U.C. Nixes Term Bill Fee Increase, Sends Matter to Students

Subhead: Constituent's speech wins over Council, Seton

In a surprise twist, the Undergraduate Council decided last night not to approve an increase in students' term bill fees sponsored and championed by council President Noah Z. Seton '00 only last week.

Council members said the measure to raise the optional fee, which is automatically attached to students' term bills, was widely expected to pass in one form or another before last night's meeting. Instead, the council will refer the matter, with Seton's blessing, to the student body in the second campus-wide referendum on the issue.

Last year's referendum was supported by a majority of voters, but too few students voted to make the measure binding.

In a move that is sure to make the term bill increase a hot issue for this year's council presidential campaign, the referendum will be attached to the presidential ballot in December.

Council representatives say the decision to refer the matter to students was largely due to the efforts of Bradley L. Davis '01, who was a council representative last year but no longer holds the position.

A Dark Horse

Davis, in what council members described as an impassioned and well thought-out speech, argued that it was the council's role to amplify the voice of the student body, not create it.

"Brad was very passionate about the issue," said council representative John Paul Rollert '00. "He distilled a lot of thoughts that a lot of people had and put them into a very compelling speech."

While the decision before the council ostensibly concerned an increase in the fees that the council collects from students, Davis argued it was no less than a decision about the role of the council itself.

That decision--between a small council presence and the larger (though more expensive) one proposed by Seton--should properly be decided by students, according to Davis. Davis said he nevertheless personally supports the increase.

"Whether that's a smaller role, or an expanded role, that's the decision of the student body at large," Davis said.

Davis' attempt to refer the term bill decision to the student body was hamstrung by council procedure from the very start. He was not allowed to present his motion initially because he is not a council member.

However, during the meeting, Adams House representative Justin A. Barkley '02 offered to attach his name to the motion so that Davis would have an opportunity to present it.

"I may disagree with what you have to say," Barkley quoted, "but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Davis then found that, having proposed his motion, council regulations forbid open debate on the matter. The motion--according to rules established in the council's constitution--would have to be voted up or down without discussion.

Davis then motioned "to suspend the rules." When the motion to suspend the rules was approved, he gave his speech in defense of his proposal.

Seton Concedes Fault

Perhaps the most surprising of Davis' supporters was Seton himself.

Seton, who brought the original term bill legislation before the council , was its champion and most vocal defender.

But after Davis' speech proposing to draft the legislation as a campus-wide referendum, Seton switched camps and voted against his own legislation.

"[Davis] convinced me," Seton explained.

Seton argued last Thursday that attaching the term bill increase to this year's presidential ballot would overly "politicize" the issue.

The campaign, he worried, would be focused entirely on the term bill increase, instead of the more nuanced platforms of the individual candidates.

Last night, however, Seton said that Davis' speech had convinced him it would be a good thing to force candidates to take strong stances on a controversial issue.

"My initial feeling was that it didn't need to get wrapped up in politics of the election," Seton said, "but now I recognize that this election is going to be very much about the council in general rather than simply the candidates who are running."

Seton said he was convinced the referendum would pass because of the strong arguments in its favor, echoing one of Davis' earlier criticisms:

"Why do they think [a referendum] will fail?" Davis asked hypothetically. "It demonstrates a lack of faith in their own arguments."

Seton said he would campaign vigorously against any candidate who did not support the term bill increase.

"If [candidates] think of what the council does on campus, and what its mission is, and how it's equipped to fulfill that mission, they can't possibly oppose the term bill increase," Seton said.

This is the second time that Seton has flip-flopped about the proper forum to decide whether the term bill fee ought to be increased. Last year, he said it would be unfair for the council to pass such legislation unilaterally.

"It'd be easy for us to pass a term bill increase right here [in council]," Seton said last March. "I don't think that would be fair to the student body."

This year, he said it was impractical to do it any other way, but then ended up voting against his own legislation last night.

Rollert said Seton's willingness to admit that he was wrong demonstrates a maturity that ought to be applauded.

"[Seton] decided not to go out with guns blazing. He realized that the better point had been brought forward," Rollert said.

The Battle is Only Beginning

The larger issue--whether the term bill should be increased, and if so, where the money will go--is likely to be a major issue in this year's presidential campaigns.

"I don't think any serious candidate will be opposed to [the increase]," said Paul A. Gusmorino '02, "but there will be opposition about whether the money should go to student groups, or to the council for Springfest-type things, or some other clever idea that hasn't been thought of."

Gusmorino also said he thought the term bill increase would make the presidential election more important.

"You're putting a lot more meat behind [the election] because candidates have money to do something," he said. "They'll have a lot more bricks to build whatever castle they want to build."

Despite Seton's promise to campaign against any candidate who does not support the increase, and the general support for the increase among council representatives, some candidates may work a disapproval of the increase into their platforms in the hopes of winning over voters disenchanted with the council and its role on campus.

"[The referendum] may give some traction to someone outside the council who could run on a platform totally opposed to the increase," Barkley said. "It would be very irresponsible, however. Anyone who's been in this body for more than a semester knows we need more money."