The Undergraduate Council's new-found role as social facilitator fills a vacuum in Harvard's social life, and is particularly fitting for the council because of its access to manpower, finances and administrative sanction, members say.

In fact, the social events were the best thing the council did this year, says Offutt.

Despite the council's successful social season, the council's role is not solely that of a social organizer, says Eisert, who adds that although sponsorship of campus-wide social activities garners the council the most recognition, its other tasks, such as writing reports and giving out grants, are "just as important."

"The Undergraduate council can do things we're expected to ordinarily as well as branching out and providing campus-wide social life," says Vice-Chairman Amy B. Zegart '89, adding, "the council is the logical organization to put on these events."

This year's debate over whether the council should serve as social engineer has been tame compared to the bitter battle last year over whether the council should take political stances.

Last year's political infighting polarized the council and made it "a very unpleasant year to be in the council," says Zegart.

The proper role of the council was thrown into question as controversy erupted over whether the council could debate divestment. Members split into two factions, "political" and "apolitical."

According to the political side, the council could and should debate and take official stands on political issues that according to the "apolitical" faction fell outside the realm of student life, and so outside the sphere of council influence.

Led by chairman Offutt, the "apolitical" faction held that the council should avoid such debates and concern itself with issues that directly affect students, which they said did not include divestment. Judging by this year's concern with social events, observers say the "apolitical" faction won out and is likely to dominate the agenda of the council in the future.

In addition to internal sole-searching, the council must also face the claims of students who challenge the very existence of the government. Each year, approximately 15 percent of students return a vote of no confidence in the council and request refunds of their ten dollars.

And despite a year that members called the council's "most productive" ever, the student government remains plagued by problems of inefficency and what members say is little appreciation for its achievements.

Low turnouts in the Houses for the annual elections to council reflect students' failure to recognize what's done by the council, says member Thomas D. Warren '88 of Lowell House.

"When something happens that is beneficial...students look at these and say these are good things" but they won't know about them until they happen, says Warren. Many council projects are long-term and do not take effect until they have been approved by numerous outside committees.

"People seem to think of chocolate milk and think that's all council does," says Michael Joachim '87, referring to last year's council coup which brought chocolate milk into Harvard dining halls.