Alan Thomas: Two levels of devotion in student government

Reading Conor Daly's and Jeff Millman's columns about the Undergraduate Assembly in The Daily Pennsylvanian reminds me of Yogi Berra's famous quote, "It's deja vu all over again."

Bashing the UA for being ineffective, anonymous to most students and out-of-touch with undergraduate concerns seems to be an annual rite of passage for DP columnists and editors. This state of affairs arises from the failure to comprehend how student government is structured at Penn and how a student government can be effective.

To be effective, a student government must attain power, i.e., either by the authority to make decisions or by the ability to influence decision-makers. Once you recognize this crucial derivation, and few do, one can see in a flash that the UA, like all "student government," is by design a paper tiger.

Penn's student government has no authority over University governance. Such authority is reserved to the administration (and in some instances, the faculty) by the University Board of Trustees, the ultimate authority at Penn. Student government must derive its power, and thus its effectiveness, from its ability to influence University decision-makers.

While the UA sits at the top of the student government pyramid, its ability to influence decision-makers is diffused by the structure of student government. Allocating the student activities portion of the student fee is performed by another branch of the student government, the Student Activities Council.

But, in terms of influencing University governance, the most significant student role is service on the scores of committees set up to advise the University and the individual schools on everything from parking to the curriculum.

On these institutional committees, students joined by faculty and (in many cases) staff can most effectively influence University decision-makers. The power to appoint students to these committees, however, does not belong to the UA. Instead, the student government constitution assigns this task to the Nominations and Elections Committee. Thus, hundreds of students are appointed to University committees, but the UA generally does not know who the appointees are or what they do.

The appointees are effectively accountable to no one. The UA forms a committee because there is no institutional committee accountable for dealing with the issue, and UA members, the only student government representatives elected at large, appropriately respond to constituent needs.

Being an effective member of the UA, however, is not easy. To gain the influence necessary to be effective, a member must have the kind of devotion to serving the UA and constituents that a varsity athlete devotes to a sport. That means energy, imagination and lots of time. You have to become almost as knowledgeable on subjects as the decision-makers you are trying to influence.

This means working the halls of College Hall, the Franklin Building and wherever decision-makers have their offices. It means doing your homework on the issues, learning how to read blueprints, financial reports and long-range planning documents, and deciphering personalities and political roadblocks. It means being at committee meetings and sub-committee meetings and private one-on-one meetings -- lots of meetings.

You wonder why half the UA does nothing or resigns? It is because the "do-littles" and "do-nothings" do not recognize what it takes to get something accomplished, or because they do and are not able or willing to devote the time.

Meanwhile, the other half of the UA is "varsity." These members are in the trenches. They are mostly silent because they know a student gains more influence by working with the decision-makers and helping them resolve their problems than by treating them as the enemy and bashing them in DP columns or in meetings with administrative superiors (although there is a time and place for such bashing).

You would think the editors of the DP would appreciate these UA members' efforts because the editors typically display such devotion to their own student organization. You would think the DP would spotlight these UA members, thereby enhancing their ability to influence decision-makers and exhort others to follow their example. You would think the DP would recognize the journalistic duty to build the credibility of those who seek to do good is as important as the duty to be critical of those who do nothing.

Building influence is the only way at Penn for the student government to gain the respect of and maintain credibility with decision-makers. With that influence, you will have effective student government. And power.

Alan Thomas is a 1981 College graduate who served on the Undergraduate Assembly for two years.

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