Website Bill Dropped as UC Passes Budget

The Undergraduate Council (UC) unanimously passed its largest annual fiscal budget in history last night—totalling just less than $409,000—after a controversial line item allocating $15,000 to website redevelopment was removed from the bill.

The budget increased even as the number of students opting out of the termbill fee rose from 15.9 percent to just under 25 percent, according to UC President Matthew J. Glazer ’06, because the amount of the fee also increased from $60 to $75.

The allocation of $15,000 for a new website, which was included in the initial budget proposal sent out over the UC’s open e-mail list early Sunday night, was removed from the bill before the meeting.

This appropriation, which had been presented as the Undergraduate Council Website Redevelopment Act, called for a new website that would provide students with “a multitude of meaningful services,” including access to the common grants application, an online room-reservation system, and a student events calender.

The proposal was withdrawn later Sunday evening after a flurry of e-mails over the UC and House open lists—from representatives and non-representatives alike—criticized the proposed expenditure.

In an e-mail posted to the UC general list, former UC representative Meghan M. Tieu ’07 noted that the $15,000 allocated for the website was “an absurd amount of student money to be spending on a website that is hardly used.”

According to John S. Haddock ’07—who sponsored the bill—the Council never intended to spend the full $15,000.

“The number was arrived at not because we wanted to spend that much,” said Haddock. “Our goal in doing it in the way that we proposed was to set aside some money that we can tap into later.”

UC Treasurer Matthew R. Greenfield ’08 also said that there was a misunderstanding over the initial budget proposal.

“I think there was some miscommunication whether the number we were talking about was a bare minimum or whether we were going to go through the customary process of allocating what we were going to spend,” said Greenfield. “I think that different people thought the number represented different things, which is why I thought the number had to be eliminated outright.”

UC Representative Blake M. Kurisu ’07 added that a budget item of this size would normally be debated in committee before appearing on a bill to be considered by the entire council.

“We don’t usually make legislative allocations from the budget,” Kurisu said. “For something this size, it was really unusual that they didn’t bring it through the procedure.”

While the money originally set aside for the website was redistributed into the budget, both Haddock and Glazer promised that the UC will continue working toward a new site.

“I am happy we withdrew the bill after some discussion,” said Haddock. “At this point, we will approach it from the opposite way. We will form a committee without money attached, and from there we can make the allocations.”

Glazer said he was pleased with the debate that had taken place over e-mail Sunday evening.

“There were some very intense discussions over how the UC spends its money, and that’s what we want to happen,” said Glazer. “That said, I think we have a great budget.”

Council members said the new budget would allow for increased spending on student events.

“I think the most important part of this budget is that everything is getting more money than in the past,” Greenfield said. “More money will be available to student groups than ever before in the history of this institution.”

The new budget includes $276,382 for student grants, nearly a 30 percent increase from last year.

—Staff writer Alexander D. Blankfein can be reached at ablankf@fas.harvard.edu.