THE COMMITTEE on Houses and Undergraduate Life's decision last week to open its meetings to the public and the press is a good one. If there is any major complaint about the CHUL's decision to go public after six years of secrecy, it's that the CHUL didn't do it sooner.

Not all CHUL members are happy with the decision, however. Some masters grumbled last week that open meetings will curtail candid discussion and make CHUL sessions meaningless. Such arguments don't really hold much water. The CHUL was established in 1969 purely as a sounding board for College policies. The CHUL discusses House-related issues and makes recommendations to the dean of the Faculty. The dean can do what he wants at that point--either accept or reject the CHUL's recommendation. If there is anything these masters should fear from open meetings, it's that students may see just how little the CHUL really does.

The CHUL unwisely undercut its new open policy by giving its executive committee the option of closing any CHUL meeting. The executive committee should not have that prerogative. Furthermore, the CHUL should make all its proceedings, including subcommittee work, open to the public.

Under the old policy, students were not privy to what CHUL members said at the meetings or how they voted. Now with open meetings, there is a better chance that members will be held accountable to their constituents.