When the fee increase was first proposed at a general meeting in early April, a heated debate resulted in the issue being tabled. The following week, during the April 12 meeting, council members approved by a 39-5 vote, with one abstention, a referendum that would let students vote on the fee hike.

All the while, the opposition was active in challenging the hike, and both sides have fought each other at nearly every turn.

Last Sunday, Barro successfully proposed an amendment that prohibits the council from asking the College administration for a smaller fee increase should the referendum fail. The council, however, will be allowed to ask for an increase in line with inflation.

Barro and the opposition have also launched their own postering campaign in response to the supporters’ “Believe In A Better Harvard” signs. Their campaign mocks the proponents’ “Believe” message with signs that say “BELIEVE in the Tooth Fairy” and “Can You BELIEVE The UC Wants Twice As Much Money?”

Barro says he hopes these posters will help draw students to vote against the increase.

Anello is also pushing to get his message heard.

“I think that if you have everybody at Harvard voting uniformed, it will absolutely hurt us,” Anello says. “If I didn’t know the information I would vote against it.”

He adds that in each House, the proponents have a “House leader,” who is responsible for keeping the community updated about the issue. 

Getting information out was part of the reason the council initially voted for official position papers on both sides of the issue to accompany the online referendum ballot.

At last Sunday’s meeting, after both sides questioned the factual accuracy of the position papers, the council voted to scrap these documents.

On Monday, Joseph R. Oliveri ’05 decided to e-mail the opposition paper to several House lists. The e-mail was entitled, “What The UC Doesn’t Want You to Hear.”

Soon after Oliveri’s e-mail, proponents of the increase sent out their own position paper.

In a different e-mail to the Eliot House open-list that replied to a constituent’s question, Oliveri suggests that some council members may have misconstrued differences in opinion with factual inaccuracies in trying to secure the fee increase.

In response, Eliot House resident Sarah L. Bishop ’05 writes in an e-mail, “Emotions are going to be running very high over this issue in the next few days.”

“It’s important for everyone to remember that the UC reps who are supporting the fee increase are NOT doing so for the sake of personal gain or glory,” she writes.