The most controversial piece of Undergraduate Council legislation last night was the one that didn't get discussed.

Christopher R. McFadden '97, a council member who is a Crimson executive, accused the council's executive board of pursuing a political vendetta against him by refusing to docket a bill he is sponsoring.

McFadden's bill would bring wristpads, better chairs and computers at eye-level to the computer workrooms in the Science Center.

"In my four terms here, I haven't known a bill not to be docketed," McFadden said. "I just can't figure out why."

But McFadden did point to one factor: he is running for vice president of the council, as are two other members of the executive board, Lamelle D. Rawlins '99 and Tally Zingher '99. A third executive, Robert M. Hyman '98-'97, is seeking the presidency as Rawlins' running mate, McFadden noted.

Eric D. Albert '98, a council member who was also at the meeting, said that McFadden's argument is a "purely political move on his part," to increase his visibility during the campaign.

"He's not the kind of U.C. member who would normally propose this kind of legislation," Albert said. "And this is not a time-critical bill. It could have come up last semester if he really wanted it."

The council's first-ever College-wide elections of its president and vice president will begin one week from today.

But another member of the council who attended the meeting, Joseph A. Sena '99, said he thought the campaign was a factor in the executive board's decision.

Sena, who is working on Zingher's vice presidential campaign, pointed out that two other bills docketed and passed last night were sponsored by members of the executive board--Hyman and Rawlins--who are running for office.

And council Vice President Brian R. Blais '97, the only executive who voted to docket the bill, said that the executive board rarely postpones docketing.

"Hyman and Rawlins say their focus is here on campus, but then they go and do something like this," McFadden charged. "They're certainly not helping Harvard students with these shenanigans."

Others who attended the executive board meeting had a different perspective.

Rawlins, who is secretary of the council, said the allegations are "absolutely ridiculous."

"We postponed docketing until next week which would allow Chris to make some headway [in the bill]. The end result of the bill will be able to be realized at any time," she said.

And Hyman, who is president of the council, defended the executive board's decision to docket the bills he co-sponsored.

"Clearly, the two resolutions we sponsored were not the type of legislation you would need to wait a week on," he said. "The executive board, which included members who had nothing ever to be gained by this, clearly recognized this as an issue where it wouldn't hurt to wait another week."

McFadden disputed the charges, pointing to conversations with Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and former Digitas president Jeff C. Tarr '96 as evidence that his bill was ready to be docketed.

But Albert criticized McFadden for failing to inform the executive board of these conversations.

A Personal Grudge?

Blais, however, had a different perspective. He said that the executive board vote against McFadden's bill was more personal.

"I don't think it was because of the campaign, but the perception was that it wasn't really important and Chris is doing it to get something out for publicity. That was in the back of people's minds," he said.

"I think that [a personality conflict] is probably a bigger reason than the campaign," Blais said. "The majority of the executive board don't like Chris. That's manifested in this bill."

But Rawlins in turn accused McFadden of making the issue personal.

An e-mail sent yesterday morning by McFadden to Rawlins, and forwarded to The Crimson, reads simply: "For what it's worth, all you people on exec. board can go screw off."

Grimmelmann, a member of the Election Commission which is overseeing the campaign, said this is not an issue the commission plans to investigate.

Under the council's constitution, the executive board is required to docket bills within two weeks of their passage in committee.

Because the bill was not docketed this week, it must be docketed next week, and can then be presented to the council