To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am a freshman who is not on the Undergraduate Council and who has never run for a seat on the Undergraduate Council. On Sunday, February 9, I attended the Undergraduate Council meeting as a spectator.

Last week's election of representatives from Dudley House was contested. Two candidates--who eventually emerged victorious--had submitted their position papers late. That fact is debated by no one. The council by-laws state that a candidate cannot be allowed on the ballot if his/her position papers are not submitted by the set deadline. The only way that a candidate can be allowed on the ballot is if the vice-chair brings the matter to the attention of the council and the council then agrees to suspend the by-laws for that particular case. Vice-Chair Steve Smith took no such action. Smith justified this negligence by stating that "it's been done" in the past. He did not reveal his source for this information. The council later learned from a rather adamant ex-Chairman Brian Melendez that, to his knowledge, such leniency in the matter of late position papers had never taken place in the past.

Upon any sort of mature reflection, one would conclude that the only fair thing to do would be to hold the election again, with the two disputed candidates eliminated from the ballot. Why? (1) Because they were illegally entered, and (2) because the content of the position papers of the legally-entered candidates could very easily have been affected had the candidates been aware of the presence of others in the race. The council finally decided to vote on whether or not hold new elections. Even this measure was ridiculously weak, since it allowed the two illegal candidates to appear on the ballot again. It turned out to be, however, the closest the council came to addressing the wrong that had occurred.

I sat and watched in disbelief as the council voted 43-38 against the measure: i.e., 43-38 to seat two illegally-entered candidates. I watched as Chairman Brian Offutt voted to violate the by-laws of his council. I watched as Vice-Chair Steve Smith did the same.

The circus continued. The honorable Mr. Offutt was then re-elected chairman. Steve Smith--garnering loud cheers as he dramatically stated his future intention to "enforce the laws"--was re-elected as vice-chair.

After I left the meeting I decided to ask some questions of a few upperclassmen. I learned that Offutt was friendly with the illegal candidates from Dudley House. I learned that Offutt had told Smith to extend the deadline for the two Dudley House candidates. I learned--and this is no secret--that Offutt and Smith are close friends.

I picked up The Crimson Monday to see a victorious Offutt gesturing on the front page. The Dudley House incident, which took up a good forty minutes of heated debate, was mentioned nowhere. On Tuesday the Dudley House incident received four paragraphs buried in the Offutt follow-up article, and then only as a minor element of the Offutt-Melissa Lane controversy.

To Brian Offutt and Steve Smith: apparently you two do more than "party together," as the council learned Sunday. You also perpetrate disgusting political collusion together. What hypocrites--you, who accuse Melissa Lane and others of "politicizing" the council, use the dirtiest political tricks to maintain your positions in that same council. You are a disgrace to the Harvard Undergraduate Council; I call on both of you to resign immediately. And I challenge you to dispute the assertions made in this letter.

To The Crimson: How could you completely dismiss this major story on Monday, and dismiss it with a cursory nod on Tuesday? Were your reporters asleep? Or is it that hypocrisy and injustice like this go on all the time in the council and you simply chose to leave it unreported? Matt Drummy '89