UC Mulls Reform of Committee Structure

With campus-wide social events in the hands of a newly formed, independent board funded by the College administration, the Undergraduate Council (UC) is now taking a hard look at how to restructure its former social programming arm, the Campus Life Committee (CLC).

According to UC leaders, the CLC will continue to provide services to students until the end of the semester­—which in the past have included holiday shuttles and $1 movie nights. But the creation of the new social programming board has made the restructuring of CLC­—and the UC—inevitable.

Discussions about restructuring began last week, when the UC’s three main committees—CLC, the Finance Committee (FiCom), and the Student Affairs Committee (SAC)—discussed reform at their meetings.

The discussion moved a step further last night when the UC Rules Committee—the committee responsible for changes to the UC’s bylaws—took up reorganization as its major issue.

Council member Matthew R. Greenfield ’08, who brought a “working paper” for reform to the meeting, noted that UC restructuring has been an issue many members have been thinking about since it was a central issue during the past presidential election.

Greenfield also said he thought that the next Rules committee meeting would produce a “significant proposal to guide our conversation.”

UC Vice President Annie R. Riley ’07 said that the UC is “taking a critical look at ourselves.”

“Everything is on the table” for discussion, UC President John S. Haddock ’07 said.

He said that UC members will have “the opportunity to come to their own conclusion on the proper structure.”

The discussions within the UC will center on the CLC, because it was previously responsible for planning campus-wide events.

The formation of the independent social programming board did not substantially affect the structure and mission of FiCom and SAC.

“The future of the third committee [CLC] is still undecided and will be decided as a result of these conversations,” Riley said.

According to Riley, the process of reform will be modeled after the process that led to the proposal shifting responsibility for social programming to an independent board. That proposal passed by a 37-0-1 margin last Sunday.

In that process, Riley consulted with student groups with campus-wide social programming experience, worked with UC members, and coordinated with Campus Life Fellow Justin H. Haan ’05.

To develop this next proposal, Riley said she plans to meet with former UC members to gain their perspective, invite students and student groups to attend UC general meetings in order to share their views, and work with UC committees.

Both Riley and Haddock said that they want to complete these reforms by the end of this semester.

“We’re trying to pursue this conversation both efficiently and thoroughly so that we can complete these reforms by the end of this year so the UC can return in the fall with an improved structure and therefore better service to the student body,” Riley said.

CLC Chair Sopen B. Shah ’08 said on Sunday that she believed that the structure of CLC was limiting with regard to social programming.

“I can see that the Harvard social life has outgrown the way things are structured now,” Shah said.

She suggested that CLC could increase the services it offered students.

“There’s been a lot of ideas thrown out,” she said.

Shah was not available for comment last night.

—Staff writer Brittney L. Moraski can be reached at bmoraski@fas.harvard.edu.