The issue of changing new campus postering regulations reached a Byzantine climax this week after horsetrading at Monday's bitter meeting of the Committee on House and Undergraduate Life (CHUL).

Following two weeks of negotiations between Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, and a student delegation, administrators and students entered the CHUL meeting thinking they had reached a compromise--but the two sides had tuned in to different frequencies.

Warning that undergraduate organizations were facing a "communication crisis," the students thought the administrators would alter their new postering regulations--confining announcements to seven kiosks in the Yard--until alternative advertising means could be put into practice.

But Deans Rosovsky, Fox and Epps expected the students to accept the kiosk rules without modification in exchange for the alternatives, which include enclosed bulletin boards in the Yard, better maintenance of the kiosks, creation of a free service to distribute posters on campus, and distribution of a student activities cal endar (which students found on their doorsteps yesterday).

In practice, Fox and Rosovsky argued, once students were allowed to return to the old pattern of postering on buildings, fences and sidewalks--even on a temporary basis--the new regulations would fall by the wayside.

It was only after CHUL approved the advertising alternatives and voted to allow students to place posters for "next-day" events on the four major gates to the Yard that the disagreement became clear.

Fox reminded CHUL of its status as an advisory committee and warned that he probably could not accept both the advertising alternatives and the change in postering rules. Rosovsky then said the committee could reconsider the matter.

It did. After a 20-minute debate, CHUL reversed its earlier decision and left the postering rules unchanged.

Students immediately accused Fox of "blackmail" and "duplicity." In a draft letter to The Crimson, they argued that "the issue here clearly transcends that of postering," saying the meeting "illustrates how the administration and in particular, Dean Fox, can manipulate an advisory committee to rubberstamp its own decisions."

Fox yesterday disagreed. "Manipulation has nothing to do with it," he said, adding, "There had been a failure of communication in the negotiations, and I felt I had to tell CHUL that the situation had turned out differently than I expected. It is important to distinguish between confusion and some intent to manipulate."