Advertisement

UC Votes To Grant $30K for Concert

While this was the first time an emergency session was conducted by e-mail, the session Glazer called in August was not the first of its kind.

Last year, the UC held several emergency sessions, including one in the fall to pass that fall’s concert allocation bill, and one in the spring to debate and pass the UC reform package.

But an e-mail vote on this fall’s concert funding was deemed necessary in order to secure support faster, since the vast majority of UC members were not on campus to participate in person, according to UC Vice President Clay T. Capp ’06.

But some expressed discontent with the online format.

“It really is an ineffective and inaccurate way to conduct our business,” wrote Maurice S. Chen ’06 in an e-mail to the UC’s open list.

Advertisement

The voting system required representatives to e-mail their votes and then reply to a confirmation e-mail.

“I think people might not be used to something like this but it was necessary,” Glazer said.

“Of course I would want future councils to do as much as they can in session but there are some circumstances where it would be a shame not to take advantage of the technology that we have and wait until October,” Glazer added.

HCC Chair Jack P. McCambridge ’06 pointed out the immediate need of the funding.

“For us to negotiate in good faith with an artist, we must have money backing up that bid,” McCambridge wrote in an e-mail to the UC’s open list, noting that artists’ availability is difficult to guarantee on short notice.

“My biggest concern is that come next year, this exact situation will happen again,” UC Representative Meghan M. Tieu ’07 wrote to the UC e-mail list.

McCambridge recognized this concern. “I think both the HCC and the UC recognize that the process of the summer allocation is not ideal and the hope is that this will be changed,” McCambridge wrote in an e-mail. “We had more substantive debate about this allocation than we ever had about a concert allocation in the past, although obviously and admittedly different from a full council meeting.”

Ultimately, the bill passed 30-3-3, with more representatives casting votes than in typical UC meetings, Glazer said.

—Staff writer Alexander H. Greeley can be reached at agreeley@fas.harvard.edu.

Advertisement