Fox kept the three members of the Lowell delegation out of the meeting, Mahan gave his presentation and the Faculty Council approved the incremental Student Activities Fee hike—but not before Mahan felt compelled to apologize to Fox and Gross for three members of his council having shown up unexpectedly in front of 18 leading professors and top FAS and College administrators.

Mahan ally Matthew J. Glazer ’06, chair of the Council’s Student Affairs Committee, recognizes that Mahan’s modus operandi this semester has been imperfect, but says Mahan has recognized the importance of making council members feel included in crucial decision-making.

“At the end of the year he acknowledged this and said he did skip things in the decision-making process,” Glazer says. “I don’t think he’s doing these things with any malintent. He’s doing what he thinks is best, but sometimes maybe he should include more people in carrying out decisions of the council.”

THE SEDITION ACT?

Vocal dissent under the Mahan administration has hardly been limited to major council reforms. Issues ranging from awarding student groups money for “recycling and minimizing waste” to council support for gender-neutral bathrooms have generated heated opposition at council meetings this semester.

Mahan says he is pleased to hear representatives’ myriad opinions on the council’s contentious issues.

“Mike and I have definitely strived to embrace dialogue, especially at Executive Board, which is more off-the-record and we don’t have a reporter there,” Mahan says. “We definitely have tried to encourage people on the council to speak their minds, to voice their concerns, to have real arguments. I think it’s been very productive.”

Whatever Mahan’s true intent, he has not convinced his council of his willingness to hear their opinions. Council Secretary Jason L. Lurie ’05, a frequent Mahan critic, says dissent should be met with reasoned response and not the defensive e-mails Mahan often sends after being disputed with over the list.

“Matt says, ‘Why are you trying to embarrass me?...You could’ve just asked me [personally],’” Lurie says. “I think that overly defensiveness is there. It doesn’t look presidential.”

Council members’ opposition to Mahan-supported legislation has come not just over e-mail and in speeches on the council floor, but also through the extensive use of parliamentary maneuvering during council meetings.

At the end of an April 7 debate on the termbill fee hike, Mahan expressed his frustration with council members’ incessant motions to adjourn and demands for roll-call votes on nearly every amendment—even though, in his inaugural address, Mahan suggested that the council consider mandating roll-call votes universally.

“All of this petty bullshit and damn motions are ridiculous,” he exclaimed. “I can’t believe it.”

Barro says that Mahan’s unwillingness to tolerate dissent has forced council members to resort to petty disputes and repeated motions.

“The leadership doesn’t seem to value dissenting opinions in meetings so they don’t structure them to listen appropriately to them. So people in the minority—we had to assert more procedural rules guaranteeing us the right to express our views and have our amendments heard,” Barro says. “You heard less dissent during Rohit’s administration because there was less dissent.”

The contentious procedural battles, of course, come across differently depending on the side one tends to take in council. Nicolais, who supports Mahan far more frequently than does Barro, is not convinced that parliamentary strategy has such noble ends.