The Undergraduate Council has blown a good opportunity to restore some of its credibility on campus. After two hours of discussion at their meeting last week, the council rejected President Noah Z. Seton's proposal to let students decide in a campus-wide referendum what to do with the wayward $40,000 the council recently found in its bank account. Instead, the council decided to poll 400 students randomly to help them decide how to spend the funds.

This solution is weak. By this half-hearted arrangement, it appears the council wants to claim it is listening to the student voice without having to bear the pesky inconvenience of a campus-wide debate on the various options the council's ad hoc committee proposed. Various plans would earmark the money for Springfest, student groups or a new sound system for the council to lend to student groups. Another proposal would have the council make a symbolic donation toward a new student center. Students deserve to participate in this debate and should have a direct say in which option the council chooses.

Opponents of a referendum believe that the student body would not take the question seriously and that turnout would be low. People are not going to give this careful consideration," said Quincy representative Alexis B. Karteron '01. This is the council's self-importance at its worst. Harvard students are perfectly capable of making an informed decision on how to spend the money. The potential benefits of the windfall are not lost on us; we have a vested interest in seeing the money--our money--spent well. Council members, by assuming--and actually saying--that students are too dumb to weigh the proposals, only prove how disconnected they are with their constituents.

The turnout argument--that so few students would vote the results would be illegitimate, so the decision should be left to the council--is even more foolish. The council members who worry that a referendum will draw a low turnout should remember that they themselves were elected by only 18 percent of the student body. Many of their races were uncontested. How can the council claim any decision it makes is somehow more representative than a campus-wide referendum, even if the turnout were low? If anything, a referendum would likely draw a higher turnout than uncontested council races (witness the popularity of the Great Grape Referendum last year). And in any event, a council whose meeting last week drew only 37 of its members is in no position to lecture the student body on their participation.

We commend Seton and Vice President Kamil E. Redmond '00 for battling for a referendum. It is good to see that at least they do not have such a low opinion of the student body that elected them. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the council disagrees.