Funny Business, As Usual

Undergraduate Council members watched helplessly as the 1992-93 council followed a seemingly inevitable routine of one step forward, two steps back.

"Do we make it a habit of being in at least one controversy per meeting?" asked Cynthia D. Johnson '96 at one particularly volatile Undergraduate Council session in April.

This year's council leadership struggled with charges of insensitivity towards women, indiscretion in its financial practices and impropriety in election procedures. It was a scorching year--even for a beleaguered council that has struggled to achieve credibility on campus amid mediocre student approval ratings.

And ultimately, the continuing strife led the council to alter radically its bureaucratic structure in what seemed a desperate attempt to set its house in order and to put service ahead of scandal.

The council's new constitution, approved only a few weeks ago by a phone vote of 55 to 14, will replace the existing five-committee system with finance, campus life and student affairs committees.

Fall Council Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93, one of the principal authors of the amended constitution and bylaws, says the idea for the council's reevaluation committee, an internal board devised to examine the council, stemmed from the "unfortunate" election scandal involving former Vice Chair Maya G. Prabhu '94. "That was really a cue to move forward," Heinicke says.

Yet even the adoption of the new constitution was not without its complications. Two council members, James L. Doak '94 and Rene Reyes '95, said the phone-vote was inappropriate and in violation of council policy.

Vice Chair David L. Hanselman '94, who conducted the phone poll, maintained the vote had to be conducted by phone because the council's final meeting failed to achieve a quorum.

Many council members, confounded by the repeated scandals, said they were particularly disillusioned by the council's penchant to trip over its own feet--particularly because when the council did work on constructive projects, it worked well.

Student services like the Harvard-Yale football game tailgate party, for example, came off without a hitch. "Every social event this year was a success," says Heinicke. "As far as services provided for the undergraduate community, it was an error-free year."

But even in the first weeks of the fall term, as some council members worked diligently to formulate a definition of date rape as part of the council's work with the Faculty Council, senior members of the council found themselves stung by allegations of vote-tampering in the council's elections.

Prabhu resigned from her position as vice chair after the council released a report confirming that election fraud had occurred in a fall social committee election. Prabhu privately admitted she had rigged the vote, according to council officials.

Prabhu's action, which she has told colleagues were an attempt to increase the number of women represented on the council's Executive Board, was the first and most extreme protest by female members, who charge they are unfairly treated on the council. It also brought into focus a long-running charge that an "old boy network" rules the council.

In April, Hanselman and leading women council members faced off in a heated exchange, marking the first public airing of women's grievances about their treatment on the council. Before spring recess, a group of female members had secretly met to discuss what council member Hillary K. Anger '93 called the "horrible gender dynamics" between men and women on the council.

With the appointment of veteran member Steven N. Kalkanis '93 as Prabhu's replacement, the council, under the direction of Heinicke, could only improve its image. And it did.

Council members rejected a motion for preferential housing for first-year residents of 29 Garden St. and approved a recommendation for "Enhanced Choice," a plan that would have promised to give 25 percent of rising sophomores their first choice in the spring housing lottery.

In December the council approved a grants package of nearly $41,000 to be distributed among 103 campus organizations. It also provided enhanced council-sponsored airport shuttle service.

The council enlisted comedian Rich Ceisler, who entertained about 400 Harvard students at a performance in the Science Center. And in March, Saturday Night Live comedian Adam Sandler rocked a sell-out crowd of 1,200 students in Sanders Theatre with jokes and songs geared towards college students.

In its only political action of the year, the council drafted a letter to President Neil L. Rudenstine "affirm[ing] the council's committed support" for the University's stance against the ban on homosexuals in the military. The letter, written after Rudenstine defended the choice of Gen. Colin L. Powell as Commencement speaker, was approved nearly four hours into the council's last scheduled meeting of the year.

But in a fracas not uncommon at this year's council meetings, the vote on the Powell letter was punctuated with political jockeying and posturing that led some council members to storm out of Sever Hall in an apparent attempt to thwart the formation of a quorum. Hanselman then conducted a roll call revote, but the tally fell short of quorum, essentially killing the letter.

In March, the council sank into factional squabbling again. Harvard-Radcliffe Rock for Shelter members expressed anger that Beys was pressured to allot Phillips Brooks House $3,000 that they say was earmarked for Rock for Shelter use.

Beys and other council members vehemently denied charges of impropriety, but not all on the council were satisfied.

Members devoted a segment of their Sunday night meeting to grill Beys on the probity of his actions. Rumors of an impeachment process against the council chair circulated throughout the meeting as veteran representatives rushed to Beys' defense. Treasurer Carey W. Gabay '94 even threatened to resign if the impeachment process was carried forward.

Council members say they hope such incidents do not recur next fall. They say the revamped council will benefit from its new bylaws. But even if the bureaucratic solution proves to be sound, the efficacy of the council seems to depend more on how resolute the members are in pursuing a coherent agenda than on how rigorously a list of rules frames their work.