Most years, The Crimson doesn't endorse a candidate for Undergraduate Council chair. Most years, we simply don't see a need to worry too much about a body that is relatively powerless on campus.

Meanwhile, council members too easily dismiss their mistakes as mere council bashing by The Crimson and other campus publications. They don't seem to take us too seriously, either.

So this year The Crimson is making an endorsement. While it is a small measure, it represents an endorsement of certain ideas about how the council can improve and plans about how the council can make students' lives better. We see this as the beginning of a more productive dialogue.

Of the three announced candidates for chair, we think David L. Duncan '93 would be the best for the council. Duncan has shown a commitment to openness and accountability, the two areas in which the council needs improvement the most. Most of the council's failures are related to these problems, and the other two candidates have not demonstrated a concern for change.

Malcolm A. Heinicke '93, who was vice chair last year, emphasizes his experience leading the body with David A. Aronberg '93, who was chair last year. His argument is that he knows the corridors of power, the inside workings of the U.C. He says that when a grants check "runs afoul," he knows what to do.

But the council's problems are related to the very existence of an inner circle of council big-wigs. Heinicke has helped construct a tightly knit group which many members say is impossible to penetrate. Members have complained to The Crimson about a U.C. "old boys network" that makes some feel excluded from major decisions.

A case in point was the Spin Doctors debacle last February. Treasurer Michael P. Beys '94 and his friends held a private, for-profit, off-campus party with the rock group. With Heinicke's support, Beys pushed through a resolution to lend the U.C.'s name and $20 of its money to promote the event. Personal pork barrels shouldn't be the business of the U.C. Duncan, for one, voted against the measure.

Heinicke says that the council's first priority should be serving students, not be cleaning up its reputation. To an extent, he's right. But the argument would work much better if the council had fewer problems to answer for. Reputation is inextricably linked to the issues of openness and accountability. If Heinicke isn't worried about students' perception of wrongdoing or incompetence on the council, then he has no incentive to solve those problems.

When Duncan emphasizes the problems of council image, he means that the council must clean up its act. He has consistently been a voice for a more inclusive leadership style in council debates. Heinicke, on the other hand, has faced charges that he closes off certain council members in an attempt to move resolutions through the council more smoothly. Members have complained that he takes credit for their work and pokes his nose in committee meetings he's not prepared for.

In addition, Heinicke's own record doesn't fit with what he now promises. As vice chair for a year, Heinicke held a better position than Duncan from which to introduce his ideas about grants reform and financial responsibility. Why didn't he? We must question his commitment to these ideas now.

Heinicke was in the leadership during the financial losses of De La Soul and Casino Night. The losses themselves aren't the real issue since the council isn't out to break even (although the De La Soul losses were a little high). But the council must properly account for every penny that is lost, if only to know how successful future events will be. Heinicke doesn't show much concern for scrupulous accounting, and Duncan has emphasized the need.

Heinicke was also in a position to ensure that the council didn't repeat mistakes made with the Suzanne Vega and Ziggy Marley concerts. But once again, the council did not gauge student interest in De La Soul, and the event drew only a tiny number.

As vice chair, Heinicke was also responsible for administering this fall's elections, the worst-run in years. Some students complained that they didn't know when they were being held or how to go about signing up to run. Some students ended up voting for fake candidates. In addition, the completed ballots were left out in the open in the council's Canaday office. Someone rifled through and stole several houses' ballots, leaving some candidates wondering about possible wrongdoing and the impossibility of a recount. The carelessness with whch Heinicke handled the elections should cause concern.

What about Duncan? He represents a rejection of Heinickeism and the closed-door nature of council politics in the last year. But Duncan is also more than the un-Heinicke. His record as chair of the Residential Committee included one of the best ideas to come out of the council in recent years--the plan to give some of the council's surplus back to house committees, which are more attuned to the needs of students in the houses than the U.C. has been recently. In addition, his plan to form a First-Year Caucus should do much to compensate for the lack of social cohesiveness in the yard.

Duncan's other major project as head of the Residential Committee has been a far-reaching plan to rejuvenate intellectual life in the houses. His work to increase faculty interaction with students beyond the classroom represents the U.C. at its best--not spending money irresponsibly, but actually trying to impact positively on students lives.

The other candidate, Marc McKay, is the Perot of the U.C. election. He dropped out of the council last year, and now says he did it because of "gridlock." However, he offers no substantial plans or ideas for the council's improvement.

The choice for the members voting in tomorrow's chair election should be clear. Dave Duncan has a healthy outlook on the council and a proven record of tangible accomplishments. He should be the next chair.