The Faculty took another step toward overhauling its working procedures yesterday by approving one more section of the Fainsod Report.

The section approved at yesterday's meeting will create a new "Docket Committee," to oversee the progress of Faculty legislation.

The Faculty amended the motion once before passing it. The amendment, sponsored by Ray J. Glauber, professor of Physics, cut back the Docket Committee's power to regulate Faculty debate.

The new Docket Committee will have three Faculty members plus the dean of the Faculty as chairman. The three other members will come from the "Faculty Council," another new body that the Faculty voted last month to create.

As stated in the formal motion, the Docket Committee's duties will be to "prepare business for Faculty meetings" and to "propose procedures by which that business will be considered."

In a speech introducing the plan. Don K. Price, professor of Government and member of the Fainsod Committee, explained some of the specific ways the Docket Committee might use its powers.

He said I could serve as a kind of "rules committee." recommending procedures- such as limited debate time or restricted right to amend- for each issue that came before the Faculty.

But Price said that any of these limiting recommendations could be overturned by a majority vote of the full Faculty at the beginning of a meeting.

Another member of the Fainsod Committee- Andrew Gleason, professor of Mathematics- said the Docket Committee was a necessary step to streamline Faculty legislation to "meet the press of business as it comes up."

"The committee needs some authority," Gleason said. "but that raises the specter of authoritarianism." But hesaid that several checks on the committee - including a plan to have it report regularly on upcoming business- would keep it from becoming too powerful.

In proposing his amendment, Glauber agreed that a Docket Committee would "generate background material" and help the Faculty deal with issues more quickly.

But he opposed plans to give the Docket Committee the power to restrict debate. "I propose giving the benefit of the doubt to our present freedom instead of constraint," Glauber said. He then suggested three main changes in the original Docket Committee plan:

any Faculty member would be able to add an item to the docket of a Faculty meeting, without going through the Docket Committee:

the Docket Committee would not be able to restrict amendments on any issue:

the Faculty- by a simple majority vote at any time during a meeting- could overturn any procedural ruling of the Docket Committee.

Another supporter of the amendment- Edwin E. Moise. professor of Education and Mathematics- said the original plan would leave the Faculty no flexibility to consider new issues that emerge during debate.

"It is all right to agree on the rules of a game before it starts," Moise said. "But this is not a game. It is serious legislation."

After brief discussion the amendment passed by a vote of 129-84. The amended motion then carried easily on a voice vote.

The Docket Committee plan was the second of four proposals from the Fainsod Committee. The first- creating a Faculty Council- was approved on Nov. 18. The third and fourth- dealing with student-Faculty committees and with the relation of the Faculty to the Governing Boards- will come up in January.