A seemingly straightforward grants package sparked controversy over the interpretation of the Undergraduate Council’s (UC) non-discrimination policy at last night’s UC meeting.

$300 was allocated to a Women in Tenure event to be hosted by the Seneca, a non-profit women’s organization that the University does not recognize as an official student group. The Women in Tenure event, however, is co-sponsored by over 25 other groups on campus, including recognized organizations such as Harvard Undergraduate Women in Business.

Tara Gadgil ’07, who is a member of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) and the Seneca, opened the debate floor by arguing that the event should receive the full $1500 grant that it requested from the UC, instead of the $600 that they received.

“[The Women in Tenure event] is providing a very valuable service, and the event is open to the entire undergraduate community,” Gadgil said. She was then joined by fellow Seneca member and newly-elected representative Jennifer L. Lykken ’07 on the floor.

Financial Committee (FiCom) members Samita A. Mannapperuma ’06 and Parvinder S. Thiara ’07 said that the Seneca presented itself as the main sponsor of the event and that the event’s choice of the Faculty Club, a relatively small venue, is expensive and inappropriate for a campus-wide event.

President of the Seneca Jane Kim ’05 later told The Crimson that the Seneca chose the Faculty Club because of extensive bookings and scheduling conflicts in larger spaces such as the Science Center.

“The Faculty Club, with a seated capacity of 150, is the largest space we could find that is within our means and appropriate for a panel discussion and reception to foster continued discourse,” Kim wrote in an e-mail.

The debate heated up as Justin R. Chapa ’05 spoke against the grant, amid protests from dissenting representatives.

“This is a discriminatory organization that’s sponsoring this event,” he said.

Although the grant had already been sent back to FiCom once for reconsideration, the UC eventually voted to send it back again.

SAC Chair Aaron D. Chadbourne ’06 said he thinks the debate raises issues about the UC’s “procedural problem” when it comes to giving out money to student groups.

“It [the debate] was indicative of a larger problem that we need to get at the heart of,” Chadbourne said, adding that he hopes the Reform Committee, which was formed last week to investigate structural changes to the UC, will look into this problem.

The newly-appointed Chair of the Reform Commission Jonathan D. Einkauf ’06 informed the UC at the beginning of last night’s meeting that he would be contacting every member this week to solicit their views on what does and doesn’t work in their organization.

“Everything is on the table,” Einkauf said, even the removal of the office of President and Vice President.

“We’re considering every idea, and no idea at this point is off-limits,” he said.