Students have very little to lose by voting against the Dowling proposal, and much to gain. The Dowling report recommends students contribute $10 apiece--a totoal of $60,000--to a centralized student council which will appear to have more power and responsibility than ever, but is still not sure to represent student interests accurately. Students will be paying $60,000 a year--for what?

The record of the Student Assembly--formed three years ago with the same high hopes now attending the Dowling proposal--demonstrates that a student government will not necessarily address the most pressing issues facing undergraduates. The Student Assembly has abrogated its responsibility on the most important issues facing the University community. When the Klitgaard report came out, did the Student Assembly rush to demand Bok's reassertion of the goal of diversity in admissions? What about draft registration, especially the university's role in turning over names? What about student input into tenure decisions, especially for Skocpol and Lange? Finally, the Student Assembly refused to endorse the El Salvador candlelight march despite polls showing student support and some 1400 signatures on petitions. The committee concerned did not "have tiem" to debate the merits and demerits of the struggle in El Salvador. Apparently, obtaining toilet paper for the river houses and throwing cocktail parties at 33 Dunster Street are the Assembly's biggest credits.

The Dowling report gives students no more additional power than they now have. All student input remains "advisory," which basically means it will continue to be ignored by the administration. Members of the Student Assembly have argued that next year, after the implementation of the Dowling Committee proposal, student government will be in a "better position" to gain real power in University policy-making. Will the new structure created by the report really give student government more power in decision-making? Considering the student government's past spinelessness, this is highly unlikely. A committee chairman had to threaten resignation to force the Assembly to even include a question about greater student control on next week's referendum.

Should we add any more legitimacy to the actions of a body with such an abysmal record? If the Dowling proposal passes, And even if all students exercise their individual option to withhold $6.50 of the $10 surcharge, that still leaves the Council with $20,000 derived from a forced $3.50 addition to all students term bills. Proponents of the Dowling proposal claim that this "minimal" sum will allow the Council some degree of continuity and operability. These two factors, however, will only further the Council's lack of accountability. The $20,000 will guarantee the Council sufficient funding to continue its operations and to maintain its pretense of representing students even if it totally lacks student support. Students taking the $6.50 refund will only hurt those organizations supposed to receive funds from the Council; the Council itself will not be penalized. Once this self-perpetuating cycle has been initiated, there will be no legitimate means by which students can ensure the Council is actually representing their interests. Therefore, students must act now, before the Dowling report insulates student government from student pressures.

The student government's lack of accountability to its consituents has nowhere been more evident than when it comes to the Dowling proposal itself. The Student Assembly already endorsed the Dowling report, despite the fact that the Assembly's own chairman in charge of governance reported that 50 per cent of all students polled did not know what is in the proposal, and a referendum had yet to be held. Who does the student government represent--themselves or the students?

Debate on the alternatives open to students has been restricted by the way the governance issue has been treated. When the Dowling Committee was formed, the only students invited were delegates from the existing governance bodies--CHUL. Student Assembly and CUE. The next problem was the secrecy that surrounded committee meetings: the committee excluded interested students and the press from observing some of its deliberations. And once the report came out, much was done to minimize debate over its recommendations. CHUL decided not to allow amendments to the proposal, thereby hoping to avoid controversy. At the most recent CHUL meeting Dean Fox abruptly ended debate on the Dowling report with the comment, "If we go into this discussion, we're not going to come out alive."

The alternatives now open to the student population are severely limited because of the way this referendum is being conducted. Technically, the report is finished and there is no process for making alterations. The referendum allows students only two choices: either they support the Dowling proposal in its entire unantendative form or reject it. We must ask ourselves whether the Dowling Committee is the best possible reorganization students can achieve. If not, voting No is the only way to implement changes in the proposal.

Voting no does not mean the end of the Dowling report. Even if a majority of students rejects the plan, the present student government, the Faculty, and the administration will not completely discard it. All have invested too much time in the reorganization project to simply let it die. Instead, an informal committee of students would be formed to see what aspects of the plan could be amended in order to raise the level of student support. Provisions to enhance accountability and to add real policy-making authority could then be added. Accountability measures would ensure that the constitution, which is now being prepared, would be ratified in a form desirable to the student body not just council members. Furthermore, a rejection of the present plan would only serve to increase student leverage with the Faculty and asministration in negotiating a newer, better one. Students have all this to gain from voting against the Dowling proposal, and nothing to lose.

Henry C. Park '84 is a former member of the Student Assembly Sesha Pratap '84 is a member of CHUL.