Some members said they do not like the council's instinct toward consensus, however, saying that only frustrates students who look for a clear position to represent campus opinion.

"There are people on the council who are hesitant to touch an issue that's controversial, and if that means turning our heads and ignoring issues of discrimination, there are some who seem willing to avoid controversy," said Council Secretary Frank E. Lockwood '89, who sponsored the Fly Club legislation and a resolution about this year's support staff union drive. "I think there was some fence-straddling, trying to please everybody, and on some of these issues you're not going to please everyone," he said.

"Often there's a deciding vote that decides they don't want to make any controversial, moral, political decisions," said Council Representative Robert H. Greenstein '89.

Lockwood points to the council's weakening of his union bill as evidence of what may have been council reluctance to take any strong stands. The resolution originally asked the University to remain neutral toward unionization--the same request made of the University by 3000 students and more than 20 campus organizations on petitions.

But the council amended the bill to remove the neutrality clause, and the passed resolution only asked the University not to unduly pressure employees to vote against the union. In May, the clerical and technical workers voted to unionize by a very narrow margin.

However, Cooper, who offered the amendment to the union bill, said that the council could not rightfully take strong stands on several of the issues discussed by the council this year because of the lack of a clear-cut consensus among students at large.

"I think it's good that on some of these resolutions, we scaled them back a little bit. I would like to think of it as being very thoughtful and deliberate in what we do and trying to best represent student opinion," Cooper said. "I think there's a lot of people that would say if the council's moderate it's being responsible."

Non-council activists still express disappointment in the council as an effective means for rendering political change at the University.

"If you look at [the council] over the period since the council has formed, I think that it has really become much more depoliticized as a long term trend," said Kimberly B. Ladin '87-'88.

"Having sat in on a couple of meetings this year I was dismayed at how much the council was dominated by a group of white males," Ladin said. "It's a very stifling atmosphere for people who might have a more activist agenda."

The council, criticized in recent years for becoming merely a social service organization, had difficuties even in the social realm this year.

"We fell short of my expectations [on social events]. I clearly point to that as my biggest failure," said Mandery.

A council-sponsored keg party in December flopped and the council had to sell much of the left-over beer at a discount. While many council members pointed to the new restrictive alcohol policy, others blamed the failure in part on insufficient advertising.

Attempts to secure a spring concert were equally unsuccessful. In April, the council in emergencey session voted down a planned Chuck Berry concert, which would have cost $25,000. The vote, bolstered by representatives who said the show would be too expensive and too short, came after a non-council representative negotiationg on behalf of the council had verbally agreed to a late April concert with Berry's agent. It was unclear whether the council action would hurt Harvard's reputation among music agents and the council's chances of signing acts in the future.

Also in April the council decided to co-sponsor an Otis Day and the Knights benefit concert with a public service group at the Business School. But that show was cancelled the night before it was to go on as the result of a dispute between Knight and the Business School organizers over ticket sales.