University of Virginia Library

Council Rejects Letter
Apologizing To Board

By Barry Levine
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Following a heated debate, the Student
Council last night rejected a motion
to send a letter to administrative officials
expressing "further clarification of Council's
action" preceding the "misunderstanding"
concerning student representation
at the Board of Visitors' meeting last
weekend.

The letter, written by councilman Ron
Hickman, was defeated 12-6. It would
have been sent to Frank Rogers, Rector
of the Board of Visitors, and carbon
copies would have been made available to
other officials.

Mr. Hickman defended his letter as an
"official reiteration" of the apology
expressed by Council President Bud Ogle
and Vice President Paul Hurdle to the
Board regarding the incident.

The letter read in part: "The misunderstanding
centered around whether
the Council, through its President, had
informed the Committee, through you, of its
desire to be represented. The invitation to the
Council President and Vice President requested
an affirmative indication of their intent to
attend.

"At the Council's meeting of November 18,
subsequent to discussion of a proposal by Mr.
Ogle that Council not be represented at the
Committee meeting, the following motion was
adopted by a unanimous vote of the Student
Council:

" '. . .that the Student Council express its
displeasure that President Shannon did not
recommend, or the Board see fit to adopt, the
recommendation of President Shannon's
Special Committee on Open Meetings with the
Board of Visitors, that Council feels that
meaningful dialogue, not token listening, is
essential for better University-wide communication
and progress, and that the Student Council
ask the President and Vice President to attend
the meeting and express the dissatisfaction with
current channels of communication.'

"On November 19, Mr. Ogle wrote to you
conveying only a portion of this motion, with
no mention of Council's desire to have its
President and Vice President represent it at the
Committee meeting. It is our understanding
that no other form of acceptance was offered
to you or the Board, prior to the invitation
being withdrawn on those grounds.

"The intent of Council's motion was not
only to express our desire for better communication
between the Board and students, but
also to re-affirm our desire to represent
students before this Committee on Student
Affairs.

"Unfortunately, it is now obvious that our
full intent was not conveyed. And as a result,
our goal of improved communication was
hampered by our own inadvertence.

"With this letter, we would like to re-affirm
our longstanding concern for improved communication
with the Board. We hope that
through this clarification, that goal will be
furthered."

Mr. Ogle replied that, as a result of "a
secretarial mistake," a carbon copy of his letter
was not available for the Council's last meeting.
He also indicated that the "inadvertent
mistake" of neglecting to indicate to administration
officials that other copies were being
sent only served to increase the misunderstanding.

Mr. Ogle said that he had made four written
requests for an indication of whether Council
representatives were to attend the entire Board
meeting or just a part of it, and had received
several replies, none of which "clarified the
situation."

"We apologized three times before the
Board," Mr. Ogle said, "and not once did they
indicate their partial responsibility."

Council member Tom Gardner commented,
"Mr. Ogle had arranged for [a meeting
concerning the agenda of the Board meeting]
that would have indicated we would want to
attend that meeting at which the agenda would
be presented. Some doubt might have been
raised, and Mr. Hereford could have resolved it
by a simple phone call. . ."

Commenting on the phone call he placed
Thursday that resulted in the Board's reinvitation,
Mr. Hickman said, "There was no magic in
my call, just an indication of a widespread
feeling that we wanted better communication.

"[The letter] does not indicate that we are
totally responsible for the misunderstanding,
but puts Student Council behind [Mr. Ogle's
apology].

Councilman Tom Breslin disagreed, saying
"I think the clear intention is to censure Arthur
Bud Ogle."

Following the letter's rejection, Mr. Ogle
stated, "I think this indicates the need for new
communication with the Board."