U.C. Referendum Invalidated; Outside Party to Hold Re-Vote

The Undergraduate Council voted last night to invalidate last week's student referendum on a $10 term bill hike, and to solicit an outside party to hold another one, beginning a week from today.

The new referendum will include questions on the fee hike and on last year's council decision to rescind the option students have to check a box on their term bills to waive the council fee.

Ballots from the original referendum have not been counted, and are currently locked up in the council office.

In an executive interpretation, President Carey W. Gabay '94 said the council's conduct during last week's referendum violated its constitution, moved to invalidate the referendum.

Gabay specifically said the council had violated its by-laws when it allowed delegates to table in their own houses.

The council voted 28-23 uphold Gabay's decision, attaining the required majority.

Gabay's decision came after a vote on a similar motion from the floor to invalidate failed to attain the two thirds majority necessary to pass.

This motion--in the which the selections of individual council members were recorded as part of a roll-call vote--failed with 30 for and 22 against invalidation.

But there were "a number of other things" that led to Gabay's decision.

Allegations surfaced last week that tabling in houses and the Freshman Union was not conducted at all specified times, that council members who were tabling in their houses illegally tried to persuade voters, and that few safeguards were taken to prevent students from voting more than once.

"One offense isn't enough to invalidate the referendum," Gabay said. "But if you put them all together, they become grand enough to invalidate it."

Gabay also said that it would be "hypocritical"for the council to ignore its own rules.

"We can't just follow the constitution whenit's in our best interests to do so," Gabay said."If we're going to follow just some of it, weshouldn't follow any of it."

Vice President Joshua D. Liston '95, theofficial administrator of the election, arguedagainst its invalidation.

Liston said the council should base itsdecision on complaints it received, rather than onthe advice of Dean of Students Archie C. Epps IIIor public gripes.

"as the executive officer in charge of runningthis election, I received no written complaintsfrom students," Liston said.

He acknowledged that one student had written aletter to the executive board to protest thereferendum.

"To me, it seems as if the U.C. is caving in toThe Crimson and Archie Epps," Liston said.

Gabay disagreed.

"It's not about students writing letters," hesaid. "We should do something and say 'yeah, wedid mess up."

Rene Reyes '95 said invalidating the referendumwould "make a mockery" outside party who wouldadminister a second referendum "has no incentive"to follow rules to ensure fairness.

"I think this is our one shot," Reyes said. "Wegot a good sample of student opinion."

Melissa Garza '94 argued that the referendumshould be invalidated because the council failedto follow the rules it set for itself.

"If we say we're going to do something, and wedon't do it, what does that mean?" she said.

But many council members, including Liston,said the referendum was "the best we could do."

Council member Elana M. Oberstein '97 evenpraised the effort of the council.

"It's time to congratulate rather than questionourselves," she said. "We pulled off areferendum."

Another referendum

The second referendum is necessary, said Gabay,because "there's no way it will pass the FacultyCouncil without a referendum."

To administer the second referendum, thecouncil will attempt to solicit the committee onCollege Life (COCL), which has called an emergencymeeting tomorrow.

"If they don't follow [the rules], at leastit's not a U.C. scandal," Gabay said.

After lengthy debate, the council voted througha package specifying that the referendum will beheld on May 2, 3 and 4.

The second referendum will include votes on thefee hike and on last year's council decision toeliminate the check box option.

The council agreed the referendum would bebinding only if there were a 50 percent turnout,and that student members of the COCL would not beallowed to campaign while tabling--if the COCLindeed agrees to hold the referendum.

Finally, the council decided to take out a fullpage advertisement in the Independent, explainingthe pros and cons of the fee hike.

The package passed by a vote of 40-2, with noabstentions.

Allegations Discussed

Liston also responded to many of the chargesabout election misconduct.

He attributed the absence of tabling at certainmeals to the lack of cooperation on the part ofthe House committees, which were asked toadminister the election in conjunction with thecouncil.

Garza protested that the House Committees hadbeen contacted "one or two nights before tablingwas to begin," an insufficient advance notice.

Liston also defended his constitutionalinterpretation to allow council members to tablein their own houses.

"I thought it best in student interests for thereferendum to happen" rather than forbiddingmembers to table in their own houses, Liston said.

In addition, Mather House delegate Michael P.Beys '94 responded to a report that he was overlyaggressive in trying to persuade voters to supportthe fee hike while tabling in his house.

John Mann '92-'94 pointed out that theexecutive board had decided, in a meeting Beysattended, not to allow council members to try toinfluence the election while tabling.

But Beys said the ruling was highly debated atthe executive board meeting, and that no minutesexisted or written records have been distributedto show that it had actually passed.

Beys also asked for a count of council memberswho were unsure whether tabling delegates couldoffer solicited opinions on behalf of the feehike.

About 12 council members raised their hands.

Other Talk

A motion to entirely overturn the March 20decision to raise the term bill failed as well, byan unofficial count of 15-33.

The vote on the motion, which was recorded inanother roll-call vote, would have required atwo-thirds majority of the council to pass.

Finally, council Parliamentarian David A. Smith'94 announced his ruling that the council actedimproperly in handling a petition submitted byAnjalee C. Davis '96.

Davis' petition had called for a referendum onfive issues, of which the term bill hike and thecheck box option were two.

Smith said Davis' petition had met the onlyrequirement regarding petitions in the councilconstitution that the document be signed by tenpercent of the student body.

The council executive board had moved to barfour of the questions from the petition largelybecause students were given the option to indicatewhich of the five issues they wanted to go to avote.

Smith has been absent from school sinceFebruary due to surgery

Gabay also said that it would be "hypocritical"for the council to ignore its own rules.

"We can't just follow the constitution whenit's in our best interests to do so," Gabay said."If we're going to follow just some of it, weshouldn't follow any of it."

Vice President Joshua D. Liston '95, theofficial administrator of the election, arguedagainst its invalidation.

Liston said the council should base itsdecision on complaints it received, rather than onthe advice of Dean of Students Archie C. Epps IIIor public gripes.

"as the executive officer in charge of runningthis election, I received no written complaintsfrom students," Liston said.

He acknowledged that one student had written aletter to the executive board to protest thereferendum.

"To me, it seems as if the U.C. is caving in toThe Crimson and Archie Epps," Liston said.

Gabay disagreed.

"It's not about students writing letters," hesaid. "We should do something and say 'yeah, wedid mess up."

Rene Reyes '95 said invalidating the referendumwould "make a mockery" outside party who wouldadminister a second referendum "has no incentive"to follow rules to ensure fairness.

"I think this is our one shot," Reyes said. "Wegot a good sample of student opinion."

Melissa Garza '94 argued that the referendumshould be invalidated because the council failedto follow the rules it set for itself.

"If we say we're going to do something, and wedon't do it, what does that mean?" she said.

But many council members, including Liston,said the referendum was "the best we could do."

Council member Elana M. Oberstein '97 evenpraised the effort of the council.

"It's time to congratulate rather than questionourselves," she said. "We pulled off areferendum."

Another referendum

The second referendum is necessary, said Gabay,because "there's no way it will pass the FacultyCouncil without a referendum."

To administer the second referendum, thecouncil will attempt to solicit the committee onCollege Life (COCL), which has called an emergencymeeting tomorrow.

"If they don't follow [the rules], at leastit's not a U.C. scandal," Gabay said.

After lengthy debate, the council voted througha package specifying that the referendum will beheld on May 2, 3 and 4.

The second referendum will include votes on thefee hike and on last year's council decision toeliminate the check box option.

The council agreed the referendum would bebinding only if there were a 50 percent turnout,and that student members of the COCL would not beallowed to campaign while tabling--if the COCLindeed agrees to hold the referendum.

Finally, the council decided to take out a fullpage advertisement in the Independent, explainingthe pros and cons of the fee hike.

The package passed by a vote of 40-2, with noabstentions.

Allegations Discussed

Liston also responded to many of the chargesabout election misconduct.

He attributed the absence of tabling at certainmeals to the lack of cooperation on the part ofthe House committees, which were asked toadminister the election in conjunction with thecouncil.

Garza protested that the House Committees hadbeen contacted "one or two nights before tablingwas to begin," an insufficient advance notice.

Liston also defended his constitutionalinterpretation to allow council members to tablein their own houses.

"I thought it best in student interests for thereferendum to happen" rather than forbiddingmembers to table in their own houses, Liston said.

In addition, Mather House delegate Michael P.Beys '94 responded to a report that he was overlyaggressive in trying to persuade voters to supportthe fee hike while tabling in his house.

John Mann '92-'94 pointed out that theexecutive board had decided, in a meeting Beysattended, not to allow council members to try toinfluence the election while tabling.

But Beys said the ruling was highly debated atthe executive board meeting, and that no minutesexisted or written records have been distributedto show that it had actually passed.

Beys also asked for a count of council memberswho were unsure whether tabling delegates couldoffer solicited opinions on behalf of the feehike.

About 12 council members raised their hands.

Other Talk

A motion to entirely overturn the March 20decision to raise the term bill failed as well, byan unofficial count of 15-33.

The vote on the motion, which was recorded inanother roll-call vote, would have required atwo-thirds majority of the council to pass.

Finally, council Parliamentarian David A. Smith'94 announced his ruling that the council actedimproperly in handling a petition submitted byAnjalee C. Davis '96.

Davis' petition had called for a referendum onfive issues, of which the term bill hike and thecheck box option were two.

Smith said Davis' petition had met the onlyrequirement regarding petitions in the councilconstitution that the document be signed by tenpercent of the student body.

The council executive board had moved to barfour of the questions from the petition largelybecause students were given the option to indicatewhich of the five issues they wanted to go to avote.

Smith has been absent from school sinceFebruary due to surgery