| The Harvard Salient | November 4, 1996 |
Three hours into the October 27 Undergraduate Council meeting, the UC had, after lengthy and occasionally acrimonious debate, passed this year's budget resolution, a measure to fund anonymous HIV testing at University Health Services, authorization to fund a Yalegate party, and a vaguely worded preliminary resolution to support establishing a Student Resource Center in Loker Commons. It had also voted to sustain President Rob Hyman's ruling that Vice President Lamelle Rawlins had sole jurisdiction over all keys to the UC office. At this point, a piece of new business was brought before the Council: a resolution suggesting that Harvard police "warn and ticket" anyone allowing a dog to run loose in Harvard Yard.
The bill's sponsors, UC treasurer John Appelbaum (who should know better in his fourth year on the Council) and freshman Chris-Tia Donaldson, claimed that the bill was time-critical because someone "could get mauled tomorrow." And so the Council embarked on its newest great enterprise.
The bill was worded so mildly - not even "urging" the administration, which would have caused it to fall under the provisions of the Nelson-Grimmelmann Act, which allows Dean Lewis to veto such resolutions - that even if the UC were, say, Congress, it would have even less impact than a "sense of the House" resolution. Matters became even worse when, after approving an amendment to add the Quad to the bill's pointless purview, the Council actually managed to find a way to water down pure pablum: it approved a well-intentioned amendment by James Grimmelmann to replace "not on a leash" with "unaccompanied by an owner." As Council member Marco Simons asked, "Who are you going to fine?" Visions of Rob Hyman and a burly HUPD officer chasing a golden retriever though the Yard and attempting to attach a ticket to its collar danced through my head. Unfortunately, the bill is unlikely to have such an amusing result, or any result at all except to confirm what almost every student suspects when he sees that $20 fee on his term bill.
As with any pointless UC resolution, the bill passed with a lopsided majority, probably sped on its way by Council members eager to go home after three and a half hours. The resolution won't be entirely useless, however; the next time a UC member wonders aloud during debate why no one takes the UC seriously, the rest of us - or at least the few who voted "no" - will be able simply to direct them to the Fine Fido Bill. (William Jay)