Last February, the Undergraduate Council faced a highly contested, back-biting election for the first time. Two sophomores organized a campaign to unseat the incumbent chairman and vice chairman, Brian C. Offutt '87 and Steven B. Smith '87. Running on a platform which advocated the council's increased involvement in ideological issues, the two presented a serious challenge to Offutt's chair. The two challengers ended up losing the election, but the aims and nature of the council underwent a serious evaluation.

This year, things are different.

So far, no one other than Eisert has openly announced intentions to run. Political issues have been placed on the council's back burner. Compared to last year's mid-year elections, the upcoming race is "very tame," Smith says. And current chair Richard S. Eisert '88 says he would "be surprised" if more than one person opposed him in the election on Monday night.

Underlying the difference between the two elections, members say, is the change in the membership of the council, the issues it has faced and Eisert' s way of running the body. Former treasurer Richard Zayas '88 charged that under Eisert' s leadership, the council "has hooked onto issues that are easily solved so it can claim victory." Zayas, who decided not to run for re-election to the council this year, says, "Now it's like to comping the Independent or being in the Republican Club. It's just like being in another organization. It's a Club, something you do, rather than a representative body of students."

Smith, who says he thinks this year's council has been effective, adds that "this year I think the council's been less political." Part of the reason, he says, was that of the core group of about 10 "activists" who had formed most of Offutt's opposition last year, only one has returned, and "he's not as antagonistic."

Also, Smith says, the divestment issued did not play as key a role this year as it did last year. "Nothing's really come up" for Eisert to face, he says. "That's probably as attributable to the fact that no divestment activist has forced the issue as to Eisert's handling of the issue," he says. Smith says this council has made a conscious effort to focus attention on the student body and cited the alcohol policy and extension of the dining hall hours by 15 minutes as a "big plus for the campus."

Others say that last year was the exception rather than the rule for the council. Brian R. Melendez '86, former chair and a current employee of the council, says that many of the council's problems were related to Offutt's chairmanship. Eisert has a "much more accomodating personality," he says.

"I think Offutt and his entire administration was a fluke," Melendez says, "A lot of the problems last year had to do with Brian Offutt's personality."

"It started off with the E4D controversy, "Smith says. The Endowment for Divestiture (E4D) wanted to send seniors letters soliciting money on council stationary. The E4D is an alternative gift fund designed in protest of Harvard's South Africa-related investments. The money is held in escrow until Harvard divests completely, but if that hasn't happened by 2003, the money will go to local charities. Similar letters had been sent in preceding years, according to Melendez.

But Offutt and a number of other council members objected to the letters, saying that the use of council stationary was an implicit support of the pro-divestment gift fund. A council vote resulted in a two-thirds majority in favor of not using the stationary.

"It was the starting point for a debate that continued for the rest of the year," Melendez says.

After the E4D letter dispute, council representatives began to vocalize their opinions about the council being a potentially influential Political body, as well as over the relationship of council chairman to the members. The so-called "Political" faction called for more aggressive council support of issues, such as divestment. But the "apolitical" side felt that these issues fell outside the council's realm of influence.

"People on both sides of the argument felt very passionately and this did lead to many accomplishments such as a report on discipline, increased social events, taking over the raft race, and a report which led to making Harvard accessible to the handicapped through television," Offutt says.

"For the council to say that the divestment issue is not important and does not touch student life is absolutely ludicrous," says Steven A. Nussbaum '86, a four-year council veteran who supported sending the letter on council stationary. "Where your $16,000 per year goes is definitely part of your student life."

And then, just before the midyear elections, Melissa S. Lane '88 and Mary E. Sarotte '88, the two challengers to the incumbents, and several of their supporters turned to a campus wide referendum. While some said the move was supposed to to help resolve the widening rift within the council, candidate Smith saw the referendum as a political move. "They tried to do anything they could to unseat Offutt and myself," he said.