To others, it is a group of students who sit around trying to influence the administration but yet have little power to do so. So why, then, would students actually need the Undergraduate Assembly? Recent efforts by the UA have resulted in significant improvements in student life. Students now have a judicial charter that does not give administrators absolute power, a campus that is more closely connected with its West Philadelphia community, a Penn Consumer Board that protects off-campus students against unfair landlords, a 24-hour on-campus diner (coming next fall) and a greater likelihood of finally enjoying a state-of-the-art recreation center while at Penn. Those of you who appreciate Lunch Express daily, the expanded use of Chats and 1920 Commons as study space and the increased number of campus-wide events have also enjoyed UA initiatives. Despite its recent accomplishments and its important role in student affairs, the UA time and time again is criticized as being ineffective. Unfortunately for students, those charges sometimes have merit. The body's ambiguous position within the University's governance structure is the main problem that has plagued the present UA. It will continue to be a problem in the future, unless administrators and students -- including UA members -- press for organizational change. The only way for the UA to move ahead, breaking out of inefficiency and apathy and finally gain respect as a body is for it to work with administrators in more than simply an advisory position. As it exists now, one or two UA members meet with top administrators on a regular basis. During my three years on the UA, I have witnessed only a few instances in which the administration specifically turned to the body for help on major policy matters. It is more often the case that the administration takes a reactive approach with the UA, responding to criticism, rather than working proactively to decide an issue jointly. While specific UA members sit on committees created by the administration, there are few occasions on which administrators come before the UA and present proposals or seek student input before making a final decision. The UA, as a whole, is seldom asked to give direct input on administrative proposals -- whether it is an increase in student tuition or a decision to outsource services. One would also think that University Trustees, who have vast authority over students, being responsible for approving budgetary and financial matters, raising money, managing the endowment, assuring adequate physical facilities, overseeing educational programs and encouraging long-term planning, would also be closely linked to the UA. Unfortunately, such is not the case. The situation is different at most state universities. Student governments are given an agenda from the administration and the state board of education is often bound by their decisions. Admittedly, it is unrealistic to think that all issues should go through the UA before they go to the administration. But if students are to have any voice over administrative matters, then it is valid to think that the UA, as the representative voice for students, should be more closely tied to the University Trustees and the administration. Obviously, as illustrated above, UA members can produce results and advocate vital issues as the situation now stands. But the body would be more effective with a defined role in University decisions. In order for the UA to be more effective right now, without increasing any connections with the administration, each member must take a good amount of initiative to act independently, outside of regular meetings. Admittedly, there are many UA members who do possess such initiative. The problem, however, is that without a clearly defined role in the governing structure, many UA members feel removed from the process, believing that their independent actions will make no difference, leaving students short-sighted in the end. Thus, unless UA members are elected now who have a good understanding of the University bureaucracy and a strong sense of initiative, there will be little impetus to institute needed organizational changes. What then, does this all mean for students who are seeking to assert their voice to the administration through the UA? Students, seeing that major University issues are being decided with little consultation from the UA, often feel that student government is a sham. They feel that voting makes no difference since they perceive the organization as having little influence. But if the UA is being left out of the vending debate, outsourcing decisions, the Perelman Quad and Sansom Common plans, then, more often than not, so are you. No other group is elected to handle these issues. Rather than criticizing the UA as ineffective, I challenge students to take action -- to vote in the upcoming UA elections, speak with administrators and voice your views in The Daily Pennsylvanian -- to promote needed organizational change.