Four panelists disagreed vehemently on the proper role for Harvard's Undergraduate Council (UC) and the Progressive Undergraduate Council Coalition (PUCC) in a debate last night.

David V. Bonfili '96, a former council member, Irene C. Cheng '97, president of the Asian American Association (AAA), Doug M. Gordon '97, the editor of the Harvard Salient, a conservative campus magazine and Patrick S. Chung '96, an editorial editor at The Crimson, discussed the council's future involvement in student affairs in light of its present condition and PUCC's future in student government.

All panelists agreed the council currently possesses little in terms of influence and effectiveness.

"It has gone from fundamentally terrible to terribly irrelevant," said Bonfili, who resigned from the council last fall.

Panelists blamed the failure on the numerous scandals and controversies--including election fraud and failure of officers to follow council bylaws--that have befallen the council in recent years.

Chung also criticized the College administration for granting to the council very little "institutional power."

"All [the council is] is a glorified dance committee," he said.

Chung called the council's predicament a "vicious cycle," in which a lack of interest due to ineffectiveness led to a lack of support which in turn prevented any effective action from being taken.

The other panelists agreed with this assessment and said the council is in need of major reform.

The reform issue divided the panelists into two factions.

On the one hand, Chung called for building upon a series of smaller successes to gain a slowly growing base of support from both students and administrators.

These small victories, such as improvements in shuttle busing and other student services, would then give the council enough credibility to tackle larger issues, he said.

The opposing view, which Cheng said she advocated, proposed that the council gain power and influence in a much shorter period of time.

No build-up is needed, Cheng said.

"I see no reason to limit UC to paltry student services," she said.

And Cheng and Bonfili said they believe the council is prepared to act as a forum for larger issues that impact the university and its students--including the tenure process and the distribution of grants.

The panelists also had a heated debate on the role of PUCC, a pro- gressive coalition that has endorsed 45 candidates this fall.

Chung said he does not believe PUCC will succeed in bringing about the changes it has proposed.

"Attempts to reform are always sensationalized," Chung said. "PUCC is the same. It is destined for failure."

But Cheng and Bonfili, proponents of PUCC like many of the 50 in the audience, saw PUCC as an important vehicle for changing the council into an influential organization on campus.

"I see as one of PUCC's goals to try to transform the UC into an organization that raises issues for campus debate," Cheng said