The Student Council made a poor start in its reformation proceedings when it failed to consult all the Masters about their readiness to appoint House delegates. But soon, hopefully, things will be straightened out, and the Masters will face the problem of such a selection.
Very likely the Masters will be visited by numbers of intramural politicians who will desire to ingratiate and recommend themselves for the new seats on the Council. The Masters should know that these are just the sort whose machinations made the Council amendment necessary. Besieged by the overeager, the Master will tend to turn to the restrained and intelligent, but indifferent, man whom he may know better and consider more suitable as a representative.
There would be danger in such a reaction. The Master's choice may be sensible, capable, competent, but he may also be apathetic to the goings-on in the Council. And in this way, the Council may revert to its old pettiness and internal dissension. The problem simply is that the Masters cannot know the qualifications and characteristics of all their House members; they need advice.
For this advice they should rely on their tutorial staffs. The tutors have had enough close contact with House members to know which ones would make interested, responsible Council representatives. They also would be more disinterested in their recommendations than would the House Committees (which might tend to nominate their own). The tutors should not just be casually consulted, but explicitly asked to submit recommendations to the Masters. If the Masters were presented with a list of qualified, wisely chosen, available House members, they would have a much easier selection and the Council would have a more competent and effective membership.