HCUA Chairman H. Reed Ellis is to be commended for his decision to reinstate David Eisenman '65 on the ballot for class marshal. But this face-saving maneuver cannot disguise the HCUA's unfair and stupid handling of the elections.

Eisenman had been disqualified because of a rule prohibiting advertising by marshal candidates. Neither the nor most of the other candidates had heard of the rule. His disqualification was announced after votes had been cast and tabulated. The decision to disqualify him had been arbitrarily made by a single HCUA member in charge of the election, who counted the votes alone, and whose roommate was a marshal candidate. At this time, Eisenman's votes had not been counted.

The next morning Eisenman's votes were counted, and it was found that he placed among the top eight. Ellis decided to let him run, and dropped from the list the ninth-place candidate who had been announced as a finalist. But then the HCUA decided this was unfair, so it reversed itself again and allowed nine names to be placed on today's ballot.

The HCUA officials have totally bumbled what should have been a simple election procedure. Adding that administration confusion to their high-handed treatment of Eisenman and to their pompous and arbitrary handling of the questions raised by Faye Levine's candidacy, one can only wonder if the HCUA is capable of doing anything at all.

To prevent such a situation as L'Affaire Eisenman from recurring, the HCUA would be wise to take two steps.

* To remove any possible taint of dishonesty, it should make public--or at least available--the vote totals and ballots for class marshal.

* It should draw up a set of rules for the handling of elections, so that the sole authority over them would not be exercised by a single HCUA bureaucrat.

The class marshal election should be a simple process in which seniors decide who shall lead the commencement. It is clearly absurd that a body which purports to represent the students should frustrate rather than expedite the decision.