The Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life last night showed support, in a series of straw votes, for a proposal restructuring the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, and authorized the sub-committee which formulated the proposal to begin discussions of the restructuring with a Faculty Council sub-committee.

The proposal, written by four undergraduate CHUL members, recommends equal faculty-student representation on the CRR, and advocates the right to legal counsel and open hearings, if requested by the defendent.

The proposal also recommends that the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which established the CRR, be rewritten in a more "positive tone."

James G. LeMoyne '74-4 and John J. Martin '74-4, members of the sub-committee which submitted the proposal, said the recommendation to rewrite the resolution's substance is as significant as the recommendation to reform the CRR's procedures.

The Faculty adopted the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities in 1970, following student disruptions in the late sixties. The resolution established the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities as a disciplinary committee to hear charges of misconduct brought against Harvard students by members of the University community.

The Faculty Council has consistently defeated previous attempts to reform the CRR.

Instead of voting on the new reform proposal at last night's meeting, the CHUL took straw-votes on 9 major principles of the report.

Each of the principles received a vote of a majority of CHUL members, LeMoyne and Martin said.

"That's damned good support," LeMoyne said. "That everyone of the principles was passed says something I don't think the sentiment has been there before."

The committee took a straw vote due to the "complexity and enormity" of the issues involved, Martin said.

A formal statement issued last night by the CHUL says: "The Committee recognized that it had not had sufficient time for substantive discussion and accordingly the support of the principles should be interpreted only as an ex- pression of sentiment for further discussion."

Martin and LeMoyne emphasized that the report should be considered as a "working paper" and not as a "finished product."

The proposal will now be considered by a sub-committee of the Faculty Council, and later reconsidered by CHUL. If a referendum among the student body then approves the CHUL's recommendation for CRR reform, the recommendation will be sent to the Faculty for final approval.

Besides discussing CRR reform last night, the CHUL established revised procedures for CHUL elections. There was not enough time for discussion of the Gallo boycott, which had been on the agenda