From noon today to noon Saturday, online voting will occur on the Undergraduate Council’s website (www.uc.fas.harvard.edu) to determine two questions. The first asks students to agree to a more than 100 percent increase in the student fees the council currently receives. The second question asks voters to make this fee which students can currently opt out of, mandatory. Students should vote “no” on both questions. The fee hike represents an unjustifiably large, and poorly thought-out, increase—one which the council is not institutionally equipped to handle and, we fear, might be squandered on projects Harvard students aren’t truly interested in.

Proponents of the increase have pointed out that an additional $40 out of students’ pockets—which might be covered by financial aid—does not represent a significant financial burden. This line of argumentation misses the point. What does matter is the fact that the increase represents an increase from $35 to $75 for each student and would more than double the Undergraduate Council’s budget. While it is dubious to suggest that students wouldn’t miss $40 apiece, it is wholly ludicrous that an addition of $200,000 to the student government’s budget is a trifling affair.

This money would ultimately end up in one of two places: the hands of student groups who apply for council grants on a project-by-project basis; and the budget for Council-sponsored projects, like hypnotists, concerts and Fallfest. Supporters of the increase have suggested that dramatically increasing the amount of money the average student pays into these causes would do a lot to help Harvard’s ailing social scene. We disagree.

The council cannot currently fund every request made by campus student groups, and it should not attempt to. Among the numerous projects the Financial Committee (FiCom) rejected (or denied full funding to) in the past year can be found a $15,000 grant request of the Automotive Society for a go-kart expedition and a host of other white elephant undertakings.

Over the past few weeks, fee hike proponents have circulated a sexy (though misleading) figure that suggests that this year’s council has only funded 38 percent of student groups’ total grant requests. A closer examination, provided by a recent analysis of four grants packages authored by FiCom chair Teo P. Nicolais ’06 (himself a proponent of the fee hike), reveals that the council in fact funds nearly 70 percent of all applicants that request less than $750. These applications account for the vast majority (86 percent) of all grant requests. These numbers hardly provide for a compelling case for a 114 percent increase in student fees to fund only a small number of grants (benefiting a small number of undergrads) which did not receive funding.

Beyond grants packages, the fee increase would fund more council-sponsored activities. Yet in the unending quest for a better social life, the council has rarely considered the possibility that many of its projects do remarkably little to enhance students’ quality of life. Some successful projects, like One Dollar Movie Nights, only require council funding if corporate sponsorship can’t be found—which is unlikely. Other events, like the unpopular yet enduring Fallfest, which cost $11,000 last year, remain as edifices to the council’s disconnect with students. And some projects, though well-attended, like the recent Busta Rhymes concert (2,700 attendees), require massive expenditures—a total of $40,000 from the council and other sources.

If the council does get the money it seeks, nothing revolutionary is scheduled. Instead of one council-funded hypnotist show, there will be two. Busta Rhymes might be displaced by an artist still enjoying the limelight. Stand-up comedy routines would grace Fallfest.

Even if we did agree that the council should fund nearly every dollar of every student group grant and host far more of its own projects, we doubt that the current council structure would allow them to do so efficiently. Already, council members’ time is spread so thin that mistakes of judgment and administration frequently happen regarding major projects. Just in the past couple months, the council has lost a cashbox, underestimated the popularity of its keg-return service turning what could be a money-making enterprise into a financial liability and raised eyebrows with the on-site organization of the Busta Rhymes concert.

The way to build institutional reform is little-by-little, step-by-step. Only three years ago, with the presidency of Paul A. Gusmorino ’02, did the council begin a reform which transformed it from a joke to a serious student advocacy group. It has gradually rebuilt its reputation and legitimacy. If it desires extra funding, it should have asked students for a modest increase—perhaps enough to account for inflation and a few, earmarked increases in services and grants. But this immense increase, which only recently appeared on the council scene publicly, is ill-conceived and sweeping.

If such a grandiose increase is so important to council members, then it must be made an issue meant for the sustained attention of Harvard undergraduates. It is disturbing that not once in the campaign of council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 was the potential increase mentioned. Either it was a proposal hastily conceived only months ago, which would explain the arbitrariness of the proposed $75 fee, or the council has hoped to take a quieted approach to it, so as not to draw true scrutiny.

Although a “no” vote on the proposed increase should eclipse most discussion of whether to make the fee mandatory, we also encourage students to vote to keep the fee optional. Such a situation allows students to make up their own minds on the council’s effectiveness and whether they would have their money go to fund projects or groups they have no desire to sponsor.

Even if students vote down the increase—a vote that the council has, in a recent reversal, promised to take as binding—representatives will still have the option of increasing fees in a much more responsible way, to account for past years’ inflation. The architect of the amendment that made the present referendum binding, Joshua A. Barro ’05, estimates that a fee increase to account for past years’ inflation would represent a justifiable and modest 12 percent increase, to about $42. This is exactly the type of modest increase that’s needed—not the pipe dream currently under consideration.