One year ago, Dana Hork presented her candidate speech for the position of Undergraduate Assembly chairwoman, outlining her top priorities for the 2001-2002 school year.
"Our goal as UA members is to make the UA more relevant," Hork said at the time.
Hork won the position that night and continued on to lead the largest undergraduate representative body through its successes and failures -- all based around the broad goal of creating a forceful organization that would prove relevant to the daily lives of Penn students.
Tomorrow night, a new chairman will be internally chosen to lead the recently elected UA representatives. But the biggest question remains -- will that new chairman be inheriting a body that is better off than it was when Hork inherited it?
In her speech last spring, Hork discussed four areas which she targeted for both support and improvement. Those areas were aiding student groups, working with the entire student body, strengthening the internal structure of the UA and improving relations with the administration.
And while the UA has made progress in each of those four areas, little has been done on a large scale to affect the student body as a whole.
The assembly has worked to incorporate the issues of smaller student groups into its agenda. The body allocated five out of its 15 spots on the University Council -- the advisory board to the president and provost -- to student groups which represent minority or "misunderstood" majority groups.
However, the body spent more than three weeks deliberating on the number of seats and to which groups they should be assigned, and the debate was marred by internal and external conflict.
Perhaps the most visible achievement this year's UA enacted was the revised campus dining policy -- part of Hork's vision to affect the entire student body and not just small groups of interested students. The UA successfully lobbied Dining and Business Services to lower the required number of meals for incoming freshmen, to offer upperclassmen more flex meal plans with fewer meals and to add more Dining Dollars to the packages offered.
The assembly also helped in the creation of a civilian review board for the Penn Police Department in response to an incident of alleged racial profiling that occurred on campus last fall.
But while those accomplishments stand out, representatives have often criticized the large amount of time and energy which the body has invested in adjusting its internal structure, such as its attendance policy.
And many have cited bickering among body members at meetings as a problem that saddled the UA all year long.
"People argued so much that we didn't get things done," former UA representative and incoming Class of 2004 President Meredith Seidel said earlier this month. "The body had terrible morale. Arguing brought morale down, and no one was inspired to do anything."
Some members, though, have defended this use of time, calling it a "rebuilding year" and lauding the effects which new committees such as the pluralism and external relations committees -- led by Gautam Mashettiwar and Aaron Short, respectively -- will have on the future of the body.
Additionally, Hork says she and her constituents have worked to improve their relevance to the administration by expressing concerns "while understanding that forming partnerships on issues can be mutually beneficial."
Hork's hands-off style of leadership for the assembly also allowed for criticism from UA members and worked to develop other leaders and give committees autonomy.
Those leaders include the five committee chairmen -- College sophomores Jason Levy and Kirsten Grubbs, Engineering sophomore Matt Lattman, College junior Seth Schreiberg and Wharton senior James Ku -- who headed up specific targets including the West Philadelphia and facilities committees.
Ku said he enjoyed working with Hork because of her hands-on approach during weekly meetings and her hands-off approach for individual committees.
"She was just so committed and totally professional... she really gave us credit," he said.
