After the resignation of its vice president, the Undergraduate Council (UC) tackled its reform package but was unable to debate more than four of the 12 proposed structural changes and only passed one.

A bill requiring that the president and vice president run and be elected on the same ticket and granting the candidates an increased campaign budget of $400 was the only part of the mammoth reform docket to pass.

That bill passed in the third hour of last night’s marathon meeting, when only 29 members—three members more than quorum—were present to vote.

The reforms have been in the works since February.

Two of the proposed changes affect the UC’s constitution and thus require a three-fourths vote of the UC and a week-long waiting period before voting closes.

One of these constitutional changes—to create a standing rules committee as a conduit for further changes to UC rules—was amended. Its week-long vote cannot begin until the next meeting, according to UC procedure.

The constitutional change to lengthen the term of the secretary and treasurer from a semester to a full year was met favorably. UC Secretary Matthew R. Greenfield ’08 said that the UC’s reaction was “positive,” but the outcome will not be known until next week when the vote closes.

Less rigorous changes to the UC’s bylaws sparked heated debate as representatives voted not to change the UC’s system of elections.

The reform legislation called for UC candidates in each House to run for one of the standing committees—Campus Life, Finance, and Student Affairs—rather than running for the UC at large.

Under the current system, three representatives from each House are elected, one of whom serves on each committee. The House representatives choose committees in order of votes won in the most recent election.

Representatives in favor of the bill argued that the change would foster more enthusiastic members who were motivated to make change in a certain area.

“The administration at Harvard has indicated that it would be much more interested in working with us if there was a direct election,” said Election Commission Chair Jonathan D. Einkauf ’06.

But the bill’s more numerous opponents said that the change would threaten the unity of the UC.

“If this passes, you will become more entrenched in the committee mindset,” said Justin R. Chapa ’05, adding that the extra competition would jeopardize the UC’s “collegial spirit.”

Some representatives said they worried that potentially good UC candidates would not be elected due to increased competition in Houses for specific committees.