As Time Goes By

In case you didn't see this notice before last Sunday night's meeting, here's what you missed:

7:44

Undergraduate Council Chairman Brian C. Offutt '87 urges the council to come to order so the meeting can begin. Vice Chairman Steven B. Smith '87 yells out names on the roll.

The officers recite their weekly reports. Chairman Offutt reminds the council of certain bylaws, and Secretary Jeffrey A. Camp '89 pleads with the council to keep Old Father Time in mind when the debate goes on and on and on....

8:05

During the time docketed for committee chairman reports, Social Committee Chairman Evan J. Mandery '89 announces to the council that the site for this year's Battle of the Bands, a competition among Harvard rock bands, is the Leverett House dining hall on April 4 to 5.

In addition, Representative Karim H. Lopez '88 announces that the 14 new, snazzy council suggestion boxes, requested by council members some time ago, will finally be finished by the next meeting. The council applauds his effort. The suggestion boxes--one for each house dining hall and the Freshman Union--are made of varnished wood and cost the council almost $100, even though Lopez and delegate J. Todd Ensley '89 built the boxes themselves. The boxes fill a vacuum; until now there have been no suggestion boxes on campus.

8:07

Veteran council member Kamala S. Lakhdhir '85-'86 stands to protest a poster that advertised the council's poorly attended public forum last week. The poster said "Come Bitch at Us," and shows Clifford the Big Red Dog roaring at several cowering people.

"There is a woman in front of the dog lying down. I found it offensive," says delegate Lakhdhir. She complains that the word "bitch" is offensive because it is commonly associated with only the female sex. She also objects to the use of Clifford. "It's the dog also," says delegate Lakhdhir.

Representative Richard S. Eisert '88, the man who spearheaded the drive to bring chocolate milk to dining halls, offers his own suggestion: "Come Prick at Us?"

Later, Social Committee Chairman Mandery apologizes for the alleged insensitivity. "I'm sorry. It wasn't intended to be offensive."

Council member Lakhdhir says that the Social Committee, which sponsored the forum, should print an apology in The Independent for the tasteless poster.

8:11

Treasurer Richard Zayas '88, who was appointed by the council to serve on the search committee for the dean of admissions, reports on his meeting last Thursday with Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence. Despite the council's wishes, Spence this semester denied treasurer Zayas, or any student, the right to serve on the committee. However, in their private meeting Spence and treasurer Zayas discussed the candidates for the Byerly Hall post and the criteria used to select the new dean, Zayas informs the council.

"It was very, very productive and very, very open," the council's moneyman says of the meeting. Zayas says that he and Spence discussed the specific candidates, minority concerns and other student concerns.

Although Spence did give Zayas the names of the dean candidates, Zayas told the council he agreed to keep their names off the record. "[Spence] was very open and sincere," Zayas assures the council, adding that he and the dean did not discuss the issue of student representation on dean search committees, pushing that topic to a later meeting.

8:14

The moment you've been waiting for: Question Time!

In an attempt to prevent a repeat of last week's long meeting, Chairman Offutt gently chides the council, "This is question time, not discussion time."

Disregarding her leader's warning and following up on her earlier gripe, Delegate Lakhdhir moves that the council apologize in The Independent for the forum advertisement.

More council members vote on Lakhdhir's proposal than students showed up at the forum, but it fails anyway, by a vote of 27 to 25. Nevertheless, Social Committee chairman Mandery says his committee will discuss the poster at its next meeting.

Changing the subject, delegate Arthur D. Goldman '86 says that the current house selection process is still anxiety-ridden.

Representative Goldman proposes that the council push for a new housing selection process in which freshmen receive their lottery numbers along with a time slot. During that time they can come to a room with a big board listing all the housing openings and sign up for the house they want.

Seeking to gather more information before any more changes are made, Residential Committee chairman Eisert says the council will conduct a survey of freshmen asking their opinions on the new innovation after the housing lottery is over.

Delegate Lakhdhir stands again, this time to protest the Student Services Committee's investigation of the Radcliffe Union of Students. She says that although RUS is a single-sex organization, it is not similar to final clubs. "It is the student government at Radcliffe," she says.

Former Council Chairman Brian R. Melendez '86 responds by saying that the committee is examining all single-sex organizations. "RUS was never singled out," he says.

Near the end of Question Time, one member actually asks a question about the council's takeover of the Adams House raft race.

Responding, chairman Offutt says the student government may need to take out liability insurance for the Raft Race because of the injuries that could occur if participants grew too rowdy. What began as the Adams House Ratt Race was changed to the Harvard Adams House Ratt Race when the council took over and was changed to the Harvard-Radcliffe Adams House Raft Race because the exclusion of Radcliffe offended Lakhdhir, who thought Radcliffe should be an integral part of the race. Council members revelled in the pronunciation of HRAH as "hurrah" in referring to the annual rite of spring along the banks of the Charles.

The council rolls on, as two more members ask questions. Delegate Robert Weissman '88 asks if the council can look into getting mail delivery for student groups with offices in Memorial Hall. Fellow Representative Ensley asks if the alcohol policy is being made more lenient.

8:25

The council then discusses a letter to President Derek C. Bok about the results of last month's divestment referendum. The letter in its original form was rejected at last week's meeting. The revised letter states that 65 percent of the undergraduate population voted in favor of immediate and complete university divestment of stock in South Africa-related corporations and asks Bok to participate in a forum on divestment.

Weissman, chairman of the committee on investment responsibility, moves that the council get rid of the word "at" and insert a "the" in a clause that reads: "facilitate [the] dialogue that is at the essence of the university." The council then debates the merits of this amendment, and a counter-amendment is proposed: "that" should be changed to "which." The first amendment passes, while the opposition's amendment is mercilessly defeated.

The council votes to close debate on the matter, and the letter passes.

But wait! Nathaniel S. Trumbull '89, the North Yard representative, stands up to make another comment on the letter, only to be hushed by chairman Offutt. The Leverett House junior requests that delegate Trumbull come to the front of the room and secretly whisper the comment to chairman Offutt since the closed debate prohibits any further discussion of the topic.

8:29

Delegate Lopez moves that the council adopt a new policy for doling out party money to houses. After debating for only two of the allotted 10 minutes, the council decides to call a vote on the proposal. A proposal to give house committees money twice a semester, instead of the current ad hoc system, passes unanimously.

8:32

Two council members suggest a measure that would force any house delegation that had not spent any of its constituent service money by spring break to forfeit all of these funds.

A majority of council members, many of whom have not yet spent any of this money, vehemently oppose this measure, although they would have had to spend only one penny to avoid losing their funds.

"Just because I'm irresponsible doesn't mean my constituents should lose their money," says Dunster delegate Fernando R. Laguarda '88.

"I do not see why I have to be forced to spend any money," says delegate Zayas of Leverett House. "We have things planned that won't happen until after spring break."

Supporters of the proposal again remind council members that they would have to spend only a few cents of the roughy $80 per district to retain the funds.

"This is to encourage people to do things to be accountable to their constituents," says representative Amy B. Zegart '89, who proposed the measure.

But the proposal fails amid muffled sighs from the pro-accountability faction.

8:50

Three members take their place in front of the room to consider the exact wording of the council's upcoming referendum on the academic calendar.

The referendum will ask students whether they would approve of starting the school year three weeks earlier and shorten reading period to one week, or shorten exam period to one week or shorten both to a week and a half. In addition to this barrage of choices, representatives propose amending the referendum to include the option of starting school two weeks early and limiting both reading and exam period to a week apiece. Council members seem to understand the options.

The amendment to give students an even more complicated list of choices for the referendum passes. A lengthy debate begins, during which several amendments are proposed, including making the last question the first one and eliminating altogether one or more of the questions. Meanwhile, at 8:58 p.m., one representative calls for a quorum check, suspicious that more than half of the council has gone home.

But council members have stuck it out. The meeting must go on.

The council, at 9 p.m. proceeds to extend debate on the referendum's wording by five minutes. At 9:07 p.m., the student government again extends debate by five minutes. The council finally agrees on a suitable version of the referendum, moving on to other business under the illusion that debate on the referendum is closed for the evening.

9:16

Mary E. Sarotte '88, chairman of the finance committee, requests a suspension in the rules of the council bylaws. In anticipation of next week's grants meeting, she asks that her committee not be required to distribute grants reports in advance.

She explains that the reports "got lost" in the past when delegates to the council were careless with the important documents. Under the suspension, council members will receive the reports upon arrival at next week's meeting. The measure passes.

9:19

Prior to introducing a report on the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), delegate Melendez presents fascinated council members with a Nutshell History of the disciplinary body, from its 1969 induction to its revival last spring. Former chairman Melendez delivers the entire 17-year history in less than five minutes.

The report suggests creating a Judiciary Board which would replace the CRR, take over almost all of the Administrative Board's powers, allow students open hearings upon request, treat disciplinary cases of student, faculty and administrators on an equal basis, and bring credibility, student participation and due process to Harvard's disciplinary system, according to the report's authors.

"The odds are very small that this is going to be implemented," comments delegate Weissman.

Council members then bring up major concerns with the framework of this Judiciary Board, despite the fact that the proposal was brought up a week ago in council meeting and has been in the planning stages for weeks. Chairman Offutt, concerned with the ticking of the clock, bids them hold off until this week's meeting of the Committee on the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CCRR).

The council, which was discussing the committee on the committee's report only in principle, will vote on adoption of the report at the next meeting of the undergraduate community's representative body.

9:38

Delegate Thomas H. Halpern '87 makes a motion to reconsider the wording of the referendum on the academic calendar. He proposes that the referendum ask students to rank in order of preference each of the third question's sub-proposals instead of just answering "yes" or "no."

Council members propose further complicating the referendum by adding three secondary questions to each of question two's five parts.

"You could be more sure [of what the answers mean] if the question was asked directly and simply," points out secretary Camp.

The council votes on the amendments, passing the first but not the second.

9:44

Debate breaks out as to whether the amendment really did pass, as some council members question the vote's legitimacy. A heated controversy arises as to whether the amendments require a simple majority or a two-thirds vote....

Reporters' notebook: The council meeting did not adjourn until 10:07 p.m., but space considerations prevent us from further details.