IOP Stable Despite Structural Changes

For any governmental institution, a peaceful transfer of power is the hallmark of stability, and the Institute of Politics (IOP) is no exception.

The IOP has been in transition since its Student Advisory Committee (SAC) was disolved by IOP Director Sen. David Pryor last November and has been running under an interim government consisting of a popularly-elected president and programming committee.

But with high study group attendance, overflowing forums and many projects on deck for the rest of the semester, the IOP seems to be running smoothly despite its transitional state.

"I thnk things are going very well," said Executive Director Catherine McLaughlin. "The programming committees are up and going and a lot of new faces are participating."

Now, in addition to its day-to-day events, the programming committee of the IOP has a greater mission: the creation of a long-term student governmental structure.

"We have a task force that is currently researching what the best way is to manage our student-staff organization," McLaughlin says.

Last November, Pryor said he thought the Institute had become insular and exclusive, and that it was not achieving its purpose--to inspire undergraduates to get involved in politics.

One of the reasons for this deficit, said Pryor, was a failure of the self-selecting SAC to reach out to students.

Pryor dissolved the SAC and created a student programming committee that complemented the IOP staff members, and although some students were outraged, they overcame their dissapointment and helped Pryor as he decided on the interim government that was instituted this semester.

This semester, six students were also elected to the Task Force and charged with the responsibility to research a more permanent structural organization to the IOP.

And despite the difficulty of this task, both students and staff report that the IOP has been functioning effectively.

Attendance at IOP events has been high and tensions that once existed between students and staff members have died down, says student programming committee president Robert F. McCarthy '02.

"There used to be tensions when staff and students disagreed about programming, but this semester we've carried out all the programs very smoothly," McCarthy says. "There hasn't been any need for tension--we were all in it for the same reasons."

But the temporary nature of the interim government has created an element of instability at the institute.

"This is definitely a semester of transition," says Heather A. Woodruff '03, who was elected a member of the task force. "But given the transiton that we're undergoing, things are going very well."

In an attempt to devise a more permanent structure, the task force has been meeting regularly and is getting ready to decide what the best student governing structure for the IOP would be.

"We came together and asked the question what do we want to come up with at the end?" says Eugene Krupitsky '02, a member of the task force. "We decided that we'd create a written document, a constitution for the IOP, that would make [government selection] a very open process."

The task force is currently collecting input from student groups and individuals on what type of governing body undergraduates would like to see, and how students foresee facilitated involvement.

The task force plans to have a survey to collect input from the student body and will hold an open meeting, expected to be next week, where students can offer suggestions in person.

"Up until this point, we've been discussing the main issues that we have to address and who we can talk to," says McLaughlin. "Everyone has been cooperating well--we're all open to working in new and innovative ways.

We're all looking forward, and that's healthy for all of us."

But the IOP governing committee cannot yet boast a perfect record.

Although Pryor attests to the fact that there has been better communication between students and staff, some students say that student voice is still limited by a dominant staff.

When Beau A. J. Briese '01-'02 asked the IOP to invite radio host Larry Elder to speak at the forum, Briese presented a record-high list of student groups who wanted to hear the speaker at Harvard. But staff were still hesitant and took over two weeks to respond to Briese, who attributes the hesitancy to the staff's reluctance to open themselves up to the voice of students.

"The [IOP staff] presumes to represent student interest but acts as though we lack the credibility to tell them what our interests are," Briese says.

But no one is boasting of perfection at the IOP. The old structure was dissolved with the intent of creating a better and more efficient administrative core.

Woodruff says that the best way to assure change or a good government is for students to attend the open meetings of the task force.

"We're inviting the campus to

come and tell us what they think," she says.