CORRECTION APPENDED

In the Undergraduate Council’s first general meeting since the release of the Dowling Report, the Council found itself debating a full plate of contentious issues.

By far the most controversial legislation considered at the meeting was the “Get Out of Cambridge” Endorsement Act—which centered on whether the Council should provide funding for a for-profit student business.

While the first half of the legislation—which resolved to have the Council endorse and publicize www.getoutofcambridge.com, a site designed to help students find cheap transportation from Harvard—received unanimous support from the Council, two other clauses were much more contentious.

They were separated from the bill as a whole and considered separately. The clauses—which eventually passed—resolved to allocate $200 towards publicity efforts to promote the Web site and to entitle the UC to 15 percent of profits earned during the remainder of the term of the current administration.

The committee voted 14-14 on the legislation with two abstentions. Andrea R. Flores ’10, UC president, had to break the tie—she voted in favor of the final two clauses.

The vote was controversial because of Get Out of Cambridge’s for profit status.

Flores, who is only allowed to vote on UC legislation in the event of a tie, defended her vote, saying, “I think it’s important that we try out new student services.”

Daniel V. Kroop ’10, co-chair of the Communications Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, said, “I think at the end of the day, people had questions over whether the UC should actively fund an organization that is designed for Harvard students with no cost for Harvard students.” [SEE CORRECTION BELOW]

“At the end of the day, it’s a student service, and now the UC is in the business of providing better student services,” he added.

UC representative Alyssa M. Aguilera ’08-’09 voted against the clauses.

“I was disappointed in Andrea’s vote in Get Out of Cambridge,” she said.

Tamar Holoshitz ’10, the Student Affairs Committee chair, also voted against the legislation.

“I just don’t think we should be funding for-profit businesses,” she said.

But she said that she thought that the Web site is a good thing for students.

Flores did not think that funding businesses was a break from precedent.

The UC also met in groups with Harvard’s reaccreditation committee, listened to a presentation from the Harvard College Global Health and AIDS Coalition, discussed the Dowling Report, and passed four other pieces of legislation.

The Online Advising Forum Act, which resolved to establish an online advising forum for students, passed with only two dissenting votes.

The UC also unanimously passed a grants package that allocated $14,251.72 to 28 projects.

—Brittany M. Llwellyn contributed to the reporting of the story.

—Staff writer Eric P. Newcomer can be reached at newcomer@fas.harvard.edu.

CORRECTION

The Mar. 9 news article "UC Debates Web Site Endorsement" incorrectly referred to a UC committee co-chaired by Daniel V. Kroop ’10 as the Communications Committee. In fact, the correct name of the committee is the Student Relations Committee.