Council's Constitution Approved By 85 Per Cent of College Voters

The constitution of the Harvard Council for Undergraduate Affairs was approved by an impressive 85 per cent in the referendum held Thursday. The constitution, which became effective upon ratification, replaces that of the old Student Council.

Light voting prevailed throughout the College; slightly less than a third of the student body cast ballots.

While the vote for approval of the new constitution was clearly passed (it needed a two-thirds margin) the balloting on the name of the new group was considerably Affairs was accepted by a scant 20 vote margin out of more than 1600 cast.

The final figures were 1379 in favor of the constitution, and only 252 opposed. On the name, HCUA received 797 against 777 for Student Council.

Charles M. Warchol '63, chairman of the Council executive committee, seemed to sum up most opinions when he said the vote indicated recognition of the need for Council at Harvard, but expressed disapproval with the controversies over the Council.

While the upperclassmen and freshmen voted similarly on the constitution itself, there was a distinct difference between the Yard and the Houses on the name. The Yardlings voted to retain the old name 269-142. The only House to do so was Dudley, 20-15.

To most Council officers, this seemed to indicate a distrust among upperclassmen of the Council for past abuses, although the freshmen, who are not so aware of the recent past, saw nothing wrong with calling the new group the Student Council.

Figures from the Thursday vote were withheld until this morning to give the Yard a second opportunity to vote. The first vote in the Union could not be considered valid because of poor procedures used, according to Warchol.

The second Union vote, though, did not show much change from the first. Support for the constitution and the old name increased both in numbers and percentages on the second ballot, but not to a great enough extent to affect the final out-come.

Elections for HCUA should take place before Christmas, Warchol said last night. He announced that each House has been asked to use its own discretion in setting the date, but recommended Friday or Saturday, with petitions due Thursday evening.

Both Warchol and Ronald Glantz '62, a member of the Council executive committee, attributed the light vote to lack of interest and a disenchantment with the Council resulting from the recent squabbles. Dunster's William E. Bailey '62, a member of the reorganization committee, blamed it on "deliberate deception or gross incompetence on the part of Warchol."

Bailey said that he and other House Committee chairmen were "caught by surprise" by the date of the vote, and thus were unable to hold "open meetings to stimulate interest." He also criticized the Council for the handling of the Yard vote.

In reply, Warchol said "Bailey himself is responsible for the late date of the vote because he did not distribute the new constitutions."

Voting by Houses (first in favor of the constitution and second in favor of HCUA name): Leverett (127-33, 39-75), Kirkland (105-6, 59-52), Dunster (132-23, 96-57), Quincy (162-30, 108-73), Dudley (33-2, 15-20), Lowell (168-36, 101-88), Eliot (103-17, 64-56), Adams (101-17, 67-45), Winthrop (87-20, 56-42), Yard (261-53, 142-269).