"Vote for me--I'll do your homework," may be replaced by "Open the final clubs' doors to women," when students draw up their campaign posters for the Undergraduate Council next fall. Or as likely some posters could say, "Don't worry about clubs, improve Harvard's social life."

After a year when the council took up--only to later tone down--controversial campus debates, like a Mather senior's complaint against one of the nine all-male final clubs, council members say the next election could require candidates to devise a rudimentary political platform for election.

"I never liked elections waged with cute slogans and name recognition," said second semester Council Vice Chairman Jeffrey A. Cooper '90. "I'd welcome a move away from that, and I think we're seeing one."

The debate over the council's proper role is by no means a new one. When the council was created in 1982, the founders believed the body should consider a wide range of issues and should not resist issues which might be considered political, said former Council Chairman Brian R. Melendez '86, an original member of the council.

But a growing segment within the council argued that to best serve students the council should avoid sharp political disputes by restricting its role to the social and services realm. Many council-watchers point to the term of Council Chairman Brian C. Offutt '87 two years ago as the last time these issues divided the council.

After more than 60 percent of Harvard students urged the council to advocate divestment in a campus-wide referendum in January 1986, 18 council members--including Melendez--said the referendum was a vote of no-confidence in Offutt's allegedly apolitical stance.

But a month later, the council elected Offutt to a second semester term as chairman. The fact that Offutt could win reelection as an opponent of the referendum indicates that the council could be used to promote certain political causes, while the body as a whole has resisted a political tag.

This year, for example, the council endorsed a gay rights resolution that called for the appointment of a special dean and tutors in the houses to address the needs of gay students. But earlier in the semester it balked at endorsing a sexism complaint against the Fly Club pursued by Lisa J. Schkolnick '88, with some representatives once again arguing that the council should not take political stands because members were not elected for their political views.

Since Schkolnick filed her complaint with the Massachusettes Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in December, charging that the all-male Fly Club illegally discriminates against women, the council considered several resolutions related to her case.

At a meeting in February featuring a speech in defense of Schkolnick by noted Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, the body voted to give Schkolnick $250 to help her pursue her complaint, but at the same time declined by a narrow 40-35 margin to issue a statement of moral support for her.

Council leaders who successfully argued for the funding but not the official endorsement, said in the February meeting that the council should ensure that Schkolnick receives a fair hearing, but could not take sides in a legal dispute between students. The Mather senior, who is being represented for free by a Boston law firm, needed the money to pay for administrative costs in filing the complaint with MCAD.

At its last session of the year, the council tabled a final club resolution which did not mention Schkolnick's complaint and simply called on the clubs to admit women.

Several council members also voiced the perennial concern that council members were not elected for their political views, and therefore should not act on political issues. But according to council members that argument may become outmoded if students do indeed run on the basis of their political views in the future.

Some members of this year's council see discussions like the ones about the Fly Club suit and a resolution calling on Harvard to stay neutral in May's union election as the beginning of a new role for the council--that of a forum and focal point of student opinion on controversial issues that have divided the campus.

"I have the image of the council as about a town meeting, and I think we've worked toward that. The council by itself has no power, and just some influence," said Council Chairman Evan J. Mandery '89. "The way we do accomplish things is by achieving or creation consensus on issues."

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.

The council's social year ended on a more positive note with a successful "Quadfest" cook-out and the traditional spring raft race, although the event's future was called into question in May because of an injury sustained by a participant.

There seemed to be a growing consensus at the end of the year that the College's new alcohol policy--wich requires ID checkers at all official events--may force the council to change how it plans and operates social events.

"It's very hard with the alcohol policy to throw successful big parties," Mandery said. "The council is in a tough spot. I think it's going to demand a lot of creativity."

The council's newly doubled budget could improve council-sponsored social events next year.

"I think with the extra money you'll see the council able to take on risks with a little less trepidation than it does now," Mandery said. "I think we're overly fearful," he adds.

In January, the council voted to seek an increase--from $10 to $20--in the fee it receives from each student's term bill. The funding hike was approved by the Faculty in April, and council budgets beginning next year will double to $120,000.

Most of the doubled budget will go to fund the council's grants to student groups, bringing them from $35,000 to $80,000 a year. The council's finance committee ended the year developing new guidelines to determine how they will distribute the new money.

In other actions, the council in November urged the Houses to consider installing condom machines in their houses, and in May dispensers were put into each House and the Freshman Union.

For the second time in as many years, the council and house committee members met with the Harvard Corporation. But unlike last year, when the council restricted its delegates' agenda to securing an open meeting, this spring council members discussed a wide range of student issues with the board members. The first council-Corporation meeting came in the spring of 1987 as a compromise, after Harvard's chief governing body rejected a request by students to hold an open meeting.

A report issued by a council committee on free speech will become the starting point of discussion for a student-faculty committee reviewing College policy this summer. The committee is likely to propose new guide-lines, which will seek to protect the rights of both speakers and protestors at campus events, to the full faculty next year.

The faculty-student committee, chaired by Ford Professor of International Security Joseph S. Nye, may recommend the abolishment of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, a broad philosophical statement about the conduct expected of Harvard students that emerged in the wake of the student protests of the late 1960s.