As voting begins for the top two leadership positions of the Undergraduate Council (UC), John F. Voith ’07 and Tara Gadgil ’07 appear to be gaining momentum, throwing the race wide open.

According to many of those who have followed the election, John S. Haddock ’07 and Annie R. Riley ’07 had originally enjoyed a slight edge in the race coming into the weekend. Haddock, vice-chair of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC), and Riley, a former council member who served on SAC last year picked up several key endorsements—including the Harvard College Democrats and the Black Students Association—in their bid to lead the council.

But several events yesterday may have switched that momentum toward Haddock and Riley’s opponents, presidential candidate Voith and running-mate Gadgil.

Campus Life Committee (CLC) chair Voith and SAC chair Gadgil picked up two key endorsements from The Crimson and Native Americans at Harvard College. The two could also benefit from an e-mail to the UC open-list by UC President Matthew J. Glazer ’06 criticizing the feasibility of Haddock’s plan for social programming.

“I think it is still a very competitive election,” said former SAC Chair Aaron D. Chadbourne '06.

The Magnus Grimeland ’07 and Thomas D. Hadfield ’07 ticket has emphasized several bold ideas such as an endowment to fund student events and a $10 million investment plan. But in a campaign whose rhetoric has focused primarily on how to reform the planning of large-scale social events, Grimeland and Hadfield have tried to avoid the topic.

As the campaign enters its second week, the proposals for social planning from the Haddock-Riley and Voith-Gadgil ticket have become more similar. Though Haddock-Riley began the campaign without any mention of a separate social programming board, they have since adopted this as part of their proposals.

Now, both tickets support creating a quasi-independent body whose membership is elected separately from that of the UC. The key difference lies in the extent to which the tickets believe this group should be connected to the UC­—with Haddock-Riley advocating for a complete separation from the UC and Voith-Gadgil supporting a more UC-connected group.

At the heart of the debate is the constitutional amendment currently under consideration in the UC that would dissolve the CLC and replace it with an autonomous directly-elected Social Events Committee (SEC) to plan campus-wide social events.

The proposed SEC would technically be a part of the UC, falling under the UC president’s purview, and would receive funding out of the UC termbill fee. But UC representatives would have no institutional involvement in debating or shaping the social event.

The amendment comes in the wake of several much-criticized UC attempts at social programming, including last year’s Springfest Afterparty and Havana on the Harbor.

In November, the Harvard Concert Commission (HCC)—a subsidiary of the UC­—cancelled its planned fall concert featuring Wyclef Jean because of insufficient ticket sales, costing the UC between $25,000 and $30,000.

The UC’s role in social programming has also come under question from University Hall. “I think the UC should give some consideration as to whether it should be in the campus life business,” said Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 in a meeting with the council early in November.

The three presidential candidates have taken markedly different angles on the debate.

Voith has thrown his support behind the SEC amendment, calling it a “good start.”

“The way I see the future of social programming is through a connection with the students, the UC itself, and the Dean’s Office,” Voith said at last Wednesday’s debate.

Although Haddock originally advocated for a student referendum on the council’s role in programming, he now does not support the amendment, arguing that the UC should not have any involvement in campus social programming. Haddock’s plan focuses instead on increasing the funding of student groups and House committees, and facilitating the transfer of campus-wide planning to a fully independent group that works closely with the administration.

“We need to make a student driven process that is independent from the UC,” said Haddock.

Grimeland also advocates increasing the amount of money given to House committees.

“We are still in a debate,” said Grimeland. “Me and Tom’s opinion is that we need more decentralized social events for Harvard. More money for student groups, more money for HoCos.”

Without mentioning any tickets by name, Glazer’s e-mail to the UC list last night criticized several central points included in Haddock’s plan, calling proposals to increase administration funding and responsibility for social planning “not at all realistic.”

“The answer to our problems is not—and cannot feasibly be—a total reliance on University Hall,” Glazer wrote.

Neither Glazer nor UC Vice President Clay T. Capp ’06 have publicly endorsed a ticket.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The other primary issue of the campaign has centered around questions of experience and record.

Only Voith has served on the council since his freshman fall, while Haddock joined the UC in the fall of his sophomore year. Grimeland is in the midst of his first semester on the council.

But time on the council alone has not been the only factor in the experience debate—council watchers have emphasized key moments in the records of Voith and Haddock on the UC as indicative of their abilities.

As members of SAC, Haddock, Riley, and Gadgil were all involved in differing degrees with the writing of position papers calling for 24-hour library access and a revised blocking group system.

Haddock also presented the proposal for blocking neighborhoods to the administration.

As vice-chair of CLC last year, Voith presided over several much-criticized UC events last year—including the Springfest Afterparty and Havana on the Harbor.

This year, as CLC chair, Voith oversaw the much-praised Harvard-Yale Pep Rally, which was jointly organized by the UC and the Campus Life Fellow Justin H. Haan ’05.

In her time as SAC chair, Gadgil has advocated for a women’s center on campus and helped form a task force to study dining hall hours.

SAC support seems to be squarely behind Haddock, while the majority of the CLC supports Voith.

While Grimeland, in his first semester as a member of the Finance Committee, has little UC experience, both Grimeland and Hadfield have extensive leadership records off campus. Grimeland serves in the Norwegian military special forces, and Hadfield has successfully started several multi-million dollar companies.

Both Grimeland and Hadfield, who has never served on the UC, have faced criticism about the relative weakness of their relationship with the College administration, but Grimeland has argued that such relationships can be developed.

“A lot of the power [of the Undergraduate Council president] lies with articulating what students think and presenting it to the council,” said Chadbourne. “There is no formal training provided to someone who gets elected if a candidate does not have a handle on how to do this job.”

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