Eliot’s House Committee recently came under fire for refusing to submit an appropriately detailed committee budget under the new bylaws established by the Harvard Undergraduate Council last semester. The Eliot House Committee eventually compromised with the UC, and released a budget that shows higher revenues and expenditures than any of the other houses—approximately $122 spent per student.

Although the Eliot House Committee has a much larger annual budget than any of the other houses, this does not appear to be based on any inherently problematic practices. Ticket sales are the greatest source of revenue for the Eliot House Committee, so in essence Eliot students are getting back money that they have put in. As long as each house receives equal amounts in grants from the UC and the College administration, there does not seem to be a problem.

Despite small hurdles this first implementation, the UC’s decision to encourage financial transparency in the House Committees is a positive step. It will allow college students to hold House Committees accountable for spending and budgeting. Additionally, increased transparency should foster greater communication between House Committees and allow the individual Committees to learn from one another.

This semester marks the first time the UC published House Committee budgets under the new initiative. As such, this is an appropriate time to reflect on improvements that the UC could make to the budgetary disclosure system. Given the Council’s goal of increasing fiscal accountability, an appropriate first step would be to create a standardized format for House Committee budgets. Such a template would make information more easily accessible to students and House Committee members alike. Currently, the separate House Committee budgets follow no consistent format: some give budget details for only one semester; others for the entire year. Others appear to give the budget in Euros. Given that the UC initiated the publication of House Committee budgets, the UC should take steps to create an intuitive template for publishing budget information.

That said, the Eliot House Committee is right to question the UC’s jurisdiction in effectively auditing each House Committee’s entire budget—including how they budget funds that are not provided by UC grants. The consequences—the loss of House Committee funds for one year—are significant enough to warrant attention. In the current system, we see a difficult split between two separate by important governing bodies: the UC and the House Committees. Both contain students who are elected to represent their House peers. Based on the recent confrontation between Eliot House Committee and the UC, however, it is clear that the two groups work for different ends.

Properly and officially delineating the respective roles of the House Committees and the UC would be an important first step toward improving relationships with these two important governing bodies. Having these two groups work in tandem would advance the quality of student life at the College.