--Commentary
Pet evictions continue
Editor’s Note: The following
commentary was submitted by
the Pet Committee of the Amazon
Cooperating Tenants, an
organization of married students
living in the Amazon married
student housing project.
Last summer when the State
Board of Higher Education
denied the University of Oregon’s
request for a rent increase in
Amazon, the University was
humiliated in defeat. Amazon
Cooperating Tenants (ACT) had
documented case after case of
misrepresentations, altered and
shuffled expense and income
figures, misunderstanding on the
part of Housing Office officials of
the operation of Housing Office
accounting procedures, out and
out refusals on the part of some
University officials to deal with
ACT, and a benign neglect on the
part of higher administrators.
After making the University look
foolish (the admission of at least
two state board members), ACT
fully expected University of
ficials to do what their jobs
require—to deal in good faith
with a student group. In past
weeks, ACT has met with the
same kind of response from the
University it experienced
previously. The story of ACT’S
request for a moratorium on pet
evictions is a case in point.
Not long after fall quarter got
underway, Amazon’s manager
began handing out eviction
notices to certain residents with
cats.
On Sept. 28 three ACT mem
bers met with Vice-President for
Student Services Gerald Bogen to
inform him that ACT was
working on a pet policy to submit
to the University and ACT felt it
was unfair to threaten residents
with eviction while the policy
might be changed shortly.
Consequently, ACT requested
that Bogen call a moratorium on
pet evictions while negotiations
on the policy were underway. In
his usual smooth and deceptively
amiable manner, Bogen said he
thought something could be
worked out and that he thought a
pet policy could be agreed upon.
However, Bogen said he
wanted the matter first referred
to University Housing Director
H.P. Barnhart. It was agreed
that Greg Hartman would in
formally call Barnhart the next
day to find out his decision, and
Bogen said, “I’ll have Barnhart
formally communicate to
representatives (3). ”
In his conversation with
Hartman, Barnhart refused to
grant a moratorium but declined
to discuss the real issue. A few
days later he mailed Hartman
and several University ad
ministrators a distorted tran
scription of Hartman’s private
conversation, selecting only
certain points to report,
misquoting and taking many of
Hartman’s statements out of
context; it seemed to ACT that
Barnhart had deliberately at
tempted to-make Hartman look
irrational and stupid, but surely
anyone acquainted with both
parties would not be fooled.
ACT’s three negotiators waited
for the formal reply from barn
hart promised by Bogen. By
Oct. 31 (over a month later) no
reply was received; on that day
several ACT members met with
University officials to present a
document defining good faith
negotiations and ACT’s
relationship with the University.
President Clark refused to attend
the meeting.
It was pointed out that Barn
hart had never carried out the
instructions Bogen said he would
give. ACT thought Bogen would
then direct Barnhart to write his
reply. The following day, Nov. 1,
ACT presented Iis proposed pet
policy and supporting documents
to Married Student Housing
Director John Thorpe.
About two weeks later,
Amazon’s manager made more
eviction threats.
Since a formal reply still hadn’t
come from Barnhart, about a
dozen members of ACT met with
Bogen Nov. 20 and read aloud a
letter citing the recent eviction
threats, and once again
requesting that he call a
moratorium. In the presence of
the ACT members Bogen altered
the wording of the first sentence
to make its intent more clear and
something which he said seemed
“reasonable” to him.
ACT was optimistic since a
person usually does not reword a
request to make it reasonable
and agreeable if he intends to
deny it. Bogen told ACT
representative Carol Reich to
call him the following morning to
learn his decision. At 5:30 p.m.
Bogen called the Hartman
residence to ask for information
on ACT’s proposed pet policy and
indicated that he had to have it by
10 a.m. the following day so he
could discuss it at a meeting with
Thorpe and Barnhart. Marie
Hartman explained to Bogen that
ACT did not expect a decision on
its proposed policy to be made the
following day, just a decision on a
moratorium.
Bogen said he wanteu the in
formation nonetheless. Hartman
was surprised at Bogen’s nerve in
giving such short notice; one
wonders what kind of response
the University would give if ACT
made a similar request. (At the
Nov. 20 meeting Bogen said the
negotiations document ACT gave
the University for comment on
Oct. 31 had “no status,” his way
of saying he hadn’t had time to
work on it.) ACT member Joe
Owens spent 4 hours that evening
preparing the information in a
three-page letter.
Marie Hartman called Bogen
at 2 p.m. to learn his decision. He
appeared nervous and after
explaining in detail his morning’s
activities said he was refusing to
grant a moratorium. Hartman
then asked if that meant the
University planned to go through
with evictions.
Bogen appeared surprised and
said Thorpe hadn’t told him about
that. It was pointed out that
ACT’s letter to him which had
been read aloud at the meeting
the day before referred to those
eviction threats, he then replied,
“Well, uh, I dunno... I, uh, guess
that’s, uh, a possibility.”
ACT was appalled at the ap
parent lack of consideration its
request had been given; it ap
peared that in a meeting between
Bogen and Housing Office of
ficials supposedly discussing a
moratorium on evictions the
issue of evictions had not even
been raised!
Hartman requested that a
written reply outlining Bogen’s
reasons for denying a
moratorium be sent to ACT.
Bogen said, “You don’t have to
ask me to do that—I was planning
to do it anyway.” But ACT had
learned in past dealings with the
University that everything must
be placed in writing so on the
following Monday morning, a
letter was handed to Bogen
requesting the written reply.
On Tuesday ACT received a
letter from Bogen in which he
refused to send the response he
had already promised, that “the
responsibility . . . rests with the
University Housing Office.” ACT
expressed its displeasure in a
letter given to Bogen the
following day. Earlier in the year
Bogen chided ACT members for
allegedly not consulting him
before communicating with the
State Board. It now appeared
that Bogen’s position had
changed and he no longer wanted
to be bothered by ACT.
Greg Hartman dropped by
Bogen’s office Friday afternoon
and was handed Bogen’s reply.
“Your point is well taken,” it
began, and continued, “I was
persuaded that the reasons
outlined in Mr. Barnhart’s
summary of a conversation with
Greg Hartman were valid.” It
was not clear whether Bogen was
persuaded by Barnhart’s non
existent formal reply to the
moratorium or by his distorted
transcription of a private con
versation which ACT did not
NOW APPEARING
NOTARY SOJAC Dec. 4 thru 9
LUNCH, DINNER. AND SANDWICH MENUS
II30L-230.- %TI FRANKLIN wffl-3877
accept. ACT reviewed Barnhart’s
purported transcript, and found
only two “reasons” for the denial
of the moratorium.
The first read, .. we do have
a pet policy at present and I could
not accept a moratorium on
enforcing that policy, that if a
new pet policy were adopted at
some future time that the new
policy would then be in effect.”
Barnhart continued, “I
rationalized (sic) not supporting
a moratorium on the grounds that
all people who were living in
Amazon knew before they
arrived that no pets were per
mitted, and that I suspected (sic)
that numbers of those people had
pets and were forced to leave
them in their permanent address
or give them to friends or dispose
of them in some other way . .
Bogen was persuaded by
Barnhart’s “rationalization" and
“suspicions,” even after telling
ACT he thought its moratorium
request was reasonable?
For a week and a half ACT has
been attempting to make an
appointment with Clark to
continue the discussion. An ap
pointment was set up for
Tuesday, Dec. 5, then cancelled
by Clark’s office, which
suggested that it be changed to
Thursday, but then the Thursday
openings mysteriously closed.
ACT now has a meeting
scheduled with Clark Friday.
ACT hopes he will have the
courage to reverse a Barnhart
decision.
In the meantime ITiorpe has
not answered two ACT letters
regarding the proposed pet
policy.
In the meantime eviction
threats continue—one family
received a formal eviction notice
from the Housing Office last
Friday.
ACT recognizes that the
University thus far has refused to
take ACT seriously because it
figures ACT is run by a handful of
radicals who will eventually
return to their studies, jobs, or
graduate. It appears now that the
University has recognized
another alternative to avoid
dealing with ACT—eviction!!!
CANDL
WAREHOUSE
12 to 6 T-F
WARE
HOUSE
SALE
Sandcasts
Birds
Tapars
Chunks
Floating
Hanging
941 West 3rd
WATER BED MRS
Queen Size.$7.00
‘KingSize .$8.00
Shredded Foam
*0 cents bag
SLEEPING
BAG PADS
24” x 75”
1” thick - $2.95
l'« -13.60
2” -$5.95
SLEEP-HIRE
39 E. 10th
Next to the Overpark
* 343-2748
\aaaaaaaaaaaaaA