After more than three months of debate and discussion, the Student Advisory Committee (SAC)--the governing body of the Institute of Politics (IOP)--voted Saturday against a proposal designed to open up the SAC election process to non-members.

Instead, SAC voted to keep the current system in place but to allay concerns of accessibility by making "programmatic changes," specifically publishing the by-laws that govern the selection process.

The rejected proposal would have had the IOP's smaller committees--which plan events, internships and study groups--elect their own members, called associates, to SAC. Currently, SAC is a self-perpetuating system, with members choosing new committee chairs.

"We looked at the...proposals we had in front of us, and we concluded that it was definitely very important to make our current selection process and by-laws more accessible," said SAC Chair Byron J. McLain '00. "But we decided as a body that the current process...contain[s] many strengths, and that it would be better if we continued using that process."

But a number of those who were in support of the proposal, when contacted by The Crimson yesterday, said they continue to have concerns about what they see as the closed and elitist nature of SAC.

"I think they sent the clear message that they don't want associates to have a say in selecting the leadership of their own organization," said Michael J. Passante '99, a SAC member who co-authored the proposal.

A second proposal which would have excluded first-years from SAC membership was also discussed. Both proposals were voted down after three hours of deliberation, according to SAC Vice Chair C.J. Mahoney '00.

"It's hypocritical for the IOP to be promoting politics if they're not going to be supporting democracy," said associate Andrew J. Green '99, who signed a petition in support of the first proposal.

The first proposal was co-authored by associate Kathryn R. Markham '99-'00 and SAC members Eugenie A. Lang '00 and Passante. Twenty-three associates signed the petition, and eight sent supplementary letters detailing their support.

Markham said she is unsure how the "programmatic changes" can address her concerns.

"I don't know how you would associate programmatically the idea of having associates vote without actually having them vote," said Markham, who is also a Crimson editor. "I'll be interested in seeing what that means."

Others said they were unhappy with how SAC had considered the reforms themselves, saying that they reflected the exact problems the reforms were aimed to fix.

In her letter supporting the proposal, Alysson R. Ford '00 wrote that a small group of people decides who leads the organization, and that under the proposal associates could choose leaders who would represent their views.

"I find it particularly reprehensible that as SAC prepares to consider changes to this structure, it has not even solicited the opinions of its associates," wrote Ford, who is also a Crimson editor. "While the opinion of SAC is important, how can you discuss this issue in an informed manner if you do not also know how the associates at the IOP feel?"

Markham and others who signed the petition said that they were concerned that the IOP voted down a proposal supported by a diverse group of students with varying levels of involvement in the IOP.