The plan requires that a voting quorum of eightmembers be present to conduct business, but ifstudents were to boycott the body, the FacultyCouncil could reassign the case to the Ad Board or"take other appropriate action." In addition, thenew body will not hear cases involving faculty oradministrators.

Reaction to the proposal among studentsinvolved in the disciplinary reform process wasmixed. Richard S. Eisert '88, one of twoundergraduates on the drafting committee, hailedthe plan as a major breakthrough for students.

"I'm very satisfied with it insofar as itincorporates everything we thought we could get,"said Eisert, who next week will run forreelection as chairman of the UndergraduateCouncil.

But other students said Eisert and formercouncil chairman Brian C. Offutt, the otherundergraduate on the Faculty Council's draftingcommittee, failed to meet their responsibility totheir constituents.

The council had proposed another plan whichwould have created a single judiciary that wouldhave had jurisdiction over students, faculty andadministrators.

"I felt kind of useless sitting on thatcommittee," said Jay I. Hodos '89 of theUndergraduate Council's ad hoc committee ondiscipline.

Hodos said that Eisert and Offutt, in theirrole as members of the drafting committee,compromised the student government's position bysupporting the proposal of the Faculty Council