IT'S TIME FOR two changes on Harvard's 30-member Board of Overseers. Joan T. Bok '51, chairman of the body, should resign after apologizing for her underhanded attempt to influence the election of Board members; and alumni should vote for John Plotz '69, Kenneth Simmons '54, Gay W. Seidman '78--the three pro-divestment candidates she slighted.

First, alumni should elect these three candidates because they are more than merely symbolic victims of Bok's monumental mishandling of the election. For the first time in the history of the Board, candidates--Plotz, Simmons and Seidman--have placed themselves on the ballot by petition. They are the first people to try to challenge the Harvard hierarchy that mechanically sends willing minions to do its bidding on the Board.

Second, the three are also firmly committed to working for Harvard's divestment from companies that do business in South Africa. Electing the three of them to the Board would send an unmistakable message to Harvard President Derek C. Bok, who is unrelated to Joan Bok, and the Harvard Corporation about where alumni stand on the issue of divestment.

And, finally, the three deserve support because--whether or not they are single-issue candidates as Ms. Bok labeled them--their concern about bringing the issue of divestment to the Board of Overseers indicates that they care deeply about the University. All three candidates are competent, professional people, and if their concern does, as Ms. Bok suggested it might, "make the Board a very different place," that difference will be one motivated by sincere concern about Harvard and what Harvard does.

In past years, only around 20 percent of alumni have voted in the overseers election. But this year graduates should not forego their first chance in a long time to have some voice in University policy decisions. By electing the three divestment candidates, alumni will be challenging the Tammany Hall attitude that has led Harvard to staff the Board with timid yes-men and women. Just to make sure that Tammany Hall attitude is thwarted, the University should invite observers, perhaps from the Undergraduate Council and the press, to monitor the ballot count.

Electing the divestment candidates would be a first step for alumni toward reclaiming a voice in the governance of the University which has been too long muted or forgotten. The Board of Overseers has traditionally rubber-stamped the decisions of the seven-member Corporation, which holds legal title and authority over all that Harvard owns and does, but the overseers do have the power to approve, and to disapprove, the Corporation's decisions.

Which brings us to the final change we'd like to see. Joan Bok has proven over the past weeks that she has neither the breadth of vision nor the integrity to lead the Board. That the person responsible for the fairness of an election would have the lack of discretion to try to influence that vote is a gross disservice to the Harvard community. And one we ought not to tolerate. In the wake of her slimy effort to swing the election, Bok should resign in order to preserve some respect and authority for the membership and the activities of the Board of Overseers.