University of Virginia Library

Motion Favoring Easing Of Rules
By Visitors Fails In Council Vote

By Tom Adams
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Walker Chandler presented a
motion to the Student Council
Tuesday that he wanted submitted
to the Board of Visitors at their
meeting this weekend as a
statement of the Council's policy.
The motion, which failed to pass,
dealt with University regulations on
student conduct, car regulations
and visitation hours.

It reads "Whereas individual
liberty and responsibility are
cherished precepts at the University
of Virginia,

"Whereas those individual
liberties and responsibilities should
properly be outside the realm of
administrative authority; and

Student Capability

"Whereas the students of the
University have in repeated
instances shown themselves capable
and willing to assume responsibility
in the government and maintenance
of their own affairs, we the student
body of the University of Virginia
strongly urge:

"1. That the Review Board be
empowered to set, define, and
enforce all rules concerning
visitation privileges in the
dormitories and that the fraternities
be permitted to use their own
discretion in these matters of
private concern;

"2. That, concerning the use
and possession of motor vehicles,
University traffic authorities
concern themselves only with the
regulation of on-Grounds traffic
and parking;

No Conduct Regulation

"3. That the administrative
authorities cease to regulate
off-Grounds student conduct."

Pieter Schenkkan objected to
the first part of the motion because
it conflicted with a motion the
Council had passed the week before
giving individual committees in the
dormitories control over the setting
and enforcement of visitation
privileges.

Explaining his reasoning for
dropping car rules, Mr. Chandler
explained "that if a student wants
to flunk out, let him. That might be
the best way for him to get an
education."

The motion failed, receiving
only four votes.

In other business, both the
Charlottesville Draft Opposition
Group and the Students for a
Democratic Society were
recognized by the Council, along
with several other University
organizations.

Rules Revised

Last spring, the SDS was denied
recognition by the Council. The
procedures for recognition have
been revised this year so that any
group desiring recognition need
only provide certain information to
the Council to do so.

Gene Angle, the Council
representative from the graduate
business school, presented the
following motion, which passed
unanimously, "Due to the fact that
University students were not
adequately advised concerning the
fact both student identification
cards and library cards were to be
kept for the entirety of their tenure
at the University or until instructed
to destroy same; and whereas those
students who unknowingly
destroyed either or both of these
cards were required to pay
additional charges to have their
cards replaced in order to register
or use the library;

Clarification Asked

"That the fees so charged be
refunded and clarification be
rendered to prevent any future
occurrences."

Mr. Angle said he presented to
motion because he knew many
students who thought new
identification and library cards
were issued each year. He said that
when issued, there was no warning
on the cards against throwing them
away at the end of the academic
year.

There is a five dollar charge for
replacing a student's identification
card and a one dollar cost to
replace a lost library card.

Law school representative
George McMillan presented a
motion asking "that the Student
Council request the Traffic Control
Committee to prohibit parking in
the two adjacent lots located
immediately north of McCormick
Road and west of Emmett Street
from the hours of 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Monday through Friday for a one
month time period as an
experiment to see if the parking
spaces involved might not be more
equitably utilized."

Mr. McMillan also asked "that a
committee of Student Council
members be appointed to assist the
Traffic Control Committee in the
administration of this regulation
and to evaluate the effect of said
regulation's implementation."

He explained, the reason for his
motion, saying that in the morning
commuting students to the
engineering, graduate business, and
law schools have no place to park
except Scott Stadium because
dormitory residents leave their cars
in these two lots "for days."

He said that he was in the lot at
2 a.m. Tuesday and "over half of
the lot was full."

James Roebuck objected to the
plan because he thought it
discriminated against the Monroe
Hill dormitory residents. Mr.
McMillan replied that he thought it
would put the commuters and the
dormitory residents on equal
"competition" for the parking
spaces.

The motion was passed.