On March 9, you published a letter from Xuechun Yu that suggested that my staff and I should read the recent column entitled “Hawthorn folks facing filthy future” in the March 4 issue.

I read that article and would like to offer the following information that article did not include.

We have a contractual relationship with the residents in our apartments and residence halls.

This contract provides clear guidelines so that each party is aware of what they can expect from the other.

In USAC, the contract stipulates a priority for residents in this order: 10 apartments for graduate assistant positions; single parents with children living with them; all other married students with or without children; single students.

This priority was established by the USAC Council several years ago. The USAC Council is a group of elected student representatives.

The priority list was not developed by the administration.

The contract issued to single students clearly indicates that it is not an open-ended contract, but is for a specific term with no guarantee that additional contracts will be offered.

Furthermore, the contract indicates that residents may be required, with 45 days notice, to vacate apartments prior to the end of the contract period if the apartments are to be decommissioned.

Students were given over six months notice that they would be required to move; far in advance of the 45-day requirement. Residents who have children in the Ames public schools are being given an additional week to move so that they do not have to vacate as soon as the school term ends.

The contract stipulates that residents must give a 45-day notice prior to canceling their contract.

We have waved the 45-day notice requirement for Hawthorn residents who find another place to live.

The contract does not require the Department of Residence to pay any compensation to anyone when they are required to move.

We have chosen to pay $100 to students moving off campus to assist them with relocation expenses.

We get absolutely no benefit whatsoever from offering this compensation; we did it to help our students.

We have offered $400 in compensation to those who choose to remain on campus in alternative campus housing.

We did this as an incentive to encourage our residents to continue to live with us on campus. Again, we are not required to do this and I doubt if you would find any other landlord who would make this gesture.

All married students in Hawthorn Court who wanted to relocate to University Village or Schilletter Village have been accommodated.

Some single students have been accommodated and we hope to be able to accommodate many more. As of last Friday, there were 30 single students still on the waiting list.

The Department of Residence has greatly exceeded the requirements stipulated in our contract with Hawthorn residents.

We understand that moving is a hassle and we have done everything possible to minimize the negative impact on our residents.

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to completely avoid these types of disruption.

The information cited above would have been available to the writer of the March 4 column if she had contacted our department for our side of the story.

Although I understand that an article on the opinion page is not required to investigate both sides of the issue, I believe your readers would benefit from a more balanced perspective.

---

Randy Alexander

Director of Residence