Image Is Everything

Politicians are known to be slick. Their rhetoric may be powerful and daring, but their positions often lack substance.

This year's crop of budding college politicians are no different. Elections for Undergraduate Council will be held this week, and image appears to be everything.

Several students running for office say candidates are concerned about three issues: financial accountability, improving the council's reputation and defining a balance between political activism and serving students.

To date, candidates have succeeded at defining the problems but are offering few viable solutions to implement. The reason is simple, according to at least one candidate: They are too busy campaigning.

"The actions of most council members are intended to build up their resumes, enhance their visibility around campus, and prepare them for their future careers in politics," said J.D. LaRocke '95, last year's publicity manager.

The elections, scheduled for October 7, 8 and 9, kicked off with 144 candidates turning in positions papers for 88 available seats last Friday. This is a significant increase from last year's 106 candidates.

Council officials say the increase reflects the council's increasing popularity on campus.

Says outgoing council Vice Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93, "I am very happy with the increase, and I believe it reflects an increase of interest in the council, along with the enthusiasm of some of last year's members."

Heinicke, who says he will run for council chair, is in charge of organizing this week's elections.

While the increase in the number of students participating in the election might be good news for the council, the body still suffers from negative publicity.

The main problem with the council is the poor reputation--or even, lack of reputation--it has among students, many candidates say.

Says Felix Cartagena '96, a first-year council hopeful, "I don't know much about the U.C. I take it that it is something similar to high school student government, and I was involved in that, so I want to be a part of this."

LaRocke said that the council must do more to define its role on campus.

"We need to reach out to the student body and information them of what exactly the U.C. is and how they can get involved through the use of campus-wide door drops and greater communication between the delegates and their constituency," said LaRocke, who plans to run council chair. "Last year's council did not do enough in that respect."

Some of last year's council members, however, argue that an image problems are common among student governments.

"My definition of student government is an often malign representative body which has to work extra hard to win the respect of the students," said David A. Aronberg '93, outgoing council chair.

"Image is not a problem that is unique to Harvard's Undergraduate Council," adds the fifth-semester incumbent.

Still, candidates say they can and should rectify the body's image.

Another concern candidates have expressed is that of financial accountability. Much of their criticism has revolved around the council's handling of student funds.

Last year, the council lost $10,000 on a De La Soul concert and was late in its allocation of spring grants.

The council, which has an annual budget of $120,000, is funded by a small fee included on each undergraduate term bill. On average, only 16 percent of undergraduates check the box on their term bill that enables them to withhold the money, according to Aronberg.

One of the controversial issues facing this year's council will be the allocation of grants. In recent years, many student organizations have complained that the current system is too cumbersome, takes too long, and does not distribute the monies fairly.

Last spring, council grants were delayed until late April due to a low number of applications that were submitted by the first deadline imposed by the council, according to Rico Reyes '93, last semester's finance committee chair.

"Only about 30 applications were turned in on time despite an extensive advertising campaign," said Reyes, who plans to run for council treasurer. "If we would have stopped accepting applications, we would have allocated the money on time, but many groups around campus would have suffered."

Several student groups complained that they received the money too late to make use of it.

Other students say they should play a larger role in deciding where their money goes. But council members say the average student underestimates the difficulty of the task.

"Most people complain because they don't understand the process," said Aronberg. "The finance committee has to review applications from over 100 student groups each semester, requesting a total of over $150,000."

The council, which sets 71 percent of its yearly budget aside for grants, can only distribute approximately $40,000 per semester, according to Aronberg.

Criticism has also centered on the council's inability to produce a successful concert. In addition to last year's De La Soul performance, the council absorbed a deficit of $15,000 from a failed Ziggy Marley concert two years ago. And in 1989, a Suzanne Vega appearance cost the group $50,000.

But perhaps what has divided the council most has been debate over the stance the body should take concerning highly political issues such as ROTC and date rape.

LaRocke, who has criticized last year's council sharply over the past few weeks, says that the council is "incredibly divided," and criticized it for focusing on political issues instead of student life.

Despite campaign promises made by many of last year's candidates to stay away from political issues, the council became embroiled in a number of controversial debates that have lured the body far from its mandate, some of this year's candidates say.

Both LaRocke and David L. Duncan '93, who also intends to seek the council's stop position, said the council should steer away from political issues and concentrate more on service and improving student life.

The council's debate on ROTC, an issue President Neil L. Rudenstine requested the body to discuss, produced a split vote with on clear mandate.

The body narrowly voted to maintain the status quo of an off-campus ROTC program.

Another issue the council tackled was date rape. Under the guidance of Heinicke, the body approved a definition of date rape that was more narrow than the College-sponsored Date Rape Task Force's.

The council also created a controversial special category called "sexual negligence," in which consent is not explicitly obtained before intercourse.

As election days approach and the campaigning begins to get more heated, some council members warn voters to beware of individuals who are too quick at pointing the finger.

"Part of J.D.'s [LaRocke] role as publicity chair should have been to increase the student's awareness as to what the U.C. does," said Gin Lo '95, a council member last year and currently a candidate at Winthrop House.

"If he feels that the U.C. was not well publicized, then I would say that he did not fulfill his responsibilities," she said.

Students will have an opportunity to elect their representatives through their dining rooms. The candidates elected will vote for council chair at their first meeting scheduled for October 18.