University of Virginia Library

Council Reconsiders
Strike Referendum

By Ann Brown
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Student Council voted Tuesday night to
change its strike referendum to an opinion poll
asking students whether a moratorium should
be held May 4, 5 and 6 to protest the war in
Indochina.

The vote on the wording change received
little opposition, but the decision to change the
two referendum questions relating to the war in
Southeast Asia to a Council-sponsored opinion
poll followed lengthy debate. Bill Warren,
Graduate Arts and Sciences representative,
reopened the referendum issue. Referring to
last week's decision to hold the referendum,
Mr. Warren stated, "I don't think we spent
enough time on what we are doing here."

Fear Of Poor Turnout

Several Council members expressed fear that
a poor turnout in next week's elections would
result in Council's being bound to organize a
strike although only a small percentage of the
student body might have voted in the
referendum. Mr. Warren also suggested that
perhaps it would be unconstitutional for the
Council itself to propose a referendum since its
constitution did not specifically mention that
power.

Reconsideration Opposed

Tom Collier, Council Secretary, opposed
reconsideration of the referendum since the
Council's decision to hold the war referendum
had already been publicized. He stated that if
the Council had not voted to hold it, student
groups would have entered petitions to include
a spring strike item on the ballot. "I just think
it's in bad faith to tell somebody you're going
to do something and then turn around the night
before it's due and change it," he remarked.

Hugh Antrim, Council Vice-President,
agreed with Mr. Collier's point; however, he
added that the "overriding concern" was that
Council had done the wrong thing last week.

Mike Cohen, Law School representative,
proposed a constitutional amendment to be
included on next week's referendum. If
approved, the amendment will affect future
referenda themselves. It reads: "The results of
the referendum shall be binding on Council
only if 40 percent of students vote in said
election."

A third item for the Council opinion survey
was proposed by Jac Sperling, College
representative, to deal with the proposed plan
for Lambeth Field housing. This proposal
reads: "Do you favor the construction of
high-rise apartment buildings on Lambeth
Field?"

Mr. Mannix reported that he had requested
in a recent interview that University President
Edgar F. Shannon meet with architect Jose Luis
Sert on alternatives to the present Lambeth
Field Plan. Mr. Sperling suggested that Mr.
Shannon might be swayed in his Lambeth Field
decision by student opinion voiced in this poll.

Growth Report Endorsed

In other business, Phil Chabot asked for
Council endorsement for the proposals of
Council's Special Committee on Growth.
Council voted to approve the proposals which
Mr. Chabot, chairman of the committee, called
a "step-by-step response to the problems."

Council also discussed the referendum item
being proposed by the New Constitution Party.
Although the question is being entered as a
referendum, Mr. Mannix and several other
Council members stated that according to the
present constitution the proposal would have to
be approved as a constitutional amendment in
order to be implemented. Daniel Meador and
Carl McFarland, two professors of
Constitutional Law who were consulted by
Council representatives, reportedly agreed that
a two-thirds vote, the amount required for an
amendment, would be needed to implement the
new constitution. A referendum requires only a
simple majority of those votes cast.