8:25

The council then discusses a letter to President Derek C. Bok about the results of last month's divestment referendum. The letter in its original form was rejected at last week's meeting. The revised letter states that 65 percent of the undergraduate population voted in favor of immediate and complete university divestment of stock in South Africa-related corporations and asks Bok to participate in a forum on divestment.

Weissman, chairman of the committee on investment responsibility, moves that the council get rid of the word "at" and insert a "the" in a clause that reads: "facilitate [the] dialogue that is at the essence of the university." The council then debates the merits of this amendment, and a counter-amendment is proposed: "that" should be changed to "which." The first amendment passes, while the opposition's amendment is mercilessly defeated.

The council votes to close debate on the matter, and the letter passes.

But wait! Nathaniel S. Trumbull '89, the North Yard representative, stands up to make another comment on the letter, only to be hushed by chairman Offutt. The Leverett House junior requests that delegate Trumbull come to the front of the room and secretly whisper the comment to chairman Offutt since the closed debate prohibits any further discussion of the topic.

8:29

Delegate Lopez moves that the council adopt a new policy for doling out party money to houses. After debating for only two of the allotted 10 minutes, the council decides to call a vote on the proposal. A proposal to give house committees money twice a semester, instead of the current ad hoc system, passes unanimously.

8:32

Two council members suggest a measure that would force any house delegation that had not spent any of its constituent service money by spring break to forfeit all of these funds.

A majority of council members, many of whom have not yet spent any of this money, vehemently oppose this measure, although they would have had to spend only one penny to avoid losing their funds.

"Just because I'm irresponsible doesn't mean my constituents should lose their money," says Dunster delegate Fernando R. Laguarda '88.

"I do not see why I have to be forced to spend any money," says delegate Zayas of Leverett House. "We have things planned that won't happen until after spring break."

Supporters of the proposal again remind council members that they would have to spend only a few cents of the roughy $80 per district to retain the funds.

"This is to encourage people to do things to be accountable to their constituents," says representative Amy B. Zegart '89, who proposed the measure.

But the proposal fails amid muffled sighs from the pro-accountability faction.