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.

Glazer urged representatives to vote without considering political motivations.

“Please try to separate yourself and your own political interests,” said Glazer.

The bill failed 13-18-2.

Glazer said after the meeting that “there are other procedures to consider” in order to implement elections directly to committees but declined to elaborate further.

Glazer later chastised representatives who were absent from the meeting. By the end of the meeting, the UC was barely at quorum and nearly unable to pass reform legislation which has been in the works for the entire semester. Half of the UC must be in attendance to vote on any legislation.

“I don’t understand how at the most important meeting of our semester we don’t even have half the council,” Glazer said angrily after having to void a vote with fewer than 26 members.

After the first round of voting, the UC has yet to consider nine major reform changes to its bylaws and will have a meeting to vote on them this week.

In other UC business, the most recent grant package was cut by 35 percent across the board due to a shortage of funds and an unusually high number of applicants.

The grant for the Christian singing group “Under Construction” was ruled out of order by Glazer after members raised concerns about the organization’s constitutional requirements that members “be comfortable” with the principles of the group, which include the Christian faith.

Glazer and representative Jason L. Lurie ’05 argued that the stipulation violated the UC’s non-discrimination policy, which prohibits the UC from funding groups that are discriminatory in membership.

The clause has been invoked several times over the semester, as the UC has struggled with the interpretation of its nondiscrimination clause regarding funding for political and all-female groups.

—Staff writer Liz C. Goodwin can be reached at goodwin@fas.harvard.edu.