Council Attendance

To the Editors of The Crimson.

Having observed as well as participated in the steady growth of the Undergraduate Council during the past two years. I was very disappointed at the abrupt termination because of lack of a quorum, of the Council's meeting on Sunday March 18. For the first time, even with thirty minutes remaining on the agenda, procedures were unceremoniously halted when only 40 of 96 members remained to answer the roll.

This incident, if isolated, could perhaps be shrugged off and attributed to midterms, papers, and other pressing commitments of delegates, who are all students, during this hectic week before spring break. Unfortunately, this apathy seems to be becoming somewhat of a regular occurrence on Sunday nights at the Science Center.

On March 4, for instance, when the Council finally considered and approved its entire $77,000 budget, fewer that half of the members remained to approve it. Had a quorum been called for then, weeks of intensive work by an entire committee would have been rendered useless and 24 student organizations would not have been able to proceed with worthy projects funded with the money of undergraduates.

In response, on March 11, a bylaws amendment that would have required another mandatory roll call at the end of meetings to gauge attendance was introduced. Seeking to strengthen accountability and representation, and even, under a friendly amendment, in effect allowing up to five absences before expulsion, this flexible proposal would seem to have merited strong support.

However, it failed Amazingly, thirty-five of my colleagues bought arguments including statements that "the amendment would strangle the Council," that "attendance is not a measure of participation," that "sometimes a member has other commitments," and that "the amendment spoke against the integrity of the members" and was "kindergartenish." (from the official minutes, 11 March 1984)

On the other hand, though I speak only for myself, twenty-eight of us seemed to agree that staying to discuss and vote on all business at the general meeting is the proper way of representing our constituents, who, I believe, expect us to stay the whole time.

Requiring a minimum commitment of about an hour at a committee meeting and perhaps an hour and one half for the crucial gatherings of the full assembly on Sunday, the Council by no means imposes extraordinary demands on a member's time. And though many delegates take responsibilities upon themselves which involve substantial time commitments, no one is forced to labor more than his or her initiative allows.

It would probably be considered extraordinary if half of the members of the Harvard football team decided they had or wanted to leave practice a half-hour early each day because the last few drills were tough or boring or because they had to study. They of course would never become a solid team, or, at the least, would be much less effective than they could have been. Similarly, the case for persuading Council members to stay and intelligently consider all the topics brought forth seems strong if not irrefutable.

I wonder if the nineteen members who were not accounted for during the roll call on the bylaws amendment on March 11 or the 46 missing delegates whose lack of attendance temporarily shut down the Council last Sunday realize the actual and potential damage they are helping inflict upon the Council.

Fortunately, in this case we can make up the thirty minutes during our next meeting. If we keep playing this foolish and irresponsible game, however, some day there may be no next time and people may wonder why yet another great idea didn't last.

I cannot pretend and do not wish to preach to my fellow members, as their conceptions of responsibility are solely up to them.

However, I sincerely hope that every undergraduate interested in his or her future at Harvard, which the Council most definitely can and and does affect, will take time to ask their representatives (there is a list at the Council office) how they voted on the March 11 amendment, why, and whether they regularly stay for the duration of meetings. In addition, if indeed "attendance is not a measure of participation," I would hope students would ask those who voted against this proposal how much actual time they devote to the Council. The results may be surprising.

Finally, I hope that the Council will never again be forced to adjourn without completing its agenda and hope that pressure by constituents and the passage of this amendment, which should be reintroduced on April 8, will lead us back on the right track. Adam J. Augustynski, '96

SIXTY YEARS AGO TODAY in The Crimson: "Opposing participation in war under any circumstance," 30 out of 74 present at the meeting of the Debating Union last night went on record as pacifistic after aspirited discussion in which the minority used pugnacious methods of argument to express its pacifistic principles.

"'Three votes were taken....the third' carried 29 to 13 the measure. 'Resolved: That, in the opinion of this house, the Military Science Department of Harvard University should be abolished.'"