Even as the dozen or so summer programs of Phillips Brooks House Association (PBHA) began their work yesterday, a letter from Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 signalled the continuation of the structural battle between PBHA and the administration.

Similar in content to a recent proposal by Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, Lewis' letter to PBHA President Andrew J. Ehrlich '97 outlined the College's position in the standoff.

The letter also reiterated the College's request that PBHA leave the University if the community service organization does not acquiesce to the administration's demands.

In an interview last night, Ehrlich said he was "shocked by the tone and content" of the letter, and said it was "full of misrepresentations and very cynical assumptions."

Ehrlich said the "rigidity" of Lewis' letter, dated June 20, has reduced his optimism that an agreement will be reached soon between PBHA and the College.

Lewis could not be reached for comment last night.

In his letter, Lewis affirms his support for a prior proposal by Epps regarding PBHA's structure. Epps had recommended that PBHA embark on a two-year experiment with a Board of Trustees with mixed student-non-student composition, but with only students having voting rights.

PBHA has been pushing for full voting rights for all non-student members on the board. But Lewis argued in the letter that such a structure would give non-students undue control over the organization, violating the autonomy of its student leaders.

Lewis also affirms his opposition to PBHA's move to separate the positions of director of PBH from the position of executive director of PBHA.

Judith H. Kidd, Lewis' much-maligned assistant dean for public service, is director of PBH. But student leaders of PBHA want a leader accountable to PBHA, not to the College.

Lewis expressed concern that the arrangement requested by PBHA would create an "enforced ignorance" between the College and PBHA that would foster "gaps in safety."

Lewis cited a hypothetical example of a mother whose child was involved in a serious accident at one of PBHA's summer camps. He said that it would be "irresponsible and outrageous" for Harvard to be unable to answer the mother's questions about PBHA's safety procedures, even as the College devotes enormous resources to PBHA.

Ehrlich blasted this example as misguided.

"In the end, it's PBHA's name in the community, and our moral responsibility to clients, that we're trying to guarantee," he said.

Ehrlich also criticized what he termed the "fundamentally hypocritical" nature of the College's position.

"I think there is a deep hypocrisy in saying that we support student autonomy, therefore we won't let non-students on the board, but we support the legal authority of staff over a student organization," he said. "Do they support student autonomy or don't they? In this case, they're contradicting themselves."