Two Mondays ago Joshua D. Smith ’09 applied for an Undergraduate Council party grant. When he received no word from the UC by its usual Wednesday response time, he e-mailed Margaret M. Wang ’09, former party fund director of the UC Finance Committee, to find out if his party would be awarded any funding. Wang referred his request to UC President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09, who informed Smith that party grants would no longer be distributed until a reevaluation of the system under the new dean of the College.

“It was just all really frustrating,” Smith said, explaining that knowing whether he would receive UC funding would affect the way he registered the party with the House office.

“People who do apply don’t even get an e-mail saying, ‘We have discontinued the process,’” Smith said. “That sort of says something to me about the transparency of the UC.”

Wang, who is still a member of the UC, said students were unaware that the party fund had been discontinued. “I don’t think the idea that the party fund was going to stop was explicitly communicated,” Wang said.

The UC clashed with the College administration over the issue of funding alcohol for parties in October, prompting acting Dean of the College David R. Pilbeam to freeze the UC’s funding.

In November the UC voted to compromise with the College, passing legislation to continue awarding party grants for the purchase of non-alcoholic supplies throughout the remainder of the semester with plans to review the party grant system in the future.

“We had to pass legislation every semester authorizing the party grants,” UC Vice President Randall S. Sarafa ’09 said last week. “We just haven’t done that.”

Although no party grants had been distributed since last semester, the UC did not remove the party grants application from its Web site until last Sunday when asked by The Crimson whether students were still applying for the grants on-line.

Wang said that students were still applying for the grants because they were “under the impression that the party fund was up and running.”

Because Wang’s e-mail address was on the Web site as the contact person for the party grants, she said she has been inundated with student e-mails asking why they had not heard whether they would receive party grants.

Sundquist said that the UC would ask the College to review the party grant system after the installation of the new dean of the College. Hammonds, the University’s senior vice provost for faculty development and diversity, was appointed the new dean of the College on Wednesday.

Hammonds said last week that she was still learning about and forming an opinion on the College’s alcohol policy.

UC Financial Committee Chair Andrea R. Flores ’10 said the UC has made no formal plans for the review of the party grants and would not discuss the issue with the administration until the Council had established a relationship with the new dean.

Pilbeam has given no indication that he will conduct any review of the party fund in the final months of his administration.

When asked about the party grant system a few days before Hammond’s announcement as Dean, Pilbeam replied in an e-mailed statement: “This has really fallen off my radar.”

Sundquist said he has no plans to pursue a review of the party grant system until after Hammonds takes office June 1.

In the meantime, UC Representative Sean C. Robinson ’09, plans to introduce a resolution in the coming weeks to reallocate party grant money to fund other social activities.

Robinson said his Quincy constituents have recently complained to him about the party fund’s “quiet disappearance.”

Due to the often prohibitive costs of food and drinks, Smith said that the elimination of UC party grants made the ability to host parties an issue of socioeconomic class.

For Smith’s own party, a friend helped defray the costs.

“Even without the whole class issue thing, it makes it a lot less fun to be at Harvard,” Smith said.

—Staff writer Chelsea L. Shover can be reached at clshover@fas.harvard.edu.