University of Virginia Library

Class Of 1969 Skeptical Of Officers' Actions

By Donn Kessler
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

(Second In A Series)

Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties
that confronted the graduating class last
year was a matter of trust. Due to the
questioning of the election of the class
officers and due to certain actions taken
by the officers, the students had no trust
in their officers and a crisis evolved in the
running of the class.

In the last article, it was pointed out
that Jon Miller, a candidate for class
president, made certain charges against
Robert P. Greene, the past class president
who ran last year's election.

Although most of Mr. Miller's charges were
later discounted by the student council and the
presidential race was validated the questioning
and the invalidation of the treasurer's race
helped to lead to a distrust by the students of
their class officers. This distrust was deepened
by certain alleged "misconduct and mismanagement"
by the officers.

One of the first activities that led to further
student distrust was the lack of preparation and
publicity of two parties for degree candidates.
Both parties were poorly publicized and only
approximately 30 students attended each function.
Most of those attending were friends of
one of the class officers. Almost $3000 was
spend on the two parties.

Another bone of contention of the students
was the use of funds to hold meetings for the
class officers at the Boar's Head Inn.

While Peter Schmidt, president of the class,
told students that the funds had been given to
the officers by an alumnus as a gift to use as
they saw fit, students distrusted the office since
the elections and suspected that class funds
were used.

The distrust reached a climax during the
senior class meeting last May. At that time, the
class officers announced plans for graduation,
class gifts, and graduation parties.

In the area of graduation, the officers stated
that Edgar F. Shannon, Jr., President of the
University, would be the principle speaker at
the degree ceremonies. This announcement was
met by complaints by students for a more
noted man outside of the University community
to speak.

The officers also announced that they had
decided to spend $3000 for the class gift and
would decide what that gift would be. The
amount to be spent was twice as much as the
two preceding classes had spent individually for
gifts.

Finally, the officers announced that one
graduation party would be held at Lake Grenovia.
When a student asked what the racial
policies concerning admission to Lake Grenovia
were, the class officers replied that they had
not bothered to look into the situation. Lake
Grenovia had refused to admit blacks before
1965.

With this information before them and the
information concerning the past parties, the
class meeting fell into complete chaos. Students
rose asking for a referendum on the issues of
graduation, class gifts, and parties. Motions
were made and never voted on. Mr. Schmidt did
not help the order of the meeting when he
announced at its commencement that "this
meeting is being held for your benefit and
unless you keep order, there will be no meeting."

Finally, the meeting broke down in utter
confusion and Mr. Schmidt adjourned the
session.

A referendum was finally held before graduation
and certain results are indicative of the
distrust and dissatisfaction that the students
held for the officers:

1. A majority of those graduates voting
came out for an additional speaker at graduation
ceremonies besides President Shannon.

2. The voters decided a 2-1 margin that all
degree candidates and not the officers should
determine the distribution of class monies in a
later referendum.

3. The class decided by a narrow margin not
to impeach Mr. Schmidt.

The charges against Mr. Schmidt on the
referendum were "gross mis-handling of class
funds and inexcusable neglect in the discharging
of the duties implicit in his elected position."
The vote against impeachment was 414-361.

Finally, a constitution for the senior class
was on the referendum. The class had been
running without any constitution before that
date. The proposed constitution was to be
ratified by a vote of the graduates.

Because of the crisis that occurred last year,
it is important to recognize that few of the
wishes of the graduates were ever realized.

First, the class had decided in the referendum
that they wanted an additional speaker at
graduation. Only President Shannon spoke at
those ceremonies.

Second, the voters had decided that they
wanted to decide how to spend the money for
the class gift. Kevin Mannix, president of the
student council, had suggested to the officers
last year that a meeting at graduation could
have allowed this decision to be make. In the
end, no meeting was held and the class officers
decided how to spend the money.

It is not important nor is it the aim of this
article to chastise the officers of last year's
senior class. It is not our purpose to decide
whether funds were mishandled or not. What is
important to realize, however, is that many
students of the class did not trust their officers
and that the officers were aware of this
distrust. This situation led to the result that
many wishes of the graduates, as shown in the
referendum, were not followed in the running
of the class.

In most likelihood, the distrust that began
with the contested election could have been
averted if there were certain procedures to
follow in the election and if a constitution had
been available to help govern the class.

This year, the student council is handling
the election for the class officers and is now
working on finishing the proposed constitution
that was presented in the referendum last year.
The next article in this series will attempt to
highlight the efforts of the council to avoid the
confusion and distrust that reigned supreme last
year.