In a policy reversal, the Board of Overseers excluded a vote on South African divestment from its agenda for this weekend's meeting, Overseers said yesterday.

A proposal by Peter H. Wood '64 about divestment was discussed for two hours at the Board's December meeting in preparation for a vote, members said at the time. But Overseer Franklin D. Raines '71 said that divestment was not on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. The agenda is set by the Board's Executive Committee. "I would be very surprised if there was a vote at this meeting," he said.

Overseers President Samuel C. Butler '51, chair of the Executive Committee, could not be reached for comment.

Such a vote would have marked the first time in more than a decade that the 30-member Board gave unsolicited advice to the Harvard Corporation, which is responsible for guiding the University's investment policy. Overseers votes are not binding on the seven-man Corporation.

The decision not to schedule a vote comes as some University officials have expressed concern that the Board is overstepping what they call its traditional role as an advisory body.

In an unusual lobbying effort, Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 and Secretary to the Governing Boards Robert Shenton shuttled to several cities to informally discuss the proper role of the board in University governance.

"We discussed governance questions which included the relationship between the Corporation and the Board of Overseers and questions about the functions and processes of the Board of Overseers," Steiner said. "I also discussed ways that the administration and other members of the University might be more helpful to the Board to increase, if you will, their service and benefits to the University."

Steiner said yesterday that he visited about two-thirds of the overseers during the last month. He said that such trips are not common, and in this case were prompted by concerns on the part of members of the Corporation, the Board of Overseers and some administrators.

In the past few years, some members of the Board have sought to increase the body's role in major policy decisions such as divestment. The recent election of three overseers who ran on a pro-divestment platform has raised concerns that the Board could become politicized. The Board has traditionally rubber stamped most Corporation decisions, playing its most significant role through visitingcommittees, which report on various aspects ofHarvard.

Counsel for the House Committee on Energy andCommerce Consuela M. Washington, another newlyelected Overseer, said Steiner told her in aJanuary meeting in Washington, D.C. that "theBoard was not set up to fully discuss things andput forth binding votes. They don't want activism,they want us to only vote on things when asked toby the Corporation."

Washington, one of the three members of theBoard elected on a pro-divestment slate, said herdiscussions with Steiner touched on more than justthe divestment issue. But she added that they"discussed how to resolve the divestment issuewithout causing conflict with the Corporation,without taking a vote and presenting a Boardposition."

"It was an effort to make the process moreinformal to the extent that Overseers who hadconcerns would be provided with information asopposed to members putting forth propositions forthe Board to vote on and present to theCorporation," Wahsington said, adding that themain concerns members of the Board had voiced wereabout divestment, unionization, and the tenurebattles at the Law School.

Wood said he thought there would be furtherdiscussion of the divestment issue at the meeting,but that he did not think it would focus on hisproposal. "I'm not aware that any suggestions I'vemade are going to be discussed further by theBoard," he said. Wood wrote his proposaldistributed at the December meeting in response toa request by Bok and Butler