Council Debates Future Of CLC

Amidst discussion of a controversial bill that threatened to derail the council into what one member called “chaos,” the Undergraduate Council (UC) inched closer Monday night to resolving the future of its Campus Life Committee (CLC).

And while the CLC’s future still remains in doubt, many council members spoke out Monday against dissolving the committee and reducing the size of the council.

Council leaders said last week that the creation of a new College-funded social programming board has made the restructuring of CLC­ inevitable. CLC reform was discussed last week at the UC’s Rules Committee.

UC members Monday night continued that discussion in front of the whole council.

One possible option could be the dissolution of the CLC. In December, former UC President Matthew J. Glazer ’06 introduced legislation that would have dissolved CLC and reduced the size of the UC by a third.

The majority of council members Monday seemed to reject such a possible proposal.

“In a time when we are always looking to do more, always trying to do more and meet more student need, what would it say if we reduced our membership by a third,” said CLC member Nicholas E. Huber ’09.

UC member Ali A. Zaidi ’08 also questioned whether it would be appropriate to dissolve CLC.

“If we flip something like CLC, we lose our daily contact with the student body,” said Zaidi.

One council member said it was crucial “to preserve three members per house.”

Student Affairs Committee (SAC) Vice Chair Matthew R. Greenfield ’08 presented a “working paper” to the Rules Committee last week. Monday night, Greenfield suggested that another option could be the creation of a “services” committee that could continue to plan things such as UC movie nights and holiday shuttles.

While the council did not make any decisions on its internal restructuring at Monday’s meeting, at least one council member urged the UC to consider all options.

“We are approaching this from the philosophy that is we have all these people, where can we reassign them?” said Chrix E. Finne ’07. “That is a bureaucratic philosophy.”

The UC did pass legislation Monday night that would lobby the College’s Committee on House Life (CHL) to approve a system of “pairing” between Quad Houses and River Houses.

The legislation will ask the CHL and Harvard University Dining Services to guarantee dining hall access in river houses to students in Quad houses.

According to SAC Vice Chair Benjamin W. Milder ’08, who co-sponsored the bill, Adams House and Pforzheimer House already have a similar arrangement.

—Staff writer Alexander D. Blankfein can be reached at ablankf@fas.harvard.edu.