. Students should boycott the sham referendum that begins today.

There comes a time in a representative democracy when the democratic process has been so corrupted by those in power that the "represented" can only vote with their fannies, by staying home. There comes a time when an election becomes such a sham that the best course is to refuse to legitimize it by participating. This is one of those times.

The leadership of the Undergraduate Council has conjured, out of thin air, an ex post facto restriction on the right of referendum. They have applied this imaginary limitation retroactively, to the petition that was signed by over 1,100 students. Council President Carey W. Gabay '94 asserted in his recent Crimson guest commentary, "Clarifying the U.C.'s Record" (April 18, 1994), that "the Petition did not give students the right to choose which questions they wished to see submitted to a referendum (as required by our constitution)." This alleged requirement of the Constitution is a complete fiction, newly-minted by Gabay.

He went on to assert that "under the council's standards, a proper referendum petition should not be packed," a word to which he imputes vaguely sinister undertones, but one which I must confess I still do not understand. Once again, the "council's standards" are a week-old creation of Carey W. Gabay, in response to the petition.

Most egregiously, Gabay has now begun to perpetrate a purposeful falsehood about the petition, calling it, at this week's Harvard Political Union debate on the subject, an "omnibus bill." As a senior government major, Gabay must be aware that an omnibus bill allows just one vote, "yes" or "no," on an entire package of legislation. And Gabay knows that our referendum allows a separate vote on each of the issues. This is the same pattern of fabrication that is apparent in his statements about our student government constitution.

The constitution is elegant in its simplicity: "Any question may be committed to a referendum or poll by the council or by a petition signed by one-tenth of the undergraduates." Upon receiving the petition, however, Gabay decided that this simple clause actually implies all manner of complex restrictions on our right of referendum. But 1,100 students signed the petition in good faith. Gabay's objection implies that more than 440 signatories would, if we called them, say, "No, I did not know there were five questions on the referendum, and I don't think students should be able to decide these issues, and I would not have signed the petition if I had known it would give us the right to vote on them."

In cooperation with Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 and Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, our response has been to collect 685 more signatures, this time verifying that each and every signatory received a copy of the entire referendum when they signed. Gabay and company will no doubt raise a whole new set of frivolous and dilatory objections. But what has become clear is that this referendum no longer involves the Undergraduate Council at all.

The deans have confirmed that we, the student body, do have the final say with regard to our student government. We constituted it, by referendum, in 1982. We can modify it, by referendum, as we please, and the current leadership cannot stop us. The referendum that we signed forwill be held.

The bad news is, the council will be holding a referendum of its own beginning today, and it is a sham. Students should not be confused: there is no connection between this ballot and the one you signed for.

First and foremost, although the Undergraduate Council question does pertain to the fee-hike, it is not the petition's binding Question One. After 1,500 copies of our referendum have been distributed and signed for, the council will be balloting an entirely different question.

The most disturbing change is their reversal of the wording. On our referendum, a "yes" vote overturns the council vote to increase the fee. On theirs, a "yes" vote upholds the fee. This would seem calculated to cause confusion. Worse, it makes a mockery of the binding nature of the petition. The term "binding" means the council cannot tamper with the resolution after the vote. But how can a resolution be "binding" if they can change it before the vote? The term becomes illusory.

This referendum is not Question One from the petition. It does not specifically overturn the council's vote for a fee increase, and does not adhere to the binding language of the petition. Thus, our own Question One will have to be administered along with the other four questions, when we finally get to vote.

FAR more troubling is the council's stated intention to influence the outcome of the referendum it is supposed to be administering impartially. When the administrator of an election campaigns as if its institutional life depends upon the outcome, can we trust the result? Not only did the council executive board refuse to bar representatives form campaigning in the dining halls during the voting, but it even voted down a motion to keep them five feet from the balloting tables themselves!

The last straw, for me, was the announcement by a council officer at last Sunday's council meeting, inciting the representatives to "swarm" the tables during the balloting. Incredible, but true: council representatives in your face while you're trying to vote.

This is ethical bankruptcy, and it merits only one response. Refuse to be tainted by participating in this sham. To the 1,600 of you who have singed the Charter for Student Government Reform: take heart. You will get the vote you signed for, within two weeks, and it will be fair. To the house committees: they can't force you to be a party to this. Don't let them.

Boycott this illegitimate referendum.

Anjalee C Davis '96, a former Undergraduate Council member who is taking this semester off, is the organizer of the petition drive to bring the proposed termbill fee hike and other issues to a campus-wide referendum.