In the middle of the debate, one questioner called Liston on his earlier statement.

"I'm just wondering, for someone who's proud of his record--are you sure you're the right person to lead this council away from scandal?" asked Crimson Editorial Chair Stephen E. Frank, one of the panelists.

"You're damn right I am," Liston replied.

He said that of the 33 absences, 10 were never turned into him. Of the remaining 23, he said, 17 were excused. He said that he allowed people to table in their own houses because he feared they wouldn't show up otherwise.

One of Liston's opponents said he didn't agree that Liston is guilt-free.

"Does the council need a president who was involved in scandals last year, or does it need a president with a no-scandal guarantee?" Hanselman asked.

Hanselman ran into his own problems when asked whether his role in counting votes last Sunday night presented a conflict of interest.

"I actually resent allusions to impropriety with my name on them," Hanselman said. "I was called upon to serve the council, and I came and served." Liston and Gregoire agreed that Hanselman did nothing wrong, but Ferrell called his actions "ridiculous."

Both Schmitt and Ferrell said they favor holding a referendum on a term-bill increase to better fund student organizations. Last semester, students voted down a term-bill hike.

Fine was slightly more cynical about the council's financial power.

"It doesn't matter what the students say. It doesn't matter what the U.C. says. It matters what the Faculty Council says" about issues such as the term bill hike, Fine said.

Last year, the council changed the percentage of council money that goes to student groups from 60 to 50 percent. Gregoire said he would like to see that percentage return to 60.

Gregoire, Hanselman, Kim and Liston said they oppose the popular election of council officials, Schmitt and Fine said they support it, and Ferrell said he supports it on the condition that a minimum percentage of students vote