To the Editors of The Crimson:

The article printed in The Crimson on October 20 concerning the proposed reforms of the Currier House Committee constitution ("Currier Looks at Amendments") unfortunately left a few wrong impressions. We who are involved in promoting change at Currier would like to correct these impressions.

First, the recall measure we are proposing states that if one third of Currier questions a decision of house committee, then a vote should be taken by the entire house in order to determine whether or not the measure should be repealed. (The article stated that "if one third of Currier objects to a decision then the vote should be nullified.")

The complaint addressed by one of the proposed amendments is not, as The Crimson stated, that meetings are not posted enough in advance, but that they are sometimes not posted at all, and that the present constitution has no provision requiring the posting of agendas for the meetings. The residents of the house should know what will be discussed in house committee in advance, with the obvious exception of any new business that may arise at the meeting.

The purchase of the television set was objectionable to some house members for two separate sets of reasons. First, many members of the house felt that it was wrong for house committee to appropriate funds for a private area of the house without more people in the house being aware of the situation. Some in favor of the measure have attempted to draw a parallel between the 10-man suite in Currier and Coggeshall, which are both locked areas that are considered part of the house. However, we should remember that Coggeshall is generally a residence for sophomores, who do not request to be housed there. It is a building separated from the house, and anyone in Coggeshall who wanted to watch television before the purchase of their television last year would have had to go outside and walk to Currier. Most importantly, Coggeshall is not a private suite. It is not lotteried as a private suite, and those who live there generally do not even know one another very well before they all move in together. The 10-man suite, on the other hand, is just that--a suite. In the spring, 10 people decide to live together and apply as a rooming group to live in the suite the next year. These people are predominantly seniors. The suite is not separated from the rest of the house, and a common television is located but an elevator ride away from the suite. The situation is exactly analogous to purchasing a television set with house committee money and then placing it in a single Currier room.

However, the major issue, which was not addressed by The Crimson, is that the television set was funded unconstitutionally. Currier's present constitution has a rule that house committee meetings must by posted 48 hours in advance, and it also has a bylaw prohibiting retroactive funding. At the last house committee meeting, held Sunday, Oct. 17, an unusually large number of voters attended. A majority of them were convinced that the funds had been appropriated after the television had been purchased and that the second meeting at which the funds were voted had not been posted. This majority then declared that the funding of the television set was unconstitutional on these grounds.

The point of the proposed constitutional changes is not to divide the house, nor is it to somehow "get" those who voted originally to purchase the television. Rather, it is an attempt to make Currier's house committee constitution more fair. The house should always know what issues will be discussed in house committee meetings, and if an extremely unpopular measure is passed, the members of the house should have some recourse. Finally, funds should not be given to private groups or suites that are not open to all residents of the house unless an overwhelming majority of the house is in favor of doing so. Julie Novkov '89