Failed Referendum Leaves Council Strapped for Cash

Last week's Undergraduate Council election was a runaway victory for Fentrice D. Driskell '01 and her running mate John A. Burton '01. The council itself did not fare as well.

While Driskell scored more than twice as many votes as the second-place candidate, the referendum to raise the council's term bill--which outgoing council president Noah Z. Seton '00 had trumpeted as the cure to the council's financial woes--was ultimately rejected by a majority of voters.

Council members had hoped an increase in funds would increase its visibility--and legitimacy--on campus as well, by allowing it to fund student groups more substantially and stage more frequent and more elaborate campus-wide events.

Soon after the election's results were announced, exasperation started pouring out over uc-general, the council's public newsgroup.

A handful of council members suggested ignoring the student body's vote. Driskell told The Crimson she has considered asking Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 to raise the term bill to $50 unilaterally.

She also said she would look into finding alternative sources of funding--such as corporate sponsorship of Springfest.

Chad A. Wathington '00 said he believed the referenda had left the council hamstrung by an insufficient budget and too few members, and announced his resignation as a result.

"I believe we have inadvertently hurt the future of thousands of current and future Harvard undergraduates by giving them a U.C. which will not be able to support their needs in any real way," he wrote in an e-mail message to uc-general.

Many council members have deemed the failure of the referendum a major defeat, after having invested a great deal of time and energy into supporting its passage.

Every presidential candidate supported the term bill increase.

Council Secretary James R. Griffin '02 organized a postering campaign to canvass the Yard with pamphlets supporting the increase.

Seton went door to door in the Yard to urge first-years to vote for the measure.

"In the end the term-bill failed because we asked people to spend more of their own money, and that's a very difficult thing to pass," Seton said.

The failure of the term-bill increase means the council's finances will be further complicated by inflation.

This year, the council was able to balance its budget because of a $25,000 windfall, part of an infamous $40,000 it found tucked away in a bank account earlier this year. Next year, Seton said, it is unlikely they will be so fortunate.

"This puts Fentrice and John in a tough position. They're going to have to set new priorities. If they don't, the council will flounder," Seton said. "You can't have a really great Springfest and fund a lot of student groups, or everything will be mediocre."

The controversy over where the inevitable cuts should come has spawned a flurry of e-mail messages over uc-general in past few days.

Bradley L. Davis '00, who last month encouraged the council to bring the fee hike to a student referendum, joined several other council members in arguing that the term bill failed because the rhetoric of more money to student groups didn't play well the student body.

"I have begun to wonder how many students really participate in student groups, how many students really make them a part of their lives," Davis said. Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 wrote in an e-mail message that, technically, the term-bill increase doesn't require the approval of the student body but the approval of the Faculty.

The dean, who supported the fee hike, registered his surprise that the referendum failed.

"Clearly there is some inconsistency between the reluctance of students to increase the fee and the large number of applications by student groups to the U.C. when they are looking for grants," Lewis said.

However, without the approval of the student body, Lewis said the term bill was unlikely to be increased by more than the rate of inflation.