UC Discusses Change to Election Policy

After quickly passing legislation to issue Phillips Brooks House Association annual block grants of $20,000 over the next two years, the Undergraduate Council general assembly erupted into a long debate about the current UC Executive Board re-election policies.

According to UC Treasurer Brad M. Paraszczak ’11, the Council—which currently dispenses funding to PBHA-affiliated programs on a case-by-case basis—felt that the allocation of funding in yearly block grants will be in the best interests of both PBHA and the UC.

PBHA Vice President Christopher J. Loney ’11 said he agreed that the change will “ease the process” of funding dispersal.

“This helps the UC side of things in that they don’t have to deal with each of our 86 different programs applying,” Loney said. “It also allows us to better distribute the funds internally because we understand the finances of our programs better.”

But after the unanimous passage of this legislation, the meeting escalated into a heated discussion about re-election policies that culminated in two separate preliminary votes on two proposed amendments to the UC constitution.

The first amendment requires that Executive Board members—which include the secretary, treasurer, and five standing committee chairs—must seek re-election if they switch districts, either due to transferring Houses or moving from a freshman dorm to an upperclassmen House.

The second amendment is similar but stipulates that all members—not just those that switch districts—must run for re-election every fall.

Under existing UC bylaws, each Council member is elected annually in the fall. But Executive Board members—who serve as executives for a full calendar year and are typically elected internally by the UC at the end of the fall semester—have their terms extended by an additional semester before being subject to re-election.

This policy entails that Executive Board members can serve for three consecutive semesters, with special elections held for them in February. Other members are subject to re-election every two semesters.

“Basically, the current system makes us seem very shady,” East Yard representative Nicholas Oo ’13 said. “It does entail one extra semester for chairs and it makes the UC lose a sense of legitimacy.”

Adams House Representative Harry T. Rimalower ’10 said he is glad that none of the Adams representatives are on the Executive Board.

“If I didn’t have a chance to elect one of my reps every year, I’d be pissed off,” Rimalower said.

But others argued that the benefits of a yearlong chair outweighed the possible shortcomings.

“There are large amounts of benefits to a yearlong chair,” Finance Committee Chair Amanda Lu ’11 said, pointing to an increased sense of commitment that Executive Board members demonstrate over the summer months.

UC Vice President Eric N. Hysen ’11 said that the current system yields “an insane amount of benefits,” fosters an increased work ethic, and provides valuable institutional memory. “It’s worth it,” he said.

Although Hysen voted against the second amendment, UC President Johnny F. Bowman ’11 voted in favor of it. The entire council was divided on both amendments, with representatives occasionally yelling over each other during the meeting. Several even walked out in apparent frustration before the Council’s formal dismissal.

Now, due to existing UC rules, the Council must wait one week before taking a final vote to accept or deny the constitutional changes. Hysen said the waiting period will give members time for more thorough reflection and offer them the chance to change how they originally voted.

—Staff writer Janie M. Tankard can be reached at jtankard@fas.harvard.edu.