UA, students divided over election referendum

Though all four of the Undergraduate Assembly's referenda items were passed during last week's elections, dissension still exists among students about the equity of some of the constitutional changes.

The referenda will slightly alter the internal responsibilities of several UA positions, introduce a new formula for calculating seat allocation by school and reformulate some outdated wording.

But the item that was most contentious among the student body, and among UA members themselves, seems to have been the newly established ability of the UA to hold closed-door sessions when voting on its Executive Board.

Though members of the UA have stated that they will not be utilizing this new privilege in the upcoming Executive Board elections -- scheduled to take place in roughly two weeks -- supporters of the proposal still see it as a way to improve the elections process.

"I think the referenda allows the UA to act more effectively," said Engineering and Wharton senior and UA Vice Chairman Matt Lattman. The referenda "gives the UA better tools with which to do its business."

However, some UA members do not believe that the benefits that Lattman refers to outweigh the costs of instituting closed-door sessions.

"What you gain by [having the closed sessions] isn't worth what you lose in terms of trust from the community," College sophomore Wesley Nakamura said.

"I really don't feel like the UA has anything to gain by having the closed-door session except the suspicion of the student body," the UA member added.

Nakamura was also concerned that future UA bodies might manipulate and distort the amendment.

"In the future, it could be used as a stepping stone for creating more secrecy around the UA," he said.

Even Jon Ozark, the author of the constitutional revisions, admitted that the referendum item could be interpreted as an isolating move, but he still stressed that the underlying focus of the proposal was advantageous and necessary.

"On the surface [the closed-door session] can seem very exclusionary, but as a member of many organizations who have a closed-door period, I felt it was very beneficial to selecting the best candidate for the position," said Ozark, an Engineering senior.

Highlighting the practicality of the constitutional amendment, Ozark said that the closed-door session would give people a chance to discuss the candidate honestly, without having to share their opinions publicly.

Ozark said he saw the closed-door sessions as the best method of obtaining an "honest" portrayal of the candidate from fellow UA members.

A confidential session is necessary "in order to avoid inadvertently hurting people," Ozark said, adding that the new system would hopefully alleviate the "backdoor maneuvering" that previously characterized UA Executive Board elections.

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