Council Reverses Itself On New Junior Election

Previous Result Final As 'Evidence' Shows Publicity Adequate

The Student Council completely reversed its earlier decision yesterday by canceling a revote in the Junior Class Council elections.

The Council's Committee on Elections had voted before vacation to hold a second election due to charges that the original balloting was poorly publicized. Now, on the basis of "new information," the Committee announced that it will consider the first election valid.

Paul D. Sheats '54, president of the Council, said last night the Committee had just learned that candidates had circulated posters, held door-to-door campaigns, and distributed mimeographed letters to large numbers of students.

Sheats said he considered this, together with notices posted in House entries and coverage by the CRIMSON, "sufficient and in keeping with the Council's responsibilities and election procedure."

No Further Appeal

Harold F. Levy '55, who had been very narrowly defeated in December's election, charged that the Council had not given the event adequate publicity. Levy said that night that he would consider yesterday's decision by the Council final. "It wouldn't do any good to appeal any further," Levy said.

Previously Levy complained that the basketball team, which was playing Cornell at Ithaca, had not been allowed to vote. He also pointed out that only 50 percent of the junior class voted.

Sheats also countered another charge that the basketball team could not vote because members were playing an away game. "Some group is always going to be away from the College," Sheats said.

The Council committee, Sheats, John G. Tulenko '54, Samuel A. Cousins '54, and Richard B. Baumgartner '54, met after the "new information" had been brought up by present Council members dissatisfied with the planned revoke.

Anthony C. Beilenson '54, who had complained to Sheats that a second balloting was unnecessary, said last night, "I think also that it should never have considered holding the elections over because there was nothing improper about the original procedure.

In the Committee's statement canceling a second vote, the members conclude: "A new election would involve more unfairness than that, if any, which resulted from inadequacies in the publicity during the first election. This is because the results would be distorted due to previous knowledge of the candidates relative standings."