Mahan Proposes Revamping Council

Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 laid out a vision for a dramatically revamped and decentralized council with almost twice as many members last night, giving members a chance to discuss a proposal first aired over their e-mail list last week.

Council members peppered Mahan with questions about the plan for reorganizing the council, which will be a key issue during president-elect Matthew J. Glazer ’06’s term in office.

Under the plan, which must be approved by a council vote, the current committee system would be replaced by three branches—grants, social and advocacy—which would meet separately and be overseen by an executive board. The entire council would only meet once or twice a semester, instead of the weekly meetings it now holds.

At last night’s meeting, Mahan unveiled a blackboard sketch of the three decentralized branches, which elicited whistles from council members.

“Our greatest strength and our greatest weakness is our centralization,” Mahan said to the less-than-packed crowd.

Mahan said that although he likes that the entire council gathers each week, the growth of the membership and the possibility for greater specialization outweighed the current benefits.

Under the tentative plan mapped out by Mahan, the council would have 96 members, nearly twice its current size.

The grants board would take on the current Finance Committee’s role of distributing money to student groups, but would no longer require the approval of the entire council to award grants. The advocacy board would carry out the work now done by the Student Affairs Committee (SAC).

The social board, an expanded version of the current Campus Life Committee (CLC), would include five popularly-elected representatives from each class as well as members of groups such as the Crimson Key Society. This change prompted criticism from some council members who said they prefer having equal representation from each House.

“I think it would be possible for any one specific group to pack a branch if they so chose,” said SAC member Jason L. Lurie ’05.

Mahan stressed that none of the suggestions were “set in stone.” But he said he believes members of the social board should be in touch with what students want, which is why he supported the popular elections.

“There are blocking groups on campus that have gotten more people to a club in Boston than we’ve gotten to a lot of our social events,” Mahan said.

The other two boards would still have representatives elected by House. Some members questioned the feasibility of the proposed expansion.

“I would worry that the logistics of electing something like this would be very difficult, and also that we might not even get enough people running,” said CLC member Lauren P. S. Epstein ’07.

Last night’s meeting represented the council’s first chance to discuss the proposed changes as a body. Mahan e-mailed the plan to council members on Jan. 2. He estimated he had met with about half the council members to discuss the plan over the past week.

Mahan said he plans to work closely with Vice President Michael R. Blickstead ’05, Glazer and incoming Vice President Ian W. Nichols ’06 to implement the changes gradually next semester.

“I really think there’s always inertia in these kinds of processes but that it’s obvious that we need to decentralize the council,” Mahan said after last night’s meeting. “I can see how people want to get into the details.”

Glazer said after the meeting that he was optimistic about instituting structural changes during his presidency but knew it would not be easy.

“There were some legitimate criticisms,” he said. “There are really good aspects, but I think it will take more work.”

—Staff writer Liz C. Goodwin can be reached at goodwin@fas.harvard.edu.