With this year’s leading crop of UC candidates focusing on increased advocacy and student services rather than on overhauling the council itself, UC President John S. Haddock ’07 and Vice President Annie R. Riley ’07 appear to have fulfilled their own campaign pledge to “fix the UC.”

Over the past two semesters, the UC has created a social programming board separate from the council and funded entirely by the College, reducing the size of the council from three to two committees, without decreasing its budget.

Free from the obligation to fund social events, the Council has reallocated its budget to increase the amount of money awarded to House Committees (HoCos), student groups, and the undergraduate party fund.

Only two of the six presidential candidates, Brian S. Gillis ’08 and Tim R. Hwang ’08 are campaigning on structural reform platforms. Gillis advocates expanding the council’s current structure while Hwang supports dissolving all the committees.

Haddock and Riley ran on a platform to remove the social programming responsibilities—at the time delegated to the council’s Campus Life Committee (CLC)—from the UC. An unsuccessful Springfest afterparty the previous semester and a failed Wyclef Jean concert that fall fueled campus dissatisfaction with the UC’s involvement in social events, making council reform the major theme in last year’s presidential election.

“The UC needs to be done with social programming,” Haddock said at last year’s UC debate.

Without specifically referring to the Haddock-Riley ticket, then-UC President Matthew J. Glazer ’06 spoke out against proposals to completely separate the social planning body from the UC, calling the idea “not at all realistic.”

“The answer to our problems is not—and cannot feasibly be—a total reliance on University Hall,” Glazer wrote in an e-mail to the Council list.

When the votes were counted, Haddock and Riley won in a landslide and began their terms with a strong mandate to fulfill their main promise.

Upon taking the council’s helm, Riley sent a message to UC’s e-mail list announcing a plan to reform campus-wide social programming by collaborating with the CLC, student groups, the administration, and the student body.

This plan came to fruition in April when the UC voted to cede responsibility for campus-wide social events to a board that would later become the College Events Board (CEB). Following an announcement by Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 that the College would fund the board with a $200,000 budget, the UC continued its restructuring process with an extensive debate over the future of the CLC. Eventually, the council voted to abolish the committee and accordingly reduce the size of the council to two, rather than three, representatives per district.

The new “2x2” council, as Haddock termed it during last semester’s debate, began its inaugural session with the UC’s most competitive and highest-turnout general election, according to UC Treasurer Benjamin W. Milder ’08. Because the UC was no longer responsible for planning—and funding—campus-wide social events, money that once went to CLC was freed up in the budget. This surplus has been directed to HoCos, student groups, and the party fund. Some of the CLC’s previous responsibilities, such as shuttles, have disappeared.

HoCos will receive an additional $25,900 this year, the party fund has been allocating 60 percent more money for parties, and student groups are expected receive as much as $37,000 more in grants this year, according to Milder.

The UC is now in a position “to really begin addressing the needs and concerns of students,” Riley said.

—Staff writer Brittney L. Moraski can be reached at bmoraski@fas.harvard.edu.