The two-man race for the presidency of the Undergraduate Council should go to incumbent Robert M. Hyman '98-'97.

Hyman is forward-looking, and has set the College's weakling student government on a path of meaningful convalescence. There has been a notable lack of scandal and bombast--in its stead, Hyman's administration has been characterized by a low-key, steady build-up of student confidence in and respect for what had been Harvard's most buffoonish comedy of ego and intrigue. Old memories--of offices being broken into, funds illegally transferred and blackmail documents melodramatically exposed at panel discussions--are starting to fade into the dim background buzz of history.

And above all this stands Hyman, a sophomore with a longer-term vision, unburdened by the history of the council's past.

The presidential contender, Wesley B. Gilchrist '98, is no doubt also a sophomore unburdened by old memories and free to blaze a new trail for the council. But Gilchrist seems to be falling into the dangerous trap of self-reference, defining the council's top priorities in terms of the council itself. This is precisely the attitude that for so many years pushed our student government into deeper and deeper irrelevance.

After all, it doesn't matter one bit to me how long U.C. meetings are. As a non-council member (and a Crimson editor) I can certainly sympathize with the pain of being locked in the same room with a few dozen Harvard College students intent on making their voices heard--but what is relevant for the ordinary student is ultimately not how the council goes about its business, but what results the council produces.

Gilchrist has identified his main motivation for standing against Hyman as a dissatisfaction with council procedures. He has put a high priority on reforming the structure of the council: setting time limits and so forth. Instead of making the council "more efficient in its procedure," as Gilchrist claims, shifting priorities to such petty issues is likely to sink the council into months of meaningless debate about how meaningless the debates have become.

The present structure of council debates should matter far less to the council than defining its priorities in terms of its primary constituency--the students. Council rules of order are interesting as a side concern, but ultimately, no matter what rules of order are adopted--trivial variations on a standard parliamentary regime are unlikely to affect its ability to produce consistent outcomes--the council will still need to change its ends, and not merely diddle with its means. Hyman has this concept clear in his head when he downplays the importance of meaningless procedural reform and emphasizes the work that actually happens in council meetings.

They may very well be long meetings, but they accomplish several things, not least of which is caressing the egos of those council members who love the sounds of their own voices. If they do the work, they should be allowed to talk about it.

The accomplishments of the council under Hyman are more than respectable: a united voice on the PBH fiasco, a united voice on the need for card-key access to different Houses and a promise for popular election of the council president.

The council has obviously embarked on a new and correct path to legitimacy in the eyes of students. It should capitalize on its momentum and throw its active support behind the recent movement to have departmental bypasses for Core courses. This new project exhibits all the qualities that the U.C. wants to be associated with: it is an issue which directly affects students; there is a large consensus among students for the bypasses; and the issues has real potential for council-sponsored action instead of grand pontification. It is an issue, which if seized upon, will be a further building-block for the U.C.'s steady climb to relevance.

And President Robert M. Hyman is the man for the job.

Patrick S. Chung's column appears on alternate Saturdays.