LAST' week, candidates for the office of Undergraduate Council chairman participated in' a debate sponsored by Phillips Brooks House. The debate represented an opportunity for undergraduates not on the council to hear what the candidates thought before one of them became chairman. Unfortunately, all we could do is listen.

The Undergraduate Council, which advocates a student voice in Harvard's administrative policy, doesn't follow its own advice when it comes time to elect a chairman.

At last night's meeting, the council picked the chairman by majority vote of its members, after five-minute speeches and a question-and-answer session. This process would be fine if the council was simply an extracurricular activity.

But the council chairman is the de facto leader of the student body. In the past he has been called upon to encapsulate student input for President Bok, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 and Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence. When administrators need someone to call on for student opinion, they call the chairman.

That would be fair if students were sure that the chairman represented their thinking. But with the internal election procedures and secret ballot process, candidates for chairman rarely have to formulate a platform to appeal to the student body at large and council members never have to answer to their constituents about their choice.

While a chairman must get along with the other representatives to build consensus and direct the body, a good leader also needs to go into office with a set of goals approved by the student body to whom the the council is ultimately responsible. For that reason, all undergraduates should be able to vote for council chairman.

AS is currently the practice, candidates would be drawn from representatives who have already been voted on the council. Since only 29 council members were reelected this year--out of 88 in all--and four of them ran for chairman, it cannot be argued that the council knows the candidates any better than the student body in general.

Any change runs the risk of turning the election into a popularity contest. But this year more council representatives opted for issues-oriented campaigns; a democratic election could only boost that trend. And since the candidates would be council members, only those committed to student government would be in the running.

If the undergraduate community elected a leader based on a clear platform, the council might swerve closer to actually representing the student body--which a nominal student government should be doing all along.

Broad-based elections for chairman would also serve a useful checking function. Candidates for chairman should have to prove themselves beyond a small base of voters, forcing them to campaign on their views and defend their record to the whole undergraduate community.

It is hypocritical for the chairman to represent student views beyond the council when he only has the mandate of that body. It is discouraging for students to bring their concerns to the chairman, when they have little recourse to action if the chairman fails to do anything for them.