The four freshman nominees to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) presented proposals to reform that body to a meeting of the student caucus of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) yesterday.

The nominees' proposals for changes include guaranteeing students brought before the CRR the right to have legal counsel, and forming a board to which CRR decisions could be appealed. The proposals would also give students and faculty equal representation on the committee, and open CRR meetings to the public.

Preliminary Support

In an informal count, the student caucus voted unanimously to support the proposal to guarantee the right to counsel, and voted 5-4 to support the proposal to open CRR hearings, leaving either the defendant or the complainant the right to close them.

The caucus was split evenly on the question of whether both the defendants and the complainants should have the right to appeal CRR decisions to a proposed separate board. The vote was also split on whether there should be equal student-faculty representation.

The CRR nominees will try to work with the faculty to implement the proposals, Robert Ware '80, a nominee, said yesterday. He added, however, that "if the faculty does not show any reasonable interest or willingness to instigate changes we deem necessary in the CRR, then we will be forced to quit the board."

A panel of freshmen voted on March 15 to nominate the four now issuing the proposals. The vote ended a seven-year student boycott of the student-faculty disciplinary committee.

If the equal representation proposal were adopted, there would be seven faculty and seven student members on the committee, as well as a chairman--a member of the Faculty--who would vote only in case of a tie.

Charter Members

By charter, the CRR should consist of five tenured faculty members, two non-tenured faculty members, one senior tutor, two graduate students, and four undergraduates. Graduate students are still boycotting the committee.

"Although 99 per cent of the time votes will not break down along student-faculty lines, the faculty has the duty to discipline students according to existing legislation, and it wants to have the ultimate decision on any disciplinary action," William T. Prewett '79, a CHUL representative, said yesterday.

Compromises, Compromises

The freshman CRR nominees will modify the proposals to bring them more in line with the views of the CHUL caucus, and will then meet again with the caucus. The CRR nominees will review the final draft of their proposals with the panel that elected them before finally giving the proposals to the faculty members of CRR.