Amid the mayhem of last weekend’s Undergraduate Council (UC) meeting and the Mather House Committee’s (HoCo) subsequent announcement of its intent to secede from the UC, an important substantive question was lost in the frenzy: whether the UC should fund House Committee (HoCo) events beyond the upfront grant they give HoCos each semester. We see no compelling reason why HoCos should not be permitted to apply for further funding from the grants fund just like any other student group.

This particular issue was raised after the UC declined to give Mather money to purchase a second foam machine for the annual Mather Lather foam party. When Mather HoCo’s request was voted down during the UC’s general meeting—causing an angry Mather HoCo to threaten to secede from the UC—many UC members pointed out that every HoCo, including Mather’s, had already received an unrestricted $4,700 at the beginning of the semester. Finance Committee (FiCom) chair Alexander “Zander” N. Li ’08, who is also a Crimson editorial editor, explained that there was considerable concern that funding Mather’s foam machine would “set an unfortunate precedent” that would lead other HoCos to also expect more money. Such money could only be given out by dipping into the grants fund that is currently allocated only for student groups.

While the previous $4,700 grant should be taken into consideration, it alone is not a sufficient reason for the UC to categorically deny all HoCo requests for additional funding. The upfront block grants are meant to give each HoCo maximum flexibility in planning events for their Houses to build House community. But if HoCos propose to sponsor additional events, particularly events aimed at the student body as a whole, they should be considered the same as any other student group and their applications should be judged its merit.

HoCos that want to host campus-wide events should not be forced to do so at the expense of their House budget, which are allocated specifically to benefit the House community. It is more appropriate for such expenses, when they exist, to be paid for by the student body at large through the UC grants fund. Funding certain HoCo events may even be preferable, as HoCo events like Mather Lather involve more people than the typical group event and thus have a larger impact on student life.

Of course, not all open parties place a strain on HoCo finances and need to request funding. The Leverett 80s Dance, for example, makes a profit each semester. Even with Mather’s foam party, which is one of the most expensive, it is unclear how much of a strain is put on the Mather HoCo, which intends to sell 650 tickets at $10 a piece.

Furthermore, not all HoCo requests necessarily need to be granted. For instance, if the UC gave Mather’s application due consideration and found spending $1,700 on a new foam machine unnecessary, it should by all means deny the grant regardless the Mather HoCo’s financial position. But HoCos deserve at least fair consideration.

Funding must remain at the UC’s discretion and should be based on the merits of each individual application. Under the current structure, HoCos have little incentive to host innovative and potentially expensive events for the entire student body—events that would, in fact, be a good use of student money. The UC should evaluate a HoCo grant application the same as it would any other student group’s and should fund it if it meets FiCom’s standard criteria.