Undergraduate Council (UC) President Matthew J. Glazer ’06 has sent back to committee a proposed constitutional amendment that would create an independent body to coordinate campus-wide social events.

In an e-mail to the UC-general open list on Wednesday night, Glazer wrote that a revised version of the amendment to dissolve the council’s Campus Life Committee and replace it with an autonomous directly-elected Social Events Committee (SEC) will be presented to the full council at the beginning of March.

The e-mail was signed by the incoming and outgoing UC president and vice-president.

According to UC President-elect John S. Haddock ’07, the incoming and outgoing council leadership felt it was too soon to vote on the proposed amendment.

“[The postponement] comes from a general agreement among all four of us that the UC is not ready to support the SEC or to support at this moment any new model for social programming,” Haddock said last night. “We want to make sure that the process is fully collaborative and inclusive.”

Two weeks ago the council voted to table debate on the SEC amendment until after last week’s election. The council was scheduled to meet Wednesday night to resume discussion.

But late Wednesday afternoon, Glazer cancelled the meeting and proposed sending the amendment back to committee.

“We suggest that the UC recommit the SEC to the Rules Committee while we engage in further conversations with HoCos, student groups involved in social planning, and the Office of Student Activities,” the e-mail to UC-general stated.

The postponement comes in the wake of last week’s UC presidential and vice-presidential election that may have signified a new direction in social programming for the council.

Although Haddock and Riley originally advocated a student referendum on the council’s role in campus-wide social events, they argued from the beginning of the campaign that the UC should not have any involvement in large-scale social programming. Toward the end of the campaign, Haddock said he would support a separate programming board.

In an interview last night, Haddock said that there were problems with the current SEC amendment.

“The SEC suffers from flaws,” said Haddock. “The most important example is that they want to connect the president and the vice president of the [UC] to the SEC. The current structure of the SEC does not have the autonomy to be successful.”

Haddock also said that while a social board should be involved in the planning of “occasional” campus-wide social events, House Committees should be responsible for planning the bulk of student social life.

“We strongly believe that campus community and social life is found in Houses, groups, and the consistent programming of a permanent pub,” said Haddock. “We think that there are occasional and infrequent opportunities for the campus to come together for a cause, show, or campus event.”

Glazer said that despite the postponement, there is a general consensus on a social programming board between the current and incoming UC leadership.

“[UC Vice-president] Clay [T. Capp ’06] and I met with John and [incoming UC Vice-president] Annie [R. Riley ’07], and over the course of many hours and many days, we discussed what we thought would be the best course to pursue,” Glazer said last night. “We all agree on the fundamental principles to guide a social programming board and we want to make sure we do our best to engage in a collaborative effort.”

It was unclear exactly how the amendment will change. Last night, Haddock outlined what the finalized legislation might look like.

“The board needs to be student-initiated, student-driven, student-organized,” said Haddock. “It should have elected representation. It should have strong ties to student groups and HoCos, and it should have strong institutional ties to the Office of Student Activities. Most importantly, it should be as autonomous as possible with the UC.”

—Staff writer Alexander D. Blankfein can be reached at ablankf@fas.harvard.edu.