FIVE months ago, not even the most skeptical of skeptics could have imagined how ineffectual the Student Faculty Advsory Council would turn out to be.

After six meetings, the SFAC has made a total of two recommendations to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. One of them--a request to seat one of its own members who was on Dow probation--was approved. The other--a request to postpone Dow's second visit to Harvard--was rejected.

In the meantime, the Council has discussed and tabled two important resolutions, even though the majority of its members clearly favored their adoption. One resolution asked for a ban on military recruiting here as long as General Hershey's "punishment" order remained in effect. The other asked Harvard to allow non-commercial television coverage of nearly all--not just politically "balanced"--news events.

At its best, the SFAC is the "debating society" that progenitor Stanley Hoffmann hoped it would never become. Three question-and-answer sessions--with President Pusey, John B. Fox Jr. '59 of the Office of Graduate and Career Plans, and three SDS officials--have spiced up proceedings somewhat, but they have led to few important discoveries and no action. Committee work too has been largely ineffective and for the most part unenlightening.

The SFAC was doomed at birth. Like many other student groups (HUC, for example), its precise role in the policy-making apparatus of the University was unclear. Most members did not know until after the Faculty had voted down the Dow resolution that the SFAC would have to channel its proposals through the Faculty before they would reach the Administration and be enacted. Two months later, the SFAC's status remains unclear: Can a television proposal go straight to the Council of Deans? Does a resolution asking SFAC members to take polls of their constituents require Faculty approval? No one really knows.

A SECOND problem is that the SFAC has an over-blown view of its own power. Members feel they must use their power cautiously to avoid offense or provocation. They feel a ponderous pseudo-responsibility to perform solemnly and circumspectly. In fact, they have very little power, as the Faculty has shown them.

They need not be so concerned about constantly trying to please the Faculty and Administration by wording their proposals just right. If any group at Harvard can afford to be honest, it is the SFAC.

The role of the Faculty members on the Council is distinctly different from that of the student. The Faculty member was appointed by President Pusey--not elected. He has no constituency, and, therefore, no power base or responsibility. In general, he sees his role as a modulating one. He is reluctant to press for his own proposals because he feels guilty about using his age and position to influence the students. Instead, he ends up obstructing things. He constantly opts for more delay to "protect" the students from doing anything rash. In the end, nothing gets done at all.

This disappointing performance of Martin Peretz, Instructor in Social Studies, shows how this state of mind exists even among the more radical Faculty members. Peretz originally proposed the ban on military recruiting at the January 16 meeting, but later withdrew his support from the proposal. As chairman of the last meeting, he was reluctant to use the pressure of his position to bring the television motion to a vote. As a result, it was tabled.

Faculty members have exhibited far less interest in the SFAC than students. Their attendance has fallen off sharply. Even one of the more active members of the Council asked for an adjournment immediately after the start of the last meeting because only half of the members had appeared by 3:15 p.m. Faculty participation on committees has also been limited.

ANOTHER problem is that most of the members are maladroit in the procedure of meetings. The few who know Robert's Rules are able to have their way. At the last meeting, Oscar Handlin provoked a debate over the use of the word "rally" in the television proposal. The 6 p.m. deadline approached as the debate went on, and the proposal was finally tabled for lack of time.

A few substantive changes might help the SFAC accomplish more: the Council must have a permanent chairman to give it some sort of continuos direction; SFAC should be more willing to accept at least the wording of committee resolutions and not waste valuable time over petty points; meetings should be once a week, and those members who cannot attend should resign rather than hold up the others; provisions should be made to continue the Council next year.

More important, the SFAC should ask the Administration to define its role more distinctly. The Council should have presented an important proposal to the Faculty soon after it was formed to test its strength and gain the confidence of the students. Unfortunately, this was not done. It is now probably too late to salvage the respect of the Faculty and the students, but the SFAC should try. Concrete results--whether the Faculty accepts Council recommendations or not--are needed now. If the SFAC accomplishes nothing else, it can at least show how much of a role the Administration is willing to give students in its policy-making process.