Instead the organization has been run by an elected student board and a group of advisors, made up of community leaders, faculty and former PBHA members.

If the current organizational system is revamped in favor of FAS control, many PBHA students say they fear they will find themselves without a voice in the governance of their organization.

A New Direction

Whoever gets the much-disputed public service deanship, members of the PBHA board say they hope to reorganize their organization to protect their interests.

Currently the student-run non-profit coexists with University hired and administered staff made up of 10 full time employees.

PBHA members say they would like to see the student nonprofit organization coexisting with a different corporation--one run by community members who care deeply about PBH's goals.

"Ideally, we seek a situation where the PBH staff would be legally accountable to all of its constituents including the University and College, but also to the student leadership, alumni/ae, elected officials, community members and donors," reads an August 21 memo from the PBHA board of directors to the members of the PBHA Association Committee.

Pan says the planned committee could have oversight of staff hiring. An upcoming endowment campaign could pay staff members salaries with out FAS funding, he says.

Should the administration prove unfriendly to PBHA's plans, members say the organization could transfer its allegiance away from the FAS to another faculty within the University.

"Harvard gives us a lot. We don't want to leave the University," PBHA Treasurer Andrew Ehrlich '96 said yesterday.

But all these plans may come too late. A new dean for public service would have oversight over the College's entire public service structure. Knowles and Lewis have repeatedly said any changes in the public service structure would have to be approved by the new dean.

Maull-Lewis Recommendations

While PBHA leaders have argued vehemently against the College's proposed restructuring, the Maull-Lewis report lists five reasons for the recommendations to change the PBH structure:

* Public service programs recently have grown very rapidly, but their support systems vary greatly.

* The dual structure of PBH and the Office of Public Service "creates confusions of communication and responsibility."