Council Confirms Elections Change

Members of the Undergraduate Council confirmed yesterday that they have voted to institute popular elections for the organization's president and vice president--a decision which may have profound implications for the way the Council is viewed by students and administrators alike.

The Council voted, 51-14, with one abstention, to amend its constitution to read: "The executive officers shall be a President and a Vice-President who shall be elected by the student body; and a Secretary and Treasurer who shall be elected by the Council."

Until now, these offices were determined by a vote of the Council's members only.

The bill to alter the election process was sponsored by council President Joshua D. Liston '95, former president David L. Hanselman '94-95 and Campus Life Committee Co-chair Rudd W. Coffey '97.

"I'm very excited," Vice President Justin C. Label '97 said Tuesday. "Hopefully this will lead to Council members having better relations with the student body."

In the past, student leaders and administrators have criticized the Council, saying that without direct elections, it lacked a mandate from the student body.

Label predicted the Council's relationship to the student body and College administration would improve under the new system.

"[Direct elections] will change a lot of the way we do business, and the relationship we have with both students and the administration," he said.

According to a recent poll taken by the Council, 68 percent of students favor direct elections. Twenty-two percent oppose such a measure.

"I think it's absolutely great," said David V. Bonfili '96, a former Council memberand one of the organizers of the Movement toReform the Undergraduate Council (MRUC).

"It will encourage those people who are mostactive on the Council to shift gears a little interms of the issues they pursue, and to make surethat the issues that they do follow reflect theconcerns of students," he added.

But opponents of the amendment argued thatalthough they support measures for reform, thebill remains vague about important details.

"Reform always has unintended consequences,"said Student Affairs Committee Chair Randall A.Fine '96. "We passed popular elections as just aconcept. The devil is in the details, and most ofthem haven't been worked out."

One of the concerns raised during the April 30Council meeting centered on the amendment's lackof detail.

Finance Chair Robert M. Hyman '98 and TreasurerBrain R. Blais '96 said they hoped to make thebill more specific by proposing three amendments,all of which passed: to require a spending cap forcampaigns, to stipulate the candidates must becouncil members, and to establish year-long termsfor the president and vice president.

The officers' terms would begin in February andwould continue over the summer.

Several members spoke out against thestipulation limiting elections to council members.

"I think the whole point of campus-wideelections is that they are about democracy," saidMarco B. Simons '97, who plans to introducelegislation to repeal that amendment next Sunday.

"Any restriction of choice is necessarilyarbitrary. Why wouldn't a House Committee Chairmake a better president than an UndergraduateCouncil representative?" he asked.

The spending cap has also been attacked byseveral council members, most notably Fine, whoargued that candidates will be unable to campaigneffectively, reducing elections to the level of"a popularity contest."

"A low spending cap creates two problems," Finesaid. "One, students who don't know anything aboutthe candidates can't make an educated vote fromone piece of paper. Two, people will be lookingfor loopholes to get around it."

At other Universities, however, spending capshave not proven a hindrance to electionprocedures. At Columbia University, for example,candidates' spending is limited to the cost of 4008x11 posters, according to Shien Chiou '96, headof the College's Elections Commissions.

Candidates continue their campaign effortsthrough such low-budget venues as e-mail andforwarding messages through phone mail, Chiousaid.

Several members of Harvard's UndergraduateCouncil have expressed concern that even with aspending cap, many students with limited budgetswill be effectively discouraged from running foroffice.

"I think there needs to be a way that cost isnot a limiting factor in running," said Carsten M.Reichel '98. "A lot of people don't realize thateven with a spending cap, $250 is enough to keeppeople from running."

According to Liston, the spending cap willprobably not exceed $200. The exact financialdetails will be worked out next Sunday, whenListon presents a by-laws package, each of whichmust be approved by a two-thirds majority ofCouncil members attending.

The Council will then vote on additional rulesand regulations, including the timing of theelections and the formation of a selectioncommission to administer the election process.

The Council's Judicial Oversight Committee willprobably merge with the Election Committee tosupervise next fall's elections, Liston said.

When told of the Council's decision, Formercouncil president Carey W. Gabay '94 expressedsurprise.

"There are still severe problems, because thepresent system forced the three D's--Debate,Discussion and Depth," he said. "I don't think youwill get that under the new system."

Gabay is certainly not unfamiliar with theprospect of popular student elections.

Last year, while he was president, Anjalee C.Davis '96-'97 amassed 2,000 signatures in anattempt to force the council to hold a Collegewide referendum on five financial and structuralreform issues, including the popular election ofall four Council executives.

As part of the rules for the referendum, theCouncil stipulated that 50 percent of the studentbody must participate in order to make the vote ofthe students binding on the council.

Just 22 percent of undergraduates participatedin the vote, but an overwhelming majoritysupported the popular election of executives.

David A. Smith '94, who was thenparliamentarian of the council, ruled on May 15that the council's 50 percent requirement wasunconstitutional. But the Council overruled theparliamentarian's decision and the vote of thestudents was ruled advisory.

Members who initially opposed the referendumlast year are currently among the leadingsupporters of popular elections--including Liston himself. "I realized popularelections were a good thing last summer," he said,noting that he included the idea in his positionpaper for president last fall.

His predecessor, Hanselman, agrees, arguingthat administrators are largely skeptical of aCouncil that they believe does not adequatelyrepresent the student body. "I think when thefirst popularly elected president goes intoUniversity Hall," he added, "the administratorswill put more stake in his or her opinions."

Meanwhile, administration officials appear tohave taken a wait-and see attitude, expressing adegree of skepticism about the level of changethat can be instituted within the Council.

"I think (direct election) is something thatought to be tried," said Dean of Students ArchieC. Epps III, "but there are still some provisionsthat have to be worked in. Officers still have tobe members of the Council, so one could still seethings happening now still occurring."

"There may not be any kind-of change from thecurrent system," Epps added.

Andrew A. Green and Marios V. Broustascontributed to the reporting of this article.

"It will encourage those people who are mostactive on the Council to shift gears a little interms of the issues they pursue, and to make surethat the issues that they do follow reflect theconcerns of students," he added.

But opponents of the amendment argued thatalthough they support measures for reform, thebill remains vague about important details.

"Reform always has unintended consequences,"said Student Affairs Committee Chair Randall A.Fine '96. "We passed popular elections as just aconcept. The devil is in the details, and most ofthem haven't been worked out."

One of the concerns raised during the April 30Council meeting centered on the amendment's lackof detail.

Finance Chair Robert M. Hyman '98 and TreasurerBrain R. Blais '96 said they hoped to make thebill more specific by proposing three amendments,all of which passed: to require a spending cap forcampaigns, to stipulate the candidates must becouncil members, and to establish year-long termsfor the president and vice president.

The officers' terms would begin in February andwould continue over the summer.

Several members spoke out against thestipulation limiting elections to council members.

"I think the whole point of campus-wideelections is that they are about democracy," saidMarco B. Simons '97, who plans to introducelegislation to repeal that amendment next Sunday.

"Any restriction of choice is necessarilyarbitrary. Why wouldn't a House Committee Chairmake a better president than an UndergraduateCouncil representative?" he asked.

The spending cap has also been attacked byseveral council members, most notably Fine, whoargued that candidates will be unable to campaigneffectively, reducing elections to the level of"a popularity contest."

"A low spending cap creates two problems," Finesaid. "One, students who don't know anything aboutthe candidates can't make an educated vote fromone piece of paper. Two, people will be lookingfor loopholes to get around it."

At other Universities, however, spending capshave not proven a hindrance to electionprocedures. At Columbia University, for example,candidates' spending is limited to the cost of 4008x11 posters, according to Shien Chiou '96, headof the College's Elections Commissions.

Candidates continue their campaign effortsthrough such low-budget venues as e-mail andforwarding messages through phone mail, Chiousaid.

Several members of Harvard's UndergraduateCouncil have expressed concern that even with aspending cap, many students with limited budgetswill be effectively discouraged from running foroffice.

"I think there needs to be a way that cost isnot a limiting factor in running," said Carsten M.Reichel '98. "A lot of people don't realize thateven with a spending cap, $250 is enough to keeppeople from running."

According to Liston, the spending cap willprobably not exceed $200. The exact financialdetails will be worked out next Sunday, whenListon presents a by-laws package, each of whichmust be approved by a two-thirds majority ofCouncil members attending.

The Council will then vote on additional rulesand regulations, including the timing of theelections and the formation of a selectioncommission to administer the election process.

The Council's Judicial Oversight Committee willprobably merge with the Election Committee tosupervise next fall's elections, Liston said.

When told of the Council's decision, Formercouncil president Carey W. Gabay '94 expressedsurprise.

"There are still severe problems, because thepresent system forced the three D's--Debate,Discussion and Depth," he said. "I don't think youwill get that under the new system."

Gabay is certainly not unfamiliar with theprospect of popular student elections.

Last year, while he was president, Anjalee C.Davis '96-'97 amassed 2,000 signatures in anattempt to force the council to hold a Collegewide referendum on five financial and structuralreform issues, including the popular election ofall four Council executives.

As part of the rules for the referendum, theCouncil stipulated that 50 percent of the studentbody must participate in order to make the vote ofthe students binding on the council.

Just 22 percent of undergraduates participatedin the vote, but an overwhelming majoritysupported the popular election of executives.

David A. Smith '94, who was thenparliamentarian of the council, ruled on May 15that the council's 50 percent requirement wasunconstitutional. But the Council overruled theparliamentarian's decision and the vote of thestudents was ruled advisory.

Members who initially opposed the referendumlast year are currently among the leadingsupporters of popular elections--including Liston himself. "I realized popularelections were a good thing last summer," he said,noting that he included the idea in his positionpaper for president last fall.

His predecessor, Hanselman, agrees, arguingthat administrators are largely skeptical of aCouncil that they believe does not adequatelyrepresent the student body. "I think when thefirst popularly elected president goes intoUniversity Hall," he added, "the administratorswill put more stake in his or her opinions."

Meanwhile, administration officials appear tohave taken a wait-and see attitude, expressing adegree of skepticism about the level of changethat can be instituted within the Council.

"I think (direct election) is something thatought to be tried," said Dean of Students ArchieC. Epps III, "but there are still some provisionsthat have to be worked in. Officers still have tobe members of the Council, so one could still seethings happening now still occurring."

"There may not be any kind-of change from thecurrent system," Epps added.

Andrew A. Green and Marios V. Broustascontributed to the reporting of this article.