After months of work, the Catt Hall Review Committee presented its final report to the Government of the Student Body Wednesday night.

A slide presentation by Anthony Bateza, LAS and member of the committee, and Dan Pasker, chairman of the committee, included the report with a list of 14 recommendations made by the committee.

The committee said it had not arrived at a consensus as to whether Catt Hall should be renamed or whether the naming process should be reopened.

Jamal White, GSB vice president, said he was not surprised the committee was unable to reach a consensus.

“They put people with completely opposite views on the committee,” he said. “I can’t say that I really expected the committee to reach a consensus in regards to the naming process and renaming of the building.”

Although he would have liked to hear a yes or no decision, White said he understands why the group did not come up with one.

“In an ideal world I guess I would have liked it, but I also realize that it would have been nearly impossible for that group to come up with a consensus on those issues,” he said.

GSB President Bryan Burkhardt said the complexity of the issue had to be taken into account.

“I don’t think the committee has anything to feel ashamed about for not [coming to a conclusion],” he said.

According to the draft proposal for the committee, the committee’s goal was to provide closure and healing for students on campus who want to see the issue addressed.

“I don’t think there really has been a closure,” White said. “However, there were some good recommendations that came out of the process that will help provide information to people on campus.”

White said he could understand why some students might not feel closure with the committee’s outcome.

“The statement that a lot of people were looking for was an actual answer — should we rename the building or not,” White said. “To a lot of people, that’s what the heart of the matter was, and nothing’s been resolved about that.

“It’s also a matter of, are people really willing to continue doing this? That’s a hard thing to judge,” he said.

Burkhardt said the issue has not come to a close.

“It’s far from over,” he said. “However, if the senate chooses to support some of those recommendations, that would be one of the earliest steps.”

The recommendations included:

• Starting an undergraduate interdisciplinary course on the Catt Hall controversy.

• Constructing an educational exhibit in Catt Hall that displays the information about Catt and the Catt Hall naming controversy.

• Arranging “heritage walks” about people whose names grace ISU buildings.

• Publishing a representative collection of the speeches, publications, and newspaper accounts of Catt, the women’s suffrage movement and the naming controversy.

Burkhardt said he was pleased with the report.

“I really think that this was an opportunity for GSB to take a firm stand on the issue. It is an opportunity for us to get information for ourselves, rather than hearing just one biased perspective from one group or the other,” he said.

White said he was appreciative of the committee’s efforts.

“I think the people really were dedicated,” he said. “The members of the committee met extensively over the summer. They also put in a lot of time, research [and] dedication.”

Both Burkhardt and White said they were pleased with several of the recommendations by the committee.

Burkhardt said he liked the emphasis the recommendations put on education.

“They all could contribute positively to the ISU community. Many of them are focused on education, which is pleasing to me,” he said.