RICHARD S. EISERT '88 faced no challengers last night in his bid to remain Undergraduate Council chairman. The council that gave him a second term evidently hopes its coming semester will resemble its recently completed one.

But how successful was the council last semester? How much did students benefit in exchange for the $10 term bill fee that each pays to fund the council?

The council followed up on worthwhile initiative begun last year, convincing the administration to install wordprocessers in the Science Center and to extend the dinner hour in the house by 15 minutes. It also sent a couple of members out for milk and cookies and held study breaks in the libraries during reading the exam periods. The tailgate party and the milk and cookie breaks fine ideas, in the vaunted tradition of the chocolate milk coup.

The student government also took up more substantial concerns--and abruptly dropped them. The group called on Harvard's seven-man governing Corporation to open one of its meetings. After receiving a negative response from President Bok, however, the council chose not to pursue the issue. Later in the year, in response to widespread student criticism of the tenure process, the council suggested that students evaluate the teaching ability of junior faculty when tenure decisions are made. When faculty members at a meeting of the Committee on Undergraduate Education raised objections to the notion, the student delegates the CUE backed down.

The council failure to represent the interest of its constituents may cost students accused of wrong-doing a fair shake if a plan to revamp the College disciplinary system gains approval. Eisert and former council Chairman Brian C. Offutt '87 helped draft the proposal, which would establish a student-faculty committee to hear cases that, in effect, would write a code of common laws with each verdict.

This common law approach looks good on the surface, but where does it leave students? We don't know, and neither would students forced to stand before a disciplinary body free to create any law it desired. what undergraduates need is a document that reconciles such competing values as the individual's right to order. A code of laws taken from such a document would give students an idea of where they stand.

"Rather than challenge deans and administrators," one four-year council veteran who graduated last year told The Crimson, "[current council members] ask for letters of recommendation."

That is not the kind of council undergraduates pay to support. the term bill fee should fund advocates of student's interests. The council members indicated last semester that they do not share that view of their role when they raised no objection when Eisert joined one of the final clubs that students drove off campus for being undemocratic and detrimental to the College's social life.

The council has yet to convince undergraduates that it exist for any purpose other than padding members' resumes--unless, that is, the old saying hold true: "A laugh is worth $10."