Council Faces Money Crisis as Cash Runs Low

As budget-time approaches for this year's Undergraduate Council, the College's student government will be forced to fund more student groups with less money--and also with fewer options for raising money than councils in the past.

Council members say the results of last year's referendum--in which a slim majority of voters rejected a term bill increase--has restricted the options available to this year's council.

As a result, members are considering new options, like asking Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 to index the fee for inflation, or raising the fee for only incoming first-years.

But due to last year's referendum, many council members say they cannot adopt what many believe would be the most effective solution--raising the fee for all students.

And it remains to be seen whether council members will unite behind one of any of the options available for gaining increased funds.

"No one is sure what's going to happen," says Jeffrey A. Letalien '01, chair of the council's finance committee.

"Something has to happen," he adds. "I counted 130 grant applications the other day. There's no way to do the math so that people will be getting as much money as they had in recent years."

Bleeding Council

When the 19th Undergraduate Council sat down this year to draw up a budget, it found less money than the year before waiting for it in the term bill fund. The same thing happened to the 18th council before it, and the 17th council before that.

For every year since 1983, the council has been funded exactly the same way: a $20 optional term bill fee. The problem, council members and administrators say, is that $20 doesn't buy what it used to.

To be precise, it only buys 60 percent of what it used to. Adjusted only for inflation, the term bill fee should now be $33.50.

But the term bill hasn't kept pace with inflation. It hasn't changed a cent.

In addition, the number of student groups has risen quickly--especially over the last few years.

"The number of groups we fund has gone through the roof, plus the cost of everything has gone up," representative John P. Marshall '01 says. "We've been working on borrowed time for a couple of years."

The council now finds itself trying to help fund upwards of 170 student groups, at the same time as it hopes to attract a big-name band to Springfest, and provide a variety of other services--all with less and less money.

"The student groups are the lifeblood of the campus, and the council wants to do everything it can to facilitate that," says three-term representative Steven Chung '01.

Council members' solution is clear: more money. But last year, a student referendum narrowly defeated a proposal to raise the term bill fee to $50, leaving the council hurting for cash.

Driskell says that the council's high-profile campaign last year to raise the term bill also worked against them, by publicizing that students can decide not to pay the term bill fee. This contributed, she says, to the fact that the council lost about $4,000 in revenue from the term bill this year--even as the College has enrolled a greater number of first-years than last year.

"The bottom line is we have less money to work with," Driskell says.

Undergraduate Council members say that if last year's referendum had passed, it would have revolutionized campus life.

"We could've been put in the situation of having a lot more impact on campus," Marshall says.

With more money, the council could not only fund more groups, and fund those groups better, but it could also sponsor more events like Springfest.

Instead, for the time being, the council is being forced to cut costs whenever possible--a fact that is already taking a toll on students.

Last year's Springfest didn't have fried dough, a festival staple, because the Campus Life Committee didn't think it would be cost-effective.

Even if the referendum had passed, Harvard's term bill fee would have remained one of the lowest in the nation. As it stands now, the council's funding is dwarfed by other schools like Duke, where students pay $66 per year, and Tufts, where they pay a mandatory annual $179 fee.

New Solutions?

The council could ask Lewis to unilaterally raise the fee--a power he could exercise with the approval of the Faculty.

But Lewis says the council's decision to hold a referendum has complicated the matter.

"The term bill fee should be raised....My own sympathies are to increase the UC fee," he writes in an e-mail message. "But this is not the current trend, de facto. I would really prefer to have student support."

Council members say that they think they would be unsuccessful trying to convince administrators to raise the fee without another referendum.

"He wants student support," Driskell says. "So you know what that means. That's going to be me, going door-to-door."

And many council members say that even if last year's referendum failed, the council should not raise the fee without student consent.

"It has to come from the students," Marshall says. "Once we've put the question to them once, it always has to be that way."

"That's the only legitimate way it should happen," Chung says.

Still, some council members think there could be some sort of compromise between a unilateral increase and another referendum.

Fred Smith '04, a new member, thinks he might have a solution to what he calls the council's classic taxation problem.

"None of us want to pay more, but it looks like [the council] will have some problems with filling our obligations this year," he says.

Smith plans to push his own term bill plan this year, which would raise the term bill for incoming first-years--members of the Class of 2005--while leaving it at $20 for current students.

"We have to do it gradually," he says, arguing that raising the fee might actually reduce revenue, as more students exercised their option of not paying.

Smith's plan would provide the council with additional funding while not upsetting current students--but would raise it unilaterally for students who aren't yet here.

Council veterans are largely impressed by the originality of Smith's plan but doubt its viability.

"It's cute," Driskell says, but she adds that she doesn't feel one class ought to pay more for the same services.

Finance Committee Chair Jeffrey A. Letalien '01 agrees.

"It's not going to work, unless all that money went straight to the First-Year Caucus," he says.

And all that would do is allow the council to cut ticket prices for the First-Year Formal--a nice perk for first-year students, but not a solution to the council's overall funding problems.

Another compromise that has been floated by Campus Life Committee Vice Chair Stephen N. Smith '02, is the suggestion that Lewis automatically raise the fee each year to keep up with inflation.

Lewis has indicated that he would not necessarily be hostile to this idea.

But to go back to $20 in 1983 dollars--that is, to raise the fee to $33.50--might meet with student opposition. And indexing the fee from the current $20 will not produce a significant increase in revenue.

Old Solutions

Given the difficulties inherent in the other possible solutions to the term bill fee problem, it seems likely that the question will not be whether the council will have another referendum, but when.

Marshall says this spring would be a logical time, but the council faces a major constraint--if the voter turnout is not high enough, any referendum passed will not be binding.

This is precisely what happened two years ago when the council tried to raise the fee to $40. A majority of those who voted supported the increase, but not enough students voted to make the vote count.

In order to avoid having the referendum be non-binding, council members say it's necessary to tie the referendum to the council's annual presidential election, held in December.

But Marshall suggests that there might not be enough time to get ready for a referendum in this year's presidential election. He doesn't think it's likely that the student body will vote on the term bill until next December.

Driskell also fears that it will be difficult to get a referendum ready for the students to vote on less than two months from now, particularly since not much has changed on the issue since last December's vote. A referendum, she feels, needs to be vigorously sold to the student body as absolutely necessary.

"I haven't heard a strong enough case for it," she says.

Barkley, who puts the chances of seeing a referendum this year at 50-50, is leery of another defeat.

"It's more likely to meet opposition this year than last year," he says, arguing that students who oppose a term bill increase might mount a more organized campaign this year.

Last year, all the presidential candidates favored the increase. This year, Barkley says, it would not be surprising to see a candidate from outside the council run on an anti-term bill increase platform.

And there's also the ever-present question of the council's credibility.

"We don't want to put this on the ballot every year until it passes," Barkley says.

Bottom Line

It may be that the council missed its best opportunity for a fee hike last year.

Before last year's referendum, the council could have tried to raise the fee without a referendum, proposed that the bill be indexed for inflation or pushed Lewis harder on a unilateral increase.

Now the council's actions are more limited.

"Our window was last year," Barkley says.

Marshall argues that the blame for the council's current situation falls on the council itself. If the council fails to impress students, students will never vote to give it more money.

A referendum in December won't pass, he says, "if we have another Springfest disaster," referring to the unplanned absence of amusements at last year's event.

The key is whether the council can effectively do more with less for now.

"If we do a good job this year, the chances of it passing will be good," Marshall says. "But we need to prove we deserve it."