SOMEONE reading Joseph Palmore's editorial "Vote for a Strong Council" would get the impression that there is no good reason to vote against the current referendum on the election of the Undergraduate Council chair. Worse still, one might think that the opponents of the referendum are motivated by a perverse desire for a weak, undemocratic student government.

This portrayal is unfortunate. A debate on such an important and difficult issue should not dissolve into a series of petty accusations, such as Palmore's calling opponents of the amendment "whiners" and council members "resume-stuffers."

In contrast, debate within the council has been characterized by respect for all positions and a common understanding that persons on both sides of the issue are motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for Harvard. Palmore offers no more than a "straw-man" representation of the two simplest arguments against the referendum.

There are, however, legitimate reasons for voting against this referendum. No one implies, as Palmore suggests, that Harvard undergraduates are an "unlettered rabble" who will elect "some satanic demagogue." Instead, a campus-wide election may elect a candidate who is unaware of and unprepared for the demands of the job. Leading the council may appear to be, for lack of a better word, glamorous, but the chair actually spends most of his or her time performing significant tasks like helping the six committees run smoothly, trying to put on a concert and overseeing the disbursement of $80,000 in grants.

The risk that a candidate may not be prepared for these duties is not insignificant. The fear of the amendment's opponents is not that students are ignorant or incapable, but rather that a campus-wide election would dismiss these basic administrative qualifications as of secondary importance to the job.

Views on college issues should be the paramount consideration when students elect representatives, but while issues are certainly important in selecting the chair, character and competence are more important still. The council, because of its close contact with the candidates, is better suited to evaluate these characteristics than even the most concerned and informed student body.

PALMORE argues that in a campus-wide election, "Candidates would have to stand on a platform that could serve as a working agenda for the council throughout the year." I'm skeptical that the campaign would be conducted on such a high plane. On the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that the election would be no more than an exchange of slogans and name-calling.

The 88 representatives should be held accountable for the successes and failures of the council. Chairs should be respected not for what they themselves think but for how well they turn student beliefs and council decisions into realities. The chair should speak only for the council; it is the council members, who speak for the student body. Campuswide elections might remove a layer of separation between the chair and the students, but it would also add a layer of separation between the students and their representative government.

Palmore is quick to dismiss councils of the past as unresponsive to student opinion. This year's perceived activism, he argues, is the result of a unique set of personalities whose influence needs to be institutionalized. But for every one who thinks the council is staunchly conservative, another feels it is a group of knee-jerk liberals. In truth it is a representative group of the student population that tries its best to make reasoned decisions on a case-by-case basis. Campus-wide election of the chair will not solve the council's problems.

There may be, of course, good reasons to vote for this amendment. If a campus-wide vote would increase interest in the council, I might vote for the amendment on that ground alone. I believe, though, that such attention will last two weeks each year and focus not on the council, but on a few individual personalities.

The amendment completely diverts attention from the only way the council can truly improve. Its members must continue to listen to students and constantly re-evaluate its efforts. The time being spent on the current referendum would be better employed considering ways to make council elections in the houses more competitive. Your representatives, not the chair, are the ones who put the word "student" in student government

Evan J. Mandery is a former Undergraduate Council chair.