Split Ticket, Split Council

The nearly unprecedented split-ticket election of this year’s Undergraduate Council (UC) president and vice president ultimately foundered, as Vice President Ian W. Nichols ’06 resigned amid rumors that he was forced out.

After Nichols stepped down, the president’s former running mate was ushered in as the replacement vice president­ in an uncomfortably close vote.

These unexpected changes led to the partial fracturing of a council that was almost entirely behind President Matthew J. Glazer ’06 and his running mate, then-treasurer Clay T. Capp ’06, at the beginning of the semester.

Glazer and Nichols, who have served on the UC since their freshman year, were pushed together from separate tickets in December’s election.

As chair of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC), Glazer held a historical mandate to the presidency—three of the four previous UC presidents were SAC chairs—and most of the UC endorsed him and Capp.

Nichols, as vice-chair of the Finance Committee (FiCom), signed on to run for vice president at the last minute with UC-outsider Tracy “Ty” Moore ’06. In their campaign, Moore and Nichols billed themselves as a potent combination of an outsider in touch with student needs and an insider with the experience to make them reality.

Glazer and Capp promised to enact changes through connections in University Hall.

The Crimson’s endorsement of a Glazer-Nichols pair was an anomaly among a series of ticket-specific endorsements.

The record-breaking voter turnout of almost 4,000 students resulted in a split election of Glazer and Nichols that seemed to leave the victors deflated.

“I’m excited, but also disappointed that this is how it turned out,” Glazer said at his somber victory party, which was supposed to be for Capp as well. “Ian and I will work together to do the best job that we can.”

Nichols called his victory “bittersweet,” but said that he would have no trouble working with Glazer.

But six months later, Nichols resigned, leaving other UC members questioning the exact circumstances of his departure.

And Capp, who ran with the support of the majority of the UC in December, became the new vice president by only two votes in May.

Though UC members say they have moved past the election controversy, for some, the council stands divided.

TROUBLE BREWS

In May, when the UC was beginning to tackle Springfest planning, council-wide institutional reform, and recommendations for the curricular review, Nichols was noticeably absent from meetings.

He was one absence away from being expelled under the UC’s attendance policy, and this began the series of events leading up to his resignation, according to several UC members.

Before it was amended this May, the UC’s constitution laid out few obligations for the vice president.

“The vice president until now has basically sat on his chair and recorded attendance,” says Chair of the UC Reform Commission Jonathan D. Einkauf ’06. The UC passed reforms this semester to increase the vice president’s direct involvement by chairing two new UC committees.

But Glazer says that Nichols was expected to go beyond his constitutional duties, as previous vice presidents have done.

“In my three years on the council, despite having a more loosely defined job description, vice presidents of the UC have been very active in taking on projects and following them through for the year,” Glazer says.

Nichols did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

According to Glazer, UC leaders on the executive board presented him with a petition for Nichols’ impeachment on May 9 and Nichols was asked to choose whether to resign or face the impeachment process, requiring a two-thirds majority vote at the UC general meeting that night.

Glazer and other UC executive board members did not disclose the exact circumstances of Nichols’ resignation until two weeks later.

Nichols resigned at the very beginning of the meeting, telling the UC he hadn’t committed fully to the job.

“I don’t feel I’ve really made the UC my number one priority this semester and I don’t know if this whole split ticket thing is working out,” Nichols said at the meeting, before walking out.

Although Nichols never spoke of the circumstances of his resignation, several of his friends said that he had been faced with impeachment by an executive board that had shut him out from the beginning.

“I definitely think he felt forced out,” Moore said after Nichols resigned. “Throughout the semester, he’s been talking to me about the reluctance of the executive board to work with him.”

But Glazer and other UC members said that the UC were never unwilling to work with Nichols.

A MESSY ELECTION

The UC voted for a replacement vice president at an emergency meeting held four days after Nichols’ resignation where tensions ran high from the aftereffects of his departure.

Although several UC members had expressed interest in the post only a few days earlier, only Capp and UC veteran and contrarian Jason L. Lurie ’05 accepted nominations.

The close vote of 22-20 in Capp’s favor surprised many members, including Capp himself.

Had he been elected, Lurie would have ended his term at Commencement, leaving Glazer solely in charge of the planning for next year over the summer.

“A vote for Lurie is a vote against the institution [of the UC]” said Capp after the election.

Lurie said he garnered such a large number of votes because of the UC’s discomfort with Nichols’ resignation.

Several UC members said that the former UC President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 and former Vice President Michael R. Blickstead ’05 had contacted them via e-mail and endorsed Capp. Blickstead said he also tried to discourage people from running against Capp.

The clashing of political alliances related to Nichols’ resignation and Capp’s election led to a contentious and tense atmosphere as the UC attempted to squeeze its reform package and curricular review reports into emergency meetings held during reading period.

“There was more political infighting than we’ve seen in the past. It got potentially out of hand at the end of the year because there were certainly personal feelings that were hurt,” says former Campus Life Committee Chair Christina L. Adams ’06.

But Adams says she predicts that the bickering will have died down by next year, as the UC is already moving on.

“Despite the problems that arose from the split ticket we still had an incredibly successful semester,” said Glazer.

And with a new UC policy, passed with overwhelming support at a May meeting, that makes a split ticket election impossible, the likelihood of a similar situation seems slim.

Glazer says that split tickets can succeed, even though his did not.

“Yes, it could have worked,” he says. “As Ian said to the council, he didn’t make the council his number one priority, and that really prevented it from working.”

Former UC President Lamelle Rawlins Ryman ’99, the only other president elected without her running mate, says that she and the vice president worked well together.

“At least for us, our personalities worked well together, so we were able to be really flexible,” Ryman says. “We became a good team.”

But Einkauf says that split tickets are a barrier to efficiency, and that Glazer and Nichols “were handicapped by the student body which elected them.”

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