Sometimes, the council's hasty approach became expensive, leading to the funding of certain projects that suffered from budget overruns and inadequate planning. But what may prove to have been the council's most costly error in its first year is one that, if uncorrected, could prompt the council's demise: An inadequate amount of regular contact with the undergraduate body.

The council's failure to sponsor any major social events was only the most visible cause of what seemed to be a fundamental lack of communication between students and their elected representatives. A recent Crimson poll of 335 undergraduates--about 63 percent--had never discussed council matters of College policy with any of the approximately five student delegates in each House and freshman district.

The council's failure to sponsor any major social events was only the most visible cause of what seemed to be a fundamental lack of communication between students and their elected representatives. A recent Crimson poll of 335 undergraduates revealed that nearly two-thirds of students--about 63 percent--had never discussed council matters or college policy with any of the approximately five student delegates in each House and freshman district.

A perhaps even more fundamental uncertainty seems to be suggested by poll results indicating that one-third of undergraduates believe that they did not benefit "at all" from the council's first year, with just 5 percent saying that the council's actions benefited them "a lot." The remainder of the respondents were roughly split between those answering that the council had benefited them "somewhat" or "not very much."

In spite of these possibly discouraging sentiments, second term Council Chairman Sesha Pratap '84 is among those who believe that undergraduates gained a great deal from the new government's existence this year.

"There was definitely a strong increase in the levels of activity on campus this spring as a result of the grants process." Pratap says, pointing to the government's distribution of more than $30,000 to dozens of groups. He adds that the council's mediocre ratings among students might stem from the lack of "direct impact" made by even the government's most outstanding accomplishments.

The successful reversal of College efforts to limit summer storage despite the widespread attention it sparked--occured entirely in bureaucratic circles. Some suggest that, as a result, this was a difficult victory for many students to appreciate, who in the end never had to go through a summer of hassling with commercial storage firms before regaining the privilege. And while the open meetings on the Ad Board and Core Curriculum were well-planned, they attracted few students. Organizers attributed the low turnouts to the weeknight scheduling of the events, while others suggested a more likely came--a low interest level among undergraduates when it comes to discussing most matters of College policy.

Student representatives and officials comment that even the best intentions--and, in cases like storage, excellent results--don't necessarily go very far in a community like Harvard, where students for 350 years have spent their undergraduate days without anything approaching an effective student government.

Officials say past history indicates that the council faces an unusually difficult task in erasing such a do-nothing legacy. The council must not only produce more than positive, visible changes in student life, they say. In seeking long-term support and attention, the government also must vie with better established extracurricular organizations--such as publications, drama societies, and athletic teams--that have traditionally proven the activities of choice on campus.

"The important thing to remember is that even though we're the Undergraduate Council, in many ways we're still a student organization competing for time and resources with other student groups," says Pratap.

"In the long run, that is the council's dilemma," adds Epps, explaining that the new government's "essential problem is that all the real action in student life is in established organizations, places that have run well for years."

This dual challenge to gain both credibility and attention, members agree, makes hard work the crucial ingredient. It is needed for both widespread student support and devoted membership willing to invest time week after week in doing what has never been done at Harvard before--achieve a lasting, viable means for students to be viewed as partners in the establishment of the College's policies and priorities.

"The council will fly or not fly depending upon the quality of the people who work with it," says professor of Biology John E. Dowling '57, chairman of the student-faculty committee that formulated the council. Adds Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. '59: "The effectiveness of any student government is entirely a reflection of the work and care put into it."

The council's sub-committee structure and relatively strict attendance policy made council membership at least a two-meeting, six-hour-per-week endeavor. For the students serving on the council's grants-giving committee, typical work weeks often included five to 10 additional hours. And, like a small number of students, Council Treasurer Peter N. Smith '83 found serving on the Undergraduate Council practically a full-time job: a 30 hour-per-week commitment.

While every issue might not require the 30 to 40 hours that went into the storage and Core reports, council members say they now realize that it takes more than a series of meaningless revolutions to produce the beneficial changes in student life that will lead the council credibility among both administrators and students. "What we have to do is essentially repeat the storage success every year," says Michael G. Colantuono '83, who chaired the council during the fall semester. "That type of accomplishment will bring the council power, and the only way the council will continue to attract people if it gives them a piece of the power."