To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing concerning the recent "vindication" of a questionably elected Adams House Undergraduate Council representative ("UC Members Cleared," October 10). The candidate in question clearly violated established council rules by campaigning before the official date, September 29, announcing in the dining hall his candidacy and a party held in the Adams House lower common room sponsored by the "Committee to Elect (Candidate X) to the Undergraduate Council," as well as affixing campaign posters throughout the several entries of Adams House.

I brought this to the attention of David Aronberg '93, vice chair of the Undergraduate Council, in the form of a written complaint. A meeting was held to address this concern. Candidate X was invited, and provided the Executive Board of the council a list of 10 names on his behalf. I was not informed of this meeting, nor invited to attend. Aronberg informed another member of Adams House who had information to substantiate my complaint that he did not need to be present at the meeting or submit evidence, suggesting his reluctance to pursue this matter to a just end.

Knowing that an injustice had occurred, I took it upon myself to call Aronberg to discuss the outcome of the meeting. During the conversation, Aronberg said that it was feasible that the decision had been undermined by a conflict of interest, since some members of the Executive Board had committed similar transgressions. He then promised to call me later that evening. Aronberg, I am still waiting for your call.

Clearly, several errors have been made by Aronberg. Not only was he a source of misinformation, but he also attempted to discredit my complaint to the Executive Board. In addition to that, he breached confidentiality despite my expressing the intent to keep the issue as discrete and quiet as possible. His unwillingness to address my concerns is troubling to me and many other residents of Adams House. Aretha D. Davis '93