Staff Editorial: Improving NEC

Earlier this year, several student minority groups felt slighted when the Nominations and Elections Committee passed them up for one of five available University Council seats, and likely rightfully so. It is important to remember that the stated purpose of the seats chosen by the NEC is to represent the underrepresented on the UC. Under its policy of rubber-stamp approval, the UA could only assess the fairness of the NEC's selection process, and students displeased with the NEC's choices had little power to make their opinions heard. The recent UA recommendations for the NEC, specifically empowering the UA to veto NEC selections, go a long way in preventing a widely represented group from filling one these limited UC positions. However, they do little to make the NEC actually more accountable to the student body as a whole. For instance, if the UA chooses not to exercise its veto power and a student is dissatisfied with both the choice of the NEC and the UA's approval of it, would his only option be to vote against incumbents in the UA elections? Given the many qualifications that must be taken into account, it is unlikely that a voter would base his ballot solely on NEC voting records. While the UA recommendations do add a layer of accountability, unfortunately they are directed toward the wrong people. Future efforts to reform the NEC should focus on either making its members directly accountable to students or restructuring the NEC into a committee that only recommends candidates for UA approval. Nevertheless, the UA's first steps in NEC reform should be applauded.

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