Staff Editorial: The race for UA chair

This year's race for Undergraduate Assembly chairman has been anything but predictable. The candidates and possibilities have been in a near-constant state of flux -- almost every hour, a new development has presented itself.

The fluidity and uncertainty that have characterized the race make it very difficult for us to endorse a candidate. As such, we have chosen to forgo a formal endorsement for chairman this year.

Instead, we present our feelings on the individual candidates' strengths and weaknesses to allow readers to develop their own conclusions about who is best suited to be UA chairman.

Ethan Kay, returning to the UA after a year's absence, enters the race with an impressive list of achievements. The Wharton junior understands that the UA needs to change its structure, outreach and goals while still acknowledging the need for external focus.

But his waffling on the issue of whether and how to run is troublesome. We have no doubt that Kay could be a most effective leader, but we are concerned by what his late reentry into the race indicates.

Engineering and Wharton sophomore Matt Lattman presents a solid plan for reforming the UA internally, one that next year's chairman should take very seriously.

But Lattman lacks the experience of the other candidates. And his internal focus is worrisome, as next year's UA must spend more time solving student problems than on internal reform.

Current UA Treasurer Seth Schreiberg, a College junior, is the most experienced of the four candidates and has the potential to be a strong and forceful leader. He also recognizes the need for reform and for the UA to keep a cordial, but not overly close, relationship with administrators, while tackling "bigger" issues.

But we fear that Schreiberg's abrasive style may alienate other UA members. He lacks the tact and professionalism needed as the external face of undergraduate student government.

Aaron Short is, in many ways, the diametric opposite of Schreiberg. The College junior would be a better, more diplomatic external representative with a tone toward conciliation. His experience is impressive, and one cannot deny that he is truly dedicated to the UA and improving undergraduate life.

At the same time, his willingness to compromise is also a weakness. The next UA needs a strong leader, one who can take control of an often unruly group as well as stand up to administrators. We fear that Short lacks the necessary qualities to do so.

While we have our reservations about each candidate, we are certain that whoever is elected has the potential for success.

But one of these student must be elected. And though it appears to no longer be a serious possibility, it is important that the UA not elect co-chairmen.

Each of the four candidates presents strong qualifications for the job, but a decision must be made without resorting to extra-constitutional means in an effort to make it easier.

We are disappointed by the Nominations and Elections Committee's decision to allow members to run as a team, and urge both the candidates and the UA's membership to reject the idea as infeasible and without solid basis in the group's founding document.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.