Between Monday, March 28, and Thursday, March 31, Harvard’s undergraduate student body will vote on a referendum seeking to dissolve its current government, the Undergraduate Council, and replace it with a new student government, the Harvard Undergraduate Assembly. The constitution for the HUA was written by the Citizens’ Assembly, a randomly-selected group of undergraduate students and members of the UC, and is supported in this race by the Change Coalition, also known as Change Harvard.
The opposition has largely coalesced into Know Your Vote, a movement that has argued in favor of retaining the current UC constitution and working for reform within its bounds. To this end, Know Your Vote has publicly called on their supporters to boycott the referendum instead of voting against it in an attempt to block the referendum from reaching the 40% turnout threshold required for the results to take effect.
Once the voting window closes, the UC will be dissolved and the HUA, governed by the following constitution, will be established in its place if two requirements can be met: more than two-fifths of the student body turns out to vote in the referendum, and more than two-thirds of those voting vote in favor of the measure. If both of these thresholds are met, the results will trigger the transition plan detailed in Section IX of the proposed HUA Constitution, which will include holding new student body elections before May 2022.
Below are five of the most important sections of the proposed HUA Constitution, from its governing structure to its fiscal transparency provisions, along with relevant arguments made by both the Change Harvard and Know Your Vote coalitions over the several days leading up to the referendum period.
Section III: Structure – The Officers of the HUA
“Officers are elected by the full student body to lead a specific Team for a one year cycle. They advocate for student interests in their area of focus in dialogue with administrators and are held accountable for the efficient functioning of their Team. The Officer for the Finance Team will be known as the Treasurer.”
Section III (“Structure,” “Officers”), Harvard Undergraduate Association (HUA) Constitution
As proposed, the Harvard Undergraduate Association would consist of nine officers elected by the student body at large, including two co-presidents and seven area-specific officers, one each overseeing finance, social life, extracurriculars, academics, residential life, well-being, and sports. These officers are to be elected for full-year terms in the beginning of the spring semester. Re-election is not allowed, but officers may run for a different position after serving one term on the Executive Team.
Know Your Vote has claimed that the sharp decline in elected positions in the HUA, only consisting of nine elected officials compared to the more than 50 current Undergraduate Council officers, would severely diminish representation, arguing that at least two houses would be completely without representation in a given year. They added that since elections were held school-wide, first-years would never be able to win in a general election against upperclassmen, therefore effectively removing first-year representation from the elected office in student government. Know Your Vote has also raised concerns that the HUA Constitution, being modeled after the 85% White University of Sheffield, will produce a system that is not properly built for minority representation.
Change Harvard has responded by arguing that first-years would be able to join as team members and project leaders if they weren’t elected. They also pushed back on the charge that a first-year would not be able to win a school-wide election, adding that spring elections allow first-years “to build a credible candidacy,” compared to the fall elections under the Undergraduate Council. Change Harvard has also pointed out that in the fall 2021 legislative elections for the UC, a field of almost 150 candidates was reduced to 15 representatives, arguing that the existing system is less representative of first-years than a voluntary participatory system would be under the HUA.
Section III: Structure – Project Leaders and Team Members
“Project Leaders are appointed by an Officer to take the lead on project(s) that fall under the jurisdiction of their Team for a flexible period of time. Project Leaders are held accountable by their Team’s Officer and can serve on more than one Team at once.
Any undergraduate student at Harvard College can be a member of the HUA. Members can join a Team that interests them, contributing their thoughts and energy to advocating on behalf of the student body and engaging with faculty and administration on the HUA’s priorities. Team Members are held accountable by their Team’s Officer and can serve on more than one Team at once.”
Section III (“Structure,” “Project Leaders” and “Team Members”), HUA Constitution
The participatory, not representative, structure proposed by the HUA Constitution is perhaps the largest structural change at stake in this referendum. Change Harvard claims that this reform is crucial to improving the culture of student government, replacing parliamentary procedure with “consensus and collaborative problem solving.” Since the HUA would allow anyone to become a Team Member and or a Project Leader on an issue of personal importance to them, Change Harvard argues that the proposed system produces more efficient incentives than the existing constitution.
Know Your Vote, however, have argued that representation in the form of Team Members and Project Leaders is effectively meaningless, as real power will remain concentrated in the elected officers. They have also claimed that since Project Leaders are appointed by the officer, there is effectively no “check and balance on their appointments,” further empowering the officers at the expense of the volunteers on their team. They add that this would make the HUA prone to nepotism and the appointments of “unqualified Team Leaders” that could undermine the successful operation of student government.
Section IV: Accountability – Recall Elections
“A recall election for any officer may be initiated by a petition signed by students equal in number to 20 percent of the number of votes cast in the last election for that position, or through a two-thirds vote of all Officers and Co-Presidents and two-thirds vote of a Problem Solving Team (as outlined in the “Suspension” section). Once a recall petition is submitted to the Election Commission, a recall election must be held within two weeks. At least two-thirds of voters must vote in favor of the recall for the officer to be removed. If the recall succeeds, then the position immediately becomes vacant. Only one recall election can be held for each particular position each semester.”
Section IV (“Accountability and Continuity,” “Recall”), HUA Constitution
Under the current constitution for the Undergraduate Council, any elected legislative or executive official in the student government may be removed via a recall election. Recall elections are triggered by a petition of one-tenth of the relevant officer’s constituency (a House or Yard for legislative representatives, or the student body as a whole for school-wide officers), and a majority of voters may vote to remove the official if turnout “equals or exceeds” turnout in the election in which they were first elected.
The proposed HUA constitution significantly amends this procedure. While the constitution notably restricts the number of possible recalls for a given office to one per semester, the threshold to launch a recall election is lowered from 10% of the student body to “20% of the number of votes cast in the last election for that position.” Were school-wide HUA elections to see similar turnout to the school-wide UC presidential election in November 2021, this would lower the petition threshold to 6.7%. The requirement to hold a recall election within two weeks is retained from the UC constitution. In the election itself, the turnout threshold is removed, while the majority requirement is replaced with a supermajority, requiring two-thirds of the recall voters to vote in favor of removing the officer for their removal to take effect.
Know Your Vote has claimed that limiting the student body to one recall election per officer per semester unnecessarily insulates elected officials in student government from being checked by their constituents, adding that the two-thirds majority requirement “significantly raises the threshold for a recall to go through.” However, it is important to note that Know Your Vote’s claim that “officers could only be recalled if 1,500-3,000 students vote to recall them” is inaccurate, since the HUA Constitution has no turnout requirement in the recall election itself. This claim likely confuses HUA’s recall provision with the current UC Constitution’s requirement that recall turnout “equals or exceeds” general election turnout, a provision not present in the constitution for the HUA.
Section VIII: Finance – Fiscal Transparency
“The HUA must adhere to best financial practices, including the following recommendations from Risk Management and Audit Services:
All checks require a co-signer (approval from at least two people).
When conducting financial transactions with an external company, a written contract must be established.
The HUA must disburse funding to organizations within one week of approving their funding applications, and make sure funding is easy and simple to access.
The HUA must use budgeting software to track its spending and provide transparency.
The HUA must publicize how it spends students’ money, including through periodic financial reports…”
Section VIII (“Finance,” “Ethical Financial Practices,” HUA Constitution
In the November 2021 UC presidential election, allegations of financial mismanagement of several varieties were commonplace, with charges ranging from accusations that the UC had been committing tax fraud since 2012 to personal attacks against presidential candidate Esther Xiang ‘23 alleging that the Adams House representative had lost or embezzled $20,000 in UC funds. A recent audit conducted by Harvard Risk Management and Audit Services reached a number of conclusions on several allegations levied against the UC, but returned inconclusive results on some others. In their report, the group found no evidence to support any of the allegations levied against Xiang personally, and echoed the arguments of former UC President Noah Harris ‘22 in asserting that the UC automatically qualified as a nonprofit due to its status as a Harvard student organization and had therefore been compliant with Commonwealth tax code.
Both Change Harvard and Know Your Vote have claimed that the audit vindicates their perspective toward UC finance. UC President Michael Cheng ‘22 and Vice President Emmett de Kanter ‘24 claimed in an email to the student body that the audit “has found extensive financial mismanagement in the UC,” while Know Your Vote claimed that Cheng and de Kanter’s email “actively mislead[s] the student body.”
One of the chief findings of the audit was that the UC does not track actual spending beyond budgeting, leading to cases such as the UC’s membership retreat, where actual costs exceeded budgeted costs by almost $4,000 yet only $3,000 were registered in UC internal records. The audit also discovered that the UC has no “software for budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting” and lacks regular procedures surrounding transactions on UC debit cards and financial officer onboarding. Change Harvard claims that safeguards against these and other audit findings are ingrained in the HUA constitution, including through requirements for financial transparency, contracts with any outside merchant, and budgeting software.
Know Your Vote claims that the continued allegations made by Change Harvard of financial mismanagement within the UC are misleading. They point out that the audit also found no evidence or found counterevidence on several allegations levied against the body during the presidential campaign, including accusations that UC members had spent organization funds on personal expenses and a 2019 report by the Harvard Open Data Project’s Eric Sun and Seth Billiau that alleged that more than $100,000 of UC funds had been spent improperly between 2017 and 2018. They mention that the audit found no evidence that the UC had been noncompliant with any relevant laws, arguing that Change Harvard were misrepresenting the findings “to benefit their campaign.”
Section IX: Transition Period – Direct Refunds
“The UC is expected to have hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets at the time the constitution is approved. Furthermore, $125,325.44 of Student Activities Fee money has been withheld from the UC due to the financial investigation of the UC’s Fall 2021 activities. A direct refund check will be paid to each Harvard College student enrolled in the Spring 2022 semester from the withheld Student Activities Fee money, in accordance with the Dean of Students Office’s procedures. The remainder of the UC’s assets will then be transferred to the HUA, which must spend the assets on student organization funding, one-time grants for inclusive social events run by organizations such as House Committees, and initiatives to improve student life, not personal expenses for officers.”
Section IX (“Transition Period”), HUA Constitution
The proposed “refund” of the Student Activities Fee has become a flashpoint of the discourse surrounding the constitutional referendum in recent days. While the UC was under audit by Harvard Risk Management and Audit Services, as the proposed HUA Constitution describes, more than $125,000 in UC funds had been withheld from the organization. Change Harvard has since somewhat clarified the logistics surrounding the refund. They argue that since the UC is currently tapping into rollover funds to finance student organizations this semester, the frozen funds could be redistributed to the student body in the form of “refunds,” likely via Crimson Cash.
Know Your Vote has publicly calculated that when divided among around 6,900 undergraduate students, the refunds would amount to only slightly more than $18. In this context, they have argued that conflating the distribution of the frozen $125,000 with a “refund” of the Student Activities Fee is an attempt on behalf of Change Harvard “to mislead and bribe [students] to implement their new Constitution.” Though Change Harvard later clarified that the refund was intended as a symbolic gesture of financial democracy and accountability, Know Your Vote maintains that the promise of a “refund” is misleading.
Conclusion
The HPR Winter Poll found that approval of the Undergraduate Council among students at the College was as low as 9.4%. However, 44.1% of poll respondents remained neutral on the question, neither approving nor disapproving. After significant contention surrounding this referendum has emerged in such a short period of time, the results of this referendum remain difficult to predict.
With Know Your Vote actively calling for their supporters not to vote in the election, and with support for the UC already so low, it is possible that the referendum will have little trouble reaching the two-thirds majority required for passage. The larger barrier will likely be that of turnout and whether or not Know Your Vote’s boycott will keep turnout below the two-fifths threshold. It is also entirely possible existing levels of apathy will hold turnout below the 40% mark on their own; turnout in the highly contentious 2021 presidential election only reached around 33.5%, suggesting that the 40% hurdle may be a difficult one to clear.
What remains certain is that a spirit of reform has come to dominate conversations surrounding the Undergraduate Council. Both sides have claimed victory on financial allegations against the UC after the audit confirmed some allegations and rejected others outright, implying that neither side will back down soon. With Know Your Vote promising that a new constitutional convention would take place in April should the referendum fail, both factions have made clear their understanding of the widespread discontent with the status quo UC. Which vision the student body decides to endorse, however, will only be clear once the last vote is tallied. The fate of the UC, at least for the time being, is sealed.
Image by Pascal Bernardon is licensed under the Unsplash License.
Bureau of Ethical and Sensitive Reporting Chief
