Fee Hike Moves Forward

A Student Activities Fee hike will be put to referendum within the next three weeks, the Undergraduate Council decided last night in its weekly meeting.

In a 39 to 5 decision, the council ruled that the student body will vote on two separate questions: first, whether or not to increase the fee from $35 to $75 and second, whether or not to make the now optional payment mandatory.

“I think this provides us with an excellent opportunity to show our constituents what we do and how we can do more,” said Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05.

Mahan said the referendum will give supporters an opportunity to explain how students will benefit from the increase in funding.

Council members on the other side of this issue said they were confident that the referendum vote would go their way.

“[The referendum] is going down in flames,” said Joshua A. Barro ’05, who in recent e-mails to open lists has likened the bill to a tax hike.

The online ballot will be accompanied by links to two four-page position papers—one for and one against the fee hike, the council decided 20 to 19, with three abstentions.

Before passing, the referendum bill was subject to heavy amendment, including a measure that reduced the original proposed $100 fee increase to $75.

An amendment that would have prevented the council from going ahead with the fee hike, should the referendum fail, was voted down, 28 to 6. Despite the outcome of the referendum, this decision allows the council the option to go ahead and petition the College administration to increase the fee.

Russell M. Anello ’04, who co-authored the referendum bill, called this failed amendment “draconian” because it would have blocked the council from asking the College to raise fees marginally to take inflation into account.

The initial referendum bill also included a third question on the ballot, regarding a proposed opt-in $10 termbill fee to support renewable energy on campus.

Yesterday, after some council members raised questions about the lack of research on the issue, this question was omitted from the referendum ballot by a vote of 19 to 15, with three abstentions.

The council also passed a resolution last night in support of student representation on the Administrative Board, 40 to 0, with two abstentions.

Before being passed, the resolution had to overcome a lengthy debate on an amendment that would have supported allowing Ad Boarded students to choose whether or not to have their peers sit in on their hearing.

“There may be some students who do not feel comfortable having their cases head before other students,” E.E. Keenan ’07 said.

Other council members disagreed, saying that such an amendment would weaken student position on the Ad Board and go against the intent of the bill.

“We want to make this an integral part of the Ad Board,” Andrew C. Stillman ’06 said. “We want them to be taken just as seriously as Faculty.”

The council also passed two grants packages that included nearly $10,000 worth of funding to students groups.

After deciding on the grant packages, Ad Board bill and the referendum, over a dozen council members left the meeting that was running later than expected. The meeting had started at 7:30 p.m. and was slated to end at 10 p.m. according to an e-mail prior to the meeting. But at 10 p.m., the council had yet to tackle the Green Grants Bill. The proposed legislation would provide a monetary incentive for student groups that promote environmental sustainability through their activities.

“[The bill will] help our student groups become more aware of their impact,” said co-sponsor Teo P. Nicolais ’06.

The 10 p.m. exodus left some council members wondering if the council met quorum of 26 members, which is necessary to conduct business.

“This is the most ridiculous thing ever,” said Jason L. Lurie ’05 after he and Mahan, who was chairing the meeting, differed in the number of individuals they counted in the room.

Lurie contested Mahan’s ruling that quorum was reached, though the requisite 26 members were in the room.

The council continued to be plagued with calls for “quorum” throughout the remaining 30 minutes of debate on the Green Grants Bill, though a quorum was always present. Eventually, Mahan ended the meeting at 10:45 p.m., after only 24 members were remaining.

At one point during the meeting, Lurie and council member Joseph R. Oliveri ’05 left the room and refused to be counted for quorum in an apparent protest.

Lurie’s behavior, which caused a significant disruption in the meeting and caused Mahan to exit the room momentarily, was called “unbelievable” by some council members.

Council members motioned to censure Lurie for his conduct, but the issue was never voted on.

While debate was going on, Jason D. Park ’05 spoke against the Green Grants Bill. He said the bill goes against the structure of the council and could overfund certain student groups—some of which already may receive full funding—at the expense of others.

“The bill proposes to take $750 away from groups that aren’t getting funded,” said Park, who is also a Crimson editor. “If the termbill argument is valid then we don’t have any kind of extra money to be giving away.”

—Staff writer Jeffrey C. Aguero can be reached at aguero@fas.harvard.edu.