Yes, Virginia, There Is a Joint Policy Committee

It all depends on your definition of "periodically." Buried in the middle of the May 1977 agreement that redefined Radcliffe's educational, financial and legal relationship with Harvard, there is a clause outlining the functions of the Joint Policy Committee. The Committee, or the JPC as it would probably be known if anybody except the members knew it existed, was established primarily to draw up the agreement.

"The Joint Policy Committee," the document states, "composed of no more than eight persons with equal numbers from each institution, will continue to exist." And, the document continued, "the Joint Policy Committee will continue to meet periodically... ."

That was in May 1977. Today, more than two and a half years since President Bok and President Horner signed their names to the agreement, the Joint Policy Committee, or so its members say, has "continued to exist." But it has not met "periodically." In fact, it has not met since 1977. Period.

Back when Harvard and Radcliffe hadn't entered into any fancy agreements, life was fairly simple. The two institutions shared some instructors but clung possessively to their separate bureaucracies. About eight years ago, however, all that changed. Radcliffe formerly revised its relations with Harvard in the so-called 1971 amendment. The 1971 document outlined, in yet another clause, the precursor of the JPC--the Joint Budget Committee. "The annual budget for the retained programs," (those programs that Radcliffe would still finance) the document stated, "shall be subject to the review and approval of a committee representing the Governing Boards of Harvard and Radcliffe and composed of equal numbers from each institution."

The Joint Budget Committee, however, was not long for this world. About six years later, in the midst of the reconsideration of relations between the two colleges, the Committee disappeared--with a minimum of fanfare--superceded by the Joint Policy Committee. The new group--composed of Presidents Bok and Horner, various Radcliffe Trustees and Harvard Corporation members and other administrators--drew up the 1977 agreement. And then it went into retirement.

Not many people around campus, of course, knew that the policy committee existed, much less had been given a new lease on life. The Committee's mandate, save one portion, was very vague. The 1977 agreement assigned the group four basic functions:

"to discuss matters of mutual concern to Harvard and Radcliffe and help resolve any problems that may exist in achieving the purposes of this agreement";

to review and provide final approval for any capital improvements in buildings in the Radcliffe Quadrangle;

"to review recommendations for changes in the financial and business arrangements between Harvard and Radcliffe;"

"to perform such other functions as may be specified by this agreement or authorized from time to time by the Harvard Corporation and the Trustees of Radcliffe."

Translated, all this means that the committee handles problems that are either too big or too vague to be handled by normal administrative channels. The group's membership, drawing together the major officers from both Harvard and Radcliffe, separates it from the run-of-the-mill University committee. The Joint Policy Committee is, in essence, the last resort--the place where the buck may finally stop on the long and tortuous administrative path. "It's really there to settle thorny problems." says senior corporation member Francis H. Burr '35 who sits on the committee. "I like to think of it as a safety valve."

For a group that hasn't met for a couple of years, all of its members are on pretty good terms. And they all agree that the reason they haven't sat down together is because there's been nothing to discuss. "The reason it hasn't met is that it hasn't had any business," says Dean Rosovsky. "There haven't been any problems that couldn't be resolved in the normal administrative way," says Bok.

The "normal administrative way," in the case of high level policy issues, is usually the frequent meetings between Bok and Horner. Burton I. Wolfman, administrative dean of Radcliffe and nominal secretary to the Committee says, "There haven't been any issues that the Presidents couldn't solve." Horner is less modest about this. "If President Bok and I are doing our various administratvie jobs well," she says, "a sign of a successful agreement is that the Joint Policy Committee has not met."

However, not all administrators agree. Some feel that the committee should sit regularly just to discuss the general state of affairs between the two institutions. More specifically, many administrators, including members of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life, urged the committee to sit down last year when the students grew angry about the method of term bill funding for the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS). Rosovsky, who says the committee's mandate is to adjudicate differences between Harvard and Radcliffe, says that "with the exception of the RUS fee, there haven't been any differences." Horner recalls when CHUL referred the RUS question to the committee. "It's not within the rubric of what the committee is," she explains.

What would force the committee to meet? Bok suggests that if "we wanted to make some substantial change in Radcliffe buildings," he would call a meeting of the Joint Policy Committee. But nothing has come up. The South House dining hall received approval prior to May 1977, Wolfman says, and the Radcliffe Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center is on property not under the committee's jurisdiction.

Horner says she would call a meeting if a dispute arose over a "major financial or legal matter." And both Presidents agree that, because of the close working relationships among the committee's members, there's no danger that important issues will be lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.

Both Bok and Wolfman agree that as the 1985 renewal date for the 1977 agreement draws closer, the Committee will have to sit down and, in Bok's words, "figure out what's going on." Bok explains that the Committee originally designed to draft the 1977 agreement, is not expected "to meet regularly with a regular agenda. We're not anxious to proliferate bureaucracies," he adds. If the Joint Policy Committee "continues to exist" on paper, it is ready to be called to the board room if and when the occasion arises. "You can never tell when something will call it up." says Burr, adding that because it has no staff and pays no salaries, the Committee does not threaten to hurt anyone or anything. "Supposing it never meets," he asks, and adds quickly, "there's no harm done."