With the council adjourned until the spring semester, Lee has not had a chance to begin directing policy.

But after a meeting with University President Lawrence H. Summers, she says she may push the council to speak out on issues of concern to students—so long as doing so leads to specific policy action.

“I would like to concentrate on things that have direct tangible effects on students but I do hope to include relevant issues whether or not they’re controversial or political,” Lee says.

Passing council resolutions that solely state opinion, Lee says, is something that she, like Gusmorino, will discourage the council from doing.

“The key word is action,” she says.

Revolution on SAC

Also key to preserving Gusmorino’s legacy is Student Affairs Committee Chair Rohit Chopra ’04, who through his wide network of alliances with members of the administration, wields enormous power behind the scenes.

While Chopra has orchestrated almost all the council’s recent victories—he played a key role in the battle for later party hours and started a fund to provide students on financial aid free tickets to University-sponsored events—he has chosen to remain on SAC rather than seek the council presidency.

Historically, SAC, which can recommend policy changes directly to Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 and Summers, has been a springboard for advocating ideological issues.

In the past, SAC has championed issues such as same-sex commitment ceremonies in Memorial Church and urging the University to amend its non-discrimination policy to include transgendered individuals.

Chopra, however, has a stricter vision of his role as leader of the influential committee.

“[The students] seem to like what we’ve been doing this year—improving the day-to-day academic experience,” Chopra says. “That’s what we’re elected to do.”

The Future of UC Politics

In his farewell address to the council last week, Gusmorino reiterated one of his favorite points.

The popular president, who many on the council describe as personally liberal, has attempted to separate the student services vs. activist debate from liberal vs. conservative politics.