UA members decry internal focus

The results of the Undergraduate Assembly elections will be announced Wednesday, but voters can already predict a few names that will not be on the winning ticket.

These are the names of current members who decided, for a variety of reasons, not to seek re-election.

Usually, the young politicos who vie for one of the 33 UA seats enjoy climbing the ranks with each election. Many of them begin as freshmen with the hope of one day leading the student government body.

But many freshmen and sophomores who were enthusiastic about their place in student government even a few months ago are now disillusioned with the process.

Although 20 of the current UA members are seeking reelection, five members who are still eligible are not.

"The best leaders at Penn would not run for the UA," College sophomore and UA representative Meredith Seidel said. "I was surprised, when I first arrived on campus, to see that student government is not packed with all of the best leaders."

Seidel said she approached people she thought were strong leaders and asked them why they would not run for a UA position.

"They weren't interested in student government because they feel they can be more effective in working toward something more fulfilling than student government," she said.

"They weren't interested because they usually feel very passionate about some specific thing that takes their interest more than the portrayal of the bureaucracy of student government," she added.

UA Chairwoman Dana Hork said that although the UA does attract a crop of dedicated student leaders, it's not for everyone.

"Different people choose to exercise leadership in different ways and in different places," Hork said. "Some students may choose to devote all of their time and effort to a single issue outside of the UA rather than work toward compromise and consensus by tackling a multiplicity of issues within the UA."

Seidel is not a candidate in the current UA elections. Instead, she's running for junior class president, a choice she made based on the differences between the UA and Class Boards.

"On Class Boards, you do tangible things that are a lot more fun to do," she said. "You're working with 10 closely knit people, instead of 33 people who disagree on a lot of things. The objective is different: you're working for one class versus the whole school."

"I can see a lot more headaches accomplishing my goals with the UA than with Class Boards," she said.

But while Seidel is departing the UA, fellow Class of 2004 presidential candidate Jason Levy is running for reelection to the body. He said that despite its flaws, the UA can have an impact.

"It's a matter of perspective," Levy said. "I really don't look at the UA as a body that will fundamentally change campus forever. We aren't this omnipotent body that can do anything."

And Hork points out that this year, the UA has its largest number of candidates since 1999.

Butother current members who have chosen not to run again say they lost their passion for the UA this year, a year Seidel called "exhausting."

Some members who are not running again blame the lack of respect among members and too much focus on the internal functioning of the body instead of the body following its mandate to serve the student body.

"Last year, as a freshman, the UA was actually getting stuff accomplished, and we were trying to make the school better for students," College sophomore and UA representative Dominick Romeo said. "This year, we spent so much time trying to convince students that the UA does stuff for them and trying to make UA meetings run smoother that we didn't actually get stuff done for the students."

Romeo decided not to seek re-election, saying the lack of respect turned him off to the whole body. That disrespect during weekly two to three-hour meetings contributed to what Seidel calls "the negativity at meetings."

"Instead of the body coming together on things, people formed factions this year," Seidel said. "People were just judging and doubting one another so much. People argued so much that we didn't get things done. The body had terrible morale. Arguing brought morale down and no one was inspired to do anything."

Hork contends that the UA must balance student concerns with internal issues.

"We have a responsibility to leave the student government organization in better shape than we found it," Hork said. "If you don't have a solid internal structure in place, the capacity of the organization to effectively tackle issues in the long term is in jeopardy."

For others, however, it is not the debate over internal issues that has led them to drop out. Some say that the UA is not really a body, but that rather, it is a group of individuals with their own agendas.

College sophomore Papa Wassa Nduom has decided to leave the UA to focus his attention on his last semester as chairman of the United Minorities Council. He says he always tried to make sure that the voices of minority students were heard, a goal he said can be more easily achieved from outside the loop than inside.

But he has been openly critical of the way the group works. He recalls a meeting with an administrator who said that many of the proposals that graced his desk seemed to be pushing personal agendas.

"If a proposal passes, it's a victory for that person instead of a victory for the group," Nduom said. "It's operating on an individual level instead of on a communal level."

And although Engineering sophomore Matt Lattman is running for re-election, Lattman said he has accepted the nature of the body's debates.

"It's because of the type of leaders that get elected onto the UA," Lattman said. "They all have their own agendas that conflict with each other. You're always going to see the internal conflict."

But Levy disagreed, saying that "baby projects" help create a more positive atmosphere for open discussion.

"I can't think of anyone on the UA that has their own agenda," Levy said. "I don't think it's a bad thing that UA members are working on projects that interest them or the people they're friends with."

Despite their decisions to leave the UA, some students remain optimistic about the future of the body. Romeo said he believes the UA has the potential to accomplish much on behalf of its constituents. And such potential can be realized, these UA drop-outs agree, if this year's strong group of UA freshmen members and the newly elected members step up to the challenge.

"So many people run every year," Seidel said. "I would hope that we get a lot of new blood next year. I hope that those students will be able to turn things around."

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