To the editors:

After 17 years as the dominant bridge between students and faculty, it might seem ridiculous that the purpose of the Undergraduate Council still needs to be defined. Yet after the debate on gay rights and David B. Orr's letter (Opinion, March 23) supporting the debate of political issues in the council, I feel compelled to express my idea of what the council's purpose should be.

This year in the council, we've passed a bill for gay rights, a bill for free speech and a number of other politically oriented pieces of legislation. Additionally, we may pass bills endorsing higher minimum wages across the country or working rights for Saipanese workers-bills that have merit in promoting freedom and equality and are important in our lives as Americans-yet little if anything would change in our daily lives on campus.

The council must serve another, more focused purpose. We must attack the issues that are worthwhile to students, like building a student center, improving departmental advising or increasing study space. We need to promote activities that will build community, like a fun Springfest or a concert series during the year.

In short, our efforts must produce what the council Web page calls "tangible results" for our student body.

I did not run for the council as a Democrat or a Republican, and I did not promise to help improve working conditions for foreign workers. Anyone can discuss all of these political issues as a member of the Institute of Politics.

I joined the council because I wanted to improve the lives of students by strengthening the University. This must be our sole mandate. Any other goal is a disservice to our constituents and a false identification of our purpose.