After four years of involvement with student organizations, this is the first time I have been motivated to write a letter to the editor of The Daily Collegian.

I can not ignore the blatant disregard for the truth demonstrated by the Collegian and other self-appointed "watch dogs" with respect to reporting the goings-on within the Undergradutae Student Government.

Throughout my four years I worked closely with three USG presidents: J.P. Muir, Mark Stewart and Chris Saunders. I have seen my fair share of political posturing and USG inefficiency. Saunders is by far the most motivated, involved and organized of the three.

Moreover, he is the least concerned with the omnipresent desire within student government to quell personal detractors by giving in to cheap shots and saying what the Collegian wants to hear. Instead, he has focused on projects that the students will truly benefit from, assuming he will be judged by project results, not the Collegian's Board of Opinion.

A few of the projects include fighting for additional student financial aid, a student lobby network which makes regular trips to Harrisburg, student controlled teacher evaluations and student membership on promotion and tenure committees throughout the University.

These are just a few of the many projects worked on within the executive branch. No wonder there is controversy in USG this year. This is the first president in at least four years who has spent more time getting the job done rather than worrying about what the Collegian thinks about him. As a result, he is an easy target for those who feel the need to detract from the issues and projects and focus on personal attacks.

Tuesday's letters to the editor included an attack on Saunders and all of USG from a former candidate for USG president. The assertion that Saunders, or any USG president, can control the outcome of the elections is preposterous at best. Of course the sourced of this attack is key, as it was waged by a presidential candidate who considered HUB lines the greatest problem facing University students.

I would ask the readers, and editors, of the Collegian to think back to Rob Kampia's election. There is no way Kampia would have won if the USG president could determine the fate of the election. Not only did Mark Stewart oppose Kampia, his executive assistant was Kampia's challenger. Clearly this assumption is further proof that individuals who cannot find fault with, or will not recognize, the specific goals or projects of the current administration need to make personal attacks.

The letter was correct in a sense, there is a vicious cycle USG must cope with -- student apathy, not election fraud. USG is powerless without student involvement and input: This is the Undergraduate Student Government.

As long as the Collegian reports only the ridiculous infighting and minor internal squabbles, which exist and persist in all organizations, people will be discouraged from being active because they perceive USG to be ineffective and meaningless.

USG is neither ineffective nor meaningless; it is an organization made up of people who care about and work hard for student concerns. If Saunders, I or anyone in USG were more concerned with our resumes than our constituents, I assure you, we would have spent the past four years working for Goldman Sachs instead of taking unfounded and unfair abuse from the Collegian.

The irony of the situation is that as long as the Collegian focuses on peripheral issues, including our purported inability to represent student concerns, they are detracting from possible solutions and stifling student involvement.

I encourage the members of the Collegian staff to come to our executive roundtable meeting for a change -- as you have already been invited -- and start reporting on what USG is really about.