In a closed meeting on Tuesday, the Undergraduate Council’s Student Affairs Committee (SAC) endorsed one of the most significant proposals in the council’s history. The measure—which was never mentioned in any of the presidential candidates’ campaign platforms—sought to change the student activities fee the council charges to termbills from an optional $35 to a mandatory $100. Proponents may be right that by effectively tripling its budget, the council could radically expand and improve services. Yet more money could just mean more waste and inefficiency in an organization already marked by a penchant for bureaucracy.

Fortunately, the student body will have a real say—outspoken critics on SAC convinced their fellow members to put the dramatic hike up for a vote later this semester. We are disappointed that an issue of such sweeping importance got its first hearing behind closed doors—without even a hint to the student body—and we have deep hesitations regarding many of the ill-conceived details present or absent in the proposal itself. But we are not willing to dismiss it out of hand. We support this referendum in principle because a vote of all students should determine the council’s position on decisions of such significance, and we hope the full council does as well when it takes up the measure on Sunday.

But if the council expects the referendum to pass, it has substantial work ahead making its case, defining its goals and setting the exact dollar amount of the increase.

A substantial increase in the council’s budget might be warranted. More money would allow the council to organize bigger and better campus-wide events, bring top name bands to perform more frequently and further its efforts to improve Harvard’s unfortunate social environment. The council could also meet the needs of more student groups; despite devoting 60 percent of its budget exclusively to grants, the council currently only meets about 33 percent of grant money requested—not to mention that they never fund start-up, maintenance or operation costs for student organizations.

But we’re not sold yet. These arguments are persuasive, but as of yet lack the force to counter the proposal’s many critics. The magnitude of this fee increase—indeed, many of the same benefits could arise from a much smaller hike—has not been justified. Nor have its backers consulted widely with students to determine whether they actually want the council to take on an expanded role. Surveys, forums and one-on-one discussions would help proponents develop a more specific proposal for how the council might allocate funds in a larger budget. The council asks student groups to present an itemized budget when requesting grants; students deserve no less from their elected representatives. The actual dollar figure on the referendum should also be decided at a later date, closer to the vote, once the council determines precisely how much money it will need.

But the council must also consider broader structural changes before it expects the student body to rubber stamp this fee hike. SAC members who favor the increase point out that Harvard lags far behind peer institutions when it comes to termbill fees—the average fee elsewhere is $201, they claim. But critics rightly recognize that many of these schools are far better equipped to handle the larger budgets, with far more students working actively to organize campuswide events. And while we are confident that more money would heighten the profile of council events, which in turn would attract more committed volunteers to help organize them, we worry that the council is unprepared structurally to handle a threefold expansion of its budget. For some time, council members have been calling for more substantial structural reforms; these changes should be instituted first before students approve a new budget.

We are also concerned that a mandatory increase will ultimately harm lower income students, despite assurances from the proposal’s backers that the hike will likely be covered by Harvard’s Financial Aid Office. The fee hike would not be a negligible burden for the office—more like on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Before the referendum goes up for a vote, the council must do the necessary leg-work to get a guarantee that students who cannot afford this increase will not be forced to pay it.

Harvard may very well benefit from giving the council a larger budget, and we strongly support many of the initiatives the fee increase might fund. But until proponents of the increase define their plans, reform the council’s structure and guarantee the necessary financial aid, they should not count on widespread student support.