IOP Governing Board Rejects Proposal to Open Up Election Process

After more than three months of debate and discussion, the Student Advisory Committee (SAC)--the governing body of the Institute of Politics (IOP)--voted Saturday against a proposal designed to open up the SAC election process to non-members.

Instead, SAC voted to keep the current system in place but to allay concerns of accessibility by making "programmatic changes," specifically publishing the by-laws that govern the selection process.

The rejected proposal would have had the IOP's smaller committees--which plan events, internships and study groups--elect their own members, called associates, to SAC. Currently, SAC is a self-perpetuating system, with members choosing new committee chairs.

"We looked at the...proposals we had in front of us, and we concluded that it was definitely very important to make our current selection process and by-laws more accessible," said SAC Chair Byron J. McLain '00. "But we decided as a body that the current process...contain[s] many strengths, and that it would be better if we continued using that process."

But a number of those who were in support of the proposal, when contacted by The Crimson yesterday, said they continue to have concerns about what they see as the closed and elitist nature of SAC.

"I think they sent the clear message that they don't want associates to have a say in selecting the leadership of their own organization," said Michael J. Passante '99, a SAC member who co-authored the proposal.

A second proposal which would have excluded first-years from SAC membership was also discussed. Both proposals were voted down after three hours of deliberation, according to SAC Vice Chair C.J. Mahoney '00.

"It's hypocritical for the IOP to be promoting politics if they're not going to be supporting democracy," said associate Andrew J. Green '99, who signed a petition in support of the first proposal.

The first proposal was co-authored by associate Kathryn R. Markham '99-'00 and SAC members Eugenie A. Lang '00 and Passante. Twenty-three associates signed the petition, and eight sent supplementary letters detailing their support.

Markham said she is unsure how the "programmatic changes" can address her concerns.

"I don't know how you would associate programmatically the idea of having associates vote without actually having them vote," said Markham, who is also a Crimson editor. "I'll be interested in seeing what that means."

Others said they were unhappy with how SAC had considered the reforms themselves, saying that they reflected the exact problems the reforms were aimed to fix.

In her letter supporting the proposal, Alysson R. Ford '00 wrote that a small group of people decides who leads the organization, and that under the proposal associates could choose leaders who would represent their views.

"I find it particularly reprehensible that as SAC prepares to consider changes to this structure, it has not even solicited the opinions of its associates," wrote Ford, who is also a Crimson editor. "While the opinion of SAC is important, how can you discuss this issue in an informed manner if you do not also know how the associates at the IOP feel?"

Markham and others who signed the petition said that they were concerned that the IOP voted down a proposal supported by a diverse group of students with varying levels of involvement in the IOP.

"If this process was even alienating people [who have a significant interest in politics], I was concerned that it would have an effect on people with a marginal interest, the people the IOP is trying to attract," Markham said.

Markham said the petition, signed by males and females of varying backgrounds and class years, was representative of another associate concern, that the SAC is not diverse enough.

But McLain defends the committee on this charge, pointing to the fact that SAC is much more inclusive than it was even three years ago. Currently, 14 of 30 SAC members are women, and 12 are minorities. To encourage diversity among associates, he plans to speak to campus organizations about the IOP.

Associates also complained of SAC's exclusivity, secretive nature and inaccessibility in their letters in support of the proposal.

In their letters, Ford and David B. Alpert '00 criticized for SAC for holding luncheons with high-profile politicians that were not announced to associates.

Passante and Markham pointed to the secretive nature of the meetings themselves as an example of this problem. In Saturday's meeting, Markham was not allowed to be present during the period in which the proposal was debated and voted upon.

SAC members said that the decision to make its by-laws and selection process public was an effort to address complaints of unnecessary secrecy raised by associates.

"We got the response from associates that it was secretive, and we agreed that it should be more public, so we took some steps yesterday to make it more public, and I think the result is going to be more public satisfaction," said Mahoney.

Former SAC Vice Chair William P. Moynahan '99, who is also a Crimson executive, presented a second proposal, under which the committee would elect a new class of members each November instead of each February. The intent of the proposal was to elect SAC members later in their Harvard careers and prevent attrition by upperclass students.

"I thought the IOP might be helped if the issue of SAC membership was removed from the first-year associate experience," Moynahan said. "By limiting applications to sophomores and juniors, there would be more time for evaluations and the leadership track would be less front-loaded."

SAC members say the proposals pushed the committee to examine itself, but they said they did not think the proposals were the best means to improving the group.

"Because I thought that there were less dramatic ways of dealing with this problem I didn't feel comfortable with taking this step," Mahoney said.

Lang reconciled her hopes of the proposals' passage with the SAC's decision.

"I would have preferred the structural changes, but I like the spirit that I saw in the room of people who really seemed dedicated to the idea of involving everybody but just didn't think this was the best way to go about it," Lang says.