vice-chancellor) on the 15-member council. The amendment was supported by a majority of votes (657 to 502), with both supporters and opponents of the reforms claiming victory. The amended proposal was brought to vote by Congregation on 28 November 2006, and was defeated by 730 to 456 votes. A postal vote was called on 5 December, with ballots being sent to all 3000 members of Congregation and votes being accepted until 18 December. On 19 December it was announced that the proposal had once again been defeated, this time by 1540 to 997 votes. Hood stated that he would not treat the defeat as a vote of no confidence, citing a need to "put aside division, continue dialogue with all shades of opinion and, in an atmosphere of trust, tolerance and goodwill, promote the academic aims and ideals of Oxford". The proposed reform met with opposition not because it would invite outside opinion on the university's financial and academic decisions, but because of the impression that control would be wrested from Congregation, thus threatening the university's academic reputation. Furthermore, some opponents claimed that the reform would place too much power in the hands of the vice-chancellor. Other critics questioned the applicability of corporate models of governance in educational institutions. Lord Patten of Barnes stated in December 2006 that without reforms to Oxford's governance it would be more difficult to raise money he said was needed by the university, particularly with respect to needs-based funding to support students from poorer backgrounds. Similarly, Hood stated at the same time that the issue was not "whether there has to be change, but what kind of change." Others criticised the appointment of the Registrar, Julie Maxton, who was noted to be a former colleague of Hood. Maxton was chosen for the position of Registrar by way of a selection committee including consultants, external members of council, and the vice-chancellor of Cambridge. Comparisons were drawn with Lawrence Summers, the 27th President of Harvard University, who announced his resignation on 21 February 2006 following two motions of censure. Although individual academic staff were critical of Hood, no formal motions were brought forward calling for his resignation. However, an informal letter of confidence organised by his supporters in February 2006 attracted only about fifty signatories from Members of Congregation. Contested elections to the Council of the University by Congregation resulted in the election of three leading critics