Missing meetings

Late into the night last Sunday, members of Penn's Undergraduate Assembly met to parcel out the body's $1.44 million budget for the year.

Twenty-five members, to be exact.

The problem with this is that there are 33 members elected to the general body, which represents all undergraduates.

The fact that nearly a quarter of the body was missing from what UA Chairman Jason Levine called "the biggest meeting of the year" is troubling.

When students voted for their representatives last year, they did so with a reasonable expectation that they would in fact be represented in the UA. That cannot happen very well if members never show up, especially when the budget -- which comes directly from fees paid by students -- is being carved up.

While members often have perfectly justifiable reasons for not attending regular meetings throughout the year and many make contributions to the UA that are not reflected in the roll call, it would have been nice to see them take the time when students' dollars are being spent.

And while it's up to the UA to make decisions about its members' attendance, the student body will get to make the ultimate decision this April during UA elections.

To make that process less of a popularity contest and based more on tangible results, the UA should return to the practice of including attendance in its meeting minutes. More importantly, that record should factor into students' decisions about whether members are worthy of re-election.

The UA's attendance policy is strict, and rightfully so. But if members consistently miss meetings, it would be in the best in interest of both them and their constituents to explain why.

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