John Wachs, a 1991 alumnus, couldn’t believe that almost 20 years after drafting his own student government referendum, students are still trying to address the same problems.
He was referencing the recent proposal passed by the Undergraduate Assembly to directly elect the UA chairman and vice chairman for external affairs. The proposal, which has now gone to the students in the form of a referendum, will go to a vote in December.
But this isn’t the first time proposals have been made for this reason. Students have called for student government reform in 1991, 1995 and 1996.
And if the past reform efforts are any indication, the current referendum’s success will ride on voter turnout.
Throughout the 1990-1991 school year, students met at a “Constitutional Convention” to discuss reforms.
Wachs, who was involved in the discussions, said one of the convention’s concerns was a lack of student group representation in the UA.
College seniors Zac Byer, a UA member, and Natalie Vernon, Student Activities Council chairwoman — both leaders of the current reform movement — have also cited a lack of voice for student groups as a reason to change the current system.
They say direct election would allow student organizations to have a voice by giving them the ability to back certain candidates and hold them accountable for campaign promises.
Wachs said the 1991 reform planned to boost representation by drawing 15 representatives from umbrella organizations.
But calling a referendum requires either approval by two-thirds of the UA or a petition with 200 signatures. Wachs’ reform didn’t receive the necessary votes, and a petition never circulated.
In 1995, the Nadel-Schorr proposal suggested changing the UA to the Undergraduate Senate, and combining the powers of the Nominations and Elections Committee, the UA and SAC into one branch.
Dan Schorr, a 1996 alumnus and one of the authors of the proposal, said they hoped a reform would generate more interest in student government.
The current reform movement also aims to do the same. Students involved say direct election and schoolwide debates would create a sense of camaraderie at Penn.
The 1995 proposal made it to the voting stage but failed. Only 13.6 percent of students voted. Twenty percent of the student body has to participate in the election for the reform to pass.
Mike Nadel, a 1996 alumnus who also helped author the 1995 proposal with Schorr, proposed a more radical reform in 1996. He suggested abolishing the UA and replacing it with a directly elected president and vice president to oversee Penn Student Government.
Like leaders of today’s reform, Nadel believed a direct election would give these positions more clout, and force administrators to listen to them since they would better represent students.
The 1996 reform also failed. That year, 18 percent of students turned out to vote — two points shy of the necessary percentage.
Given the history of voter turnout for referenda, compelling 20 percent of the student body to vote may seem unlikely. Wachs had his doubts regarding voter turnout.
“Twenty percent is a lot,” he said.
However, advanced technology may be the key to succeeding where other proposals have failed.
According to Nadel, there were four polling stations when he was at Penn, and convincing the student body to vote, sometimes in the rain, was difficult. He predicted that electronic voting will make higher participation rates more likely.
He added that if the 20 percent threshold is reached, the reform will probably pass.
“When given the choice between voting for how things are now versus somebody’s idea of how things could be improved, unless there’s a really strong coalition against it, it will naturally pass,” Nadel said.
Byer noted that the work that has already been done will give the referendum an advantage that others haven’t had. He estimated that over 100 students have been directly involved in the process.
“It’s incredible to see the amount of action behind this and how many people have wanted to see this thing to fruition,” Byer said.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.