Search Results

Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.

UA revamps seat-allocation process for governing body

(10/31/05 10:00am)

The Undergraduate Assembly finally concluded its quest to remodel student representation on a University governing body last night. After months of debate among student leaders, the UA passed a proposal in favor of the Nominations and Elections Committee's new seat-allocation process for the University Council. The NEC, a group that runs student elections and nominates representatives for various University committees, came under fire last spring for the process it used to appoint members of "mis- or under-represented" student groups to the UC. The UC is an organization of administrators, faculty, staff and students that meets monthly to discuss campus issues. Critics spoke out against the ambiguous nature of the selection criteria and the lack of transparency in the process, which occurs behind closed doors and is conducted by self-selected NEC members. The new proposal stipulates that the NEC will select six delegates to the University Council, as opposed to the former five. The UA will have nine representatives on the body -- as opposed to the original 10 -- and the United Minorities Council will continue to have one. The new seat-allocation procedure also addresses the transparency issue by permitting a UA member to observe the application, interview and deliberation process as long as he or she is not an executive board member of one of the applicant groups. The changes will not go into effect until the 2006-2007 school year aside from a new attendance policy, which will go into effect immediately. As an accountability measure, the new attendance policy mandates that UA members cannot miss more than two UC meetings. NEC-appointed UC representatives may not miss more than four meetings. Also discussed was the authority the UA should wield in approving the NEC's six choices. As it stands, UA members can vote to approve the final selections based on any criteria, including their personal feelings about selected groups. "These seats do have the UA's name on them. If we're just going to let the NEC do their thing, then I'm not sure why they're UA seats," UA member and College senior Wesley Nakamura said. "There's an approval process for a reason. It's a check and balance," he said. Others felt that the UA should not be allowed to criticize the final choices and should only be able to vote on whether the NEC followed its outlined procedure. "We have a group that takes their job very seriously and follows this detailed process. ... I don‹¨«t think we should be rehashing their choices," said UA Vice Chairman of External Affairs and Wharton junior Brett Thalmann. UA Vice Chairman and College senior Zack Rosenblum said that since the entire UA body is not present during the NEC's deliberations, the UA should not approve UC selections based on the merit of chosen groups. "If we feel NEC is the best group to handle that job. ... We must affirm their decision unless they went about their decision inadequately," he said. Despite some disagreement on the proposal's technicalities, most UA members supported the document as a whole. Twenty-five UA members voted in favor of the proposal, with two voting against and three abstaining. "There was never a procedural document prior to this point. With the addition of a seat, I believe it is a fair process, and it is a marked improvement from what we had before," Rosenblum said. "I think it's great that the UA has taken into account ... what our constituents want. ... It was a hectic end to a long debate, but it was still rewarding," UA Chairwoman and College senior Rachel Fersh said.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2005/10/ua_revamps_seatallocation_process_for_governing_body

PennConnects