A constitution that was established less than one year ago is currently undergoing a major overhaul, as the University Park Undergraduate Association (UPUA) seeks to meet merger requirements set forth by the now dissolved Undergraduate Student Government (USG).

Ralph Crivello, chairman of the UPUA constitutional review committee, presented the committee's proposed new draft of the constitution, along with an exhaustive 295-page report documenting the committee's rationale, to the UPUA internal development committee last night.

The proposed framework would make several changes to UPUA's basic structure. In what Crivello called the "most contentious part" of the draft, UPUA would have the authority to internally approve constitutional amendments. Currently, an external five-member board, which includes two non-students, must approve any amendments.

Instead, the proposal establishes a board of arbitration to handle any constitutional matters. Its duties would also include handling election appeals and disciplinary actions within the organization, among other things.

It was not until last night that UPUA agreed to USG's requirements, but Crivello said the committee had been working under the assumption that UPUA would accept the terms.

UPUA's internal development committee will meet throughout the week to review the proposal, and UPUA President Jay Chamberlin emphasized that the proposal could still be subject to "significant changes."

The committee has a deadline of next Tuesday to present the finished document to the general assembly, but John Richter, internal development committee chairman, was doubtful that it would be able to meet that deadline.

"We are going to work as hard as we can. However, due to the workload, it's going to be very hard for us to finish," he said. "It's more important to go over the document thoroughly than quickly."

Crivello said it was "very important" for the committee to meet the deadline, recognizing that it put "tremendous pressure" on the committee. He explained that the potential constitutional revisions would impact UPUA's upcoming elections, because some positions, especially the presidency, have vastly different roles in the proposal.

In the proposed constitution, the president would no longer have a vote in UPUA or its committees, but would gain veto power over anything passed by the assembly.

Crivello said it was important for students to know when they run for office that, "the roles they're playing within the organization will change."

Additionally, the proposed constitution would make several changes to constituencies that vote in elections, most notably breaking down the category of on-campus representative into specific areas.

However, there was some debate over whether the changes could be implemented during the upcoming elections. Due to a provision in UPUA's current constitution, which is eliminated in the proposal, the constitutional changes will not take place until the newly elected representatives take office. Chamberlin said that it would be "impossible" to elect representatives from the proposed constituencies.

Crivello disagreed, saying any position could be up for election, but the position would simply not be formalized until after the elections took place.

"Technically, we can say we want to elect the blue face person," he said. "We can elect them, and they can be seated when the changes take effect."

The problem with this, Crivello explained, is that UPUA is unable to assume that the external committee to review constitutional amendments will not veto the constituency changes. If it vetoed the changes, students elected to the positions proposed would not be able to take office, since the office would not exist.

Chamberlin expressed concern throughout the meeting that the constitutional amendments, as they stood, would not receive approval from the external committee. The internal development committee went through two pages of the constitution, and Chamberlin proposed several amendments to make the introductory portion more "positive and proactive," since he felt it took an unnecessarily abrasive tone in some parts.

"I just thought that there were some things that didn't have the right tone for a constitution," he said.

Crivello said it was not the intent of the constitutional review committee to be abrasive, so he had no problem with changes in that spirit.