The Student Council adjourned last night before officially considering either of the two re-organization proposals scheduled for debate.
One is the report of the Council committee on re-organization which recommends an enlarged membership, including the presidents of all undergraduate organizations and five members of each of the three upper classes, and a four dollar head tax on all students.
The second plan, put forth by the Dunster House Committee, advocates abolition of the present Council, and a reformation under the name of the Student Affairs Committee. The new group would be made up of two representatives from each House and three from the freshman class.
The Council will meet again Thursday to give the recommendations full consideration with a view toward setting in motion a plan to reorganize itself by the fall term.
The Dunster plan yesterday received the endorsement of Dean Monro, who has long advocated establishment of some form of inter-House council.
Monro noted that the Student Council "is not a legislative body, it is a representative one" and said it was time to get rid of the "class anachronism" that now exists. He added that "we are trying to train people for democracy, but we do it with a benevolent despotism."
William E. Bailey '62, chairman of the Dunster House Committee, called an enlarged Council "impossible to work with," and charged that the Council "is not doing what the student body wants--concerning itself with the problems of the entire student body."
In answer to Bailey, Roger M. Leed El co-author of the re-organization report, claimed that "the new Council is designed to function as a policy-making body, and represents the widest possible range of student opinion."
Howard J. Phillips '62, president of the Council, called the committee's report use of the best things over put forth in the Council," and said it would promote greater effectiveness through a broad use of popular support."