Design Faculty Again Reviews Hartman Case

The Graduate School of Design Faculty yesterday decided to attempt again to form a review committee to hear the appeal case of Chester W. Hartman '57.

Each faculty member selected ten person in order of preference from a list of about 100 names at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting yesterday.

The Rogers Committee--the group designated to implement the ad hoc procedures established by the GSD Faculty last May to govern the appeal proceedings--will tally the votes and attempt to form a five-member committee, beginning with those who received highest preference.

Hartman Protest

Hartman, formerly an assistant professor of City Planning at the GSD, was told two years ago by Maurice D. Kilbridge, dean of the GSD, that his contract would be terminated. He appealed his dismissal, maintaining that the action was prompted by personal and political considerations and constituted a breach of due academic process.

The procedure is essentially a replay of the eight-month appeal that produced a review committee in January, only to have the committee abolished in February after Hartman charged that the process had violated two of his rights under the ad hoc procedures.

In a memo dated February 25 and sent to individual faculty members, Hartman requested that the ad hoc procedures be scrapped, calling the history of his appeal "malodorous" and adding that "almost no one of any consequence in the University community or with any sense of fairness" would serve if the appeal process was not altered.

Motion Made?

Kilbridge said yesterday that the meeting had "discussed" changing the appeal procedures, but "no stated motion was made."

"There was a lot of conversation with the word 'motion' being tossed about, but none was actually made," he said.

Kilbridge characterized the one and one-half hour meeting as "very simple and straightforward."

But faculty sources said yesterday that a motion to revise the appeal procedures had been made and seconded from the floor, but Kilbridge, who chaired the meeting, had ruled it out of order.

Hartman, who is presently a lecturer in the City Planning Department at the University of California at Berkeley, said last night that he is "disappointed" that the GSD faculty did not revise the review procedures.

"People were reluctant to serve on the committee the first time. They will be even more so now," he said. "The Rogers Committee is asking for another lengthy delay in a process that has already dragged on for two years."

He added that he will officially respond to the GSD's latest move within the next week.

The approximately 100 names on yesterday's GSD ballot consisted of 45 names from a n original list of June 11, 1971, with approximately an additional 50 names submitted last month by Hartman. Under the ad hoc procedures, the names were required to be Harvard faculty from any school outside the GSD.

Hartman's successful challenge of last month had charged that the Rogers Committee violated the provisions of the ad hoc procedures in two instances. He maintained that he had been given no opportunity to make additions to the list of nominees, a violation apparently rectified by his nominations late last month to the present list.

Hartman also charged that the Rogers Committee had gone beyond the original list of 20 before it found five persons to fill the committee. He said the Peter P. Rogers, associate professor of City Planning, had told him that this challenge was also correct.

In a letter to Hartman dated February 25, Rogers said that his committee would "approach the Faculty (at Yesterday's meeting) for permission to exceed the list of 20 names if it turns out that we cannot get five acceptances out of the first 20 this time."

GSD faculty sources said yesterday that there was no discussion of the 20-person limit at yesterday's meeting. The Crimson obtained a copy of yesterday's ballot--marked "Confidential"--and the ballot instructions similarly contained no mention of the 20-person limit.

Rogers said last night that the Rogers Committee "had not introduced" the question of the 20-person limit at yesterday's meeting because "we just decided we wouldn't."

Rogers said he hoped to have a new review committee selected "as soon as possible.