A resolution to put the almost three-year-old Catt Hall issue to rest was passed at Wednesday night’s Government of the Student Body meeting, after a lengthy debate.

The resolution titled “Time for Closure,” proposes forming a committee that will try to find some form of closure for the Catt Hall issue.

Although the bill was passed with a vote of 26-1, many senators questioned its possible effectiveness and whether it was worth attempting.

Before the bill was read, John Hamilton, business, made a motion to postpone voting on it for one week.

“Most of us think this is a good bill and good idea, but I want word from the president’s office about how they feel and how they will work with the bill,” he said.

Though some senators agreed with Hamilton, there were also strong feelings against his proposal.

“I think postponing this is a bad idea,” said Matt Ostanik, design. “This is something we need to discuss and vote on now.”

Ostanik felt GSB needed to take an official stance on the issue.

Marcia Johnson, minority, agreed with Ostanik. “If you want to be in student government, say what you want for your students,” she said.

Mike Pogge, LAS, argued to postpone it, saying, “The idea is to communicate so two groups of people can have ownership in the resolution. It is important that we are allowed to get feedback from all sides before we vote.”

Yasmine Blackburn, off campus, said she had a problem with members of GSB claiming authority and power, but then waiting to get approval before acting.

“The intent is to open a dialogue and communicate,” Ostanik said. “It is my true hope we can work with [the president’s office] on this, but we can’t until we take a stance.”

The motion to postpone the resolution failed 4-24, and discussion on the bill continued.

Ostanik said there are three main points to the bill.

First is the process. The committee is to come back to the senate on or before April 1, 1998.

Secondly, Ostanik answered the question of why closure is needed. He said the biggest reason is the student survey, which revealed that 48 percent of the students surveyed feel closure is necessary.

The last point concerns the committee’s decision. Ostanik said it will not necessarily decide whether to keep or change the name of Catt Hall. He added that there are many things that could resolve the issue.

One possibility given was a display in Catt Hall explaining the controversy.

A major part of the discussion questioned if the committee would be effective.

“This is an issue that definitely needs closure. The committee is great, but I don’t know whether closure on the issue is possible,” said Travis Parker, off campus.

“We can get assurance from the university to listen to the committee, but can we get assurance from the rest of the student body that says they will do the same and be happy with the decision of the committee?” Parker asked. “There will be a lot of unhappy people no matter what the outcome is.”

Ostanik rebutted by saying there is no guarantee closure will be reached, but that the committee is worth an attempt.

Hamilton said he doesn’t feel the bill will lead to closure.

“Instead of having closure, it will intensify what is going on already,” he said. “If the committee says we shouldn’t change the name, it won’t stop students from exercising their right of free speech to get what they want.”

Hamilton suggested other routes, such as a new resolution where open communication can be created between ISU President Jischke and The September 29th Movement by president-elect Bryan Burkhardt.

While some senators were skeptical of whether Jischke would listen to the committee’s proposals, others felt strongly that he would.

“Going on the mindset that we represent all students on campus, I think he’ll do something about it,” said Tim Blair, non-traditional.

Anthony Bateza, RCA, said it’s time for GSB to get up and take a stand. “We need to take it a step further and take action as opposed to sitting back, voting against it and going home,” he said.

Blackburn spoke with disgust toward those who were afraid of taking a positive stance on the bill.

“I’m really offended. The biggest sentiment I hear is being tired of hearing about the issue. The people who are tired are not affected,” she said. “I take this personally. I feel like I’m being made to not matter.”

“For once, we should discuss something important to the non-majority on this campus,” Blackburn said.

Matt Peterson, off campus, said he doesn’t know why the name of Catt Hall isn’t just changed back to Old Botany. “Everybody has had an opinion,” he said.

After becoming fed up with the discussion, Pogge showed everyone what he thought of the bill by ripping it up.

“The way this is set up is not the way to go,” he said. “We need to work with all groups and viewpoints, and we must work with open communication to get the issue done.”

Rory Flaherty, off campus, said student apathy showed that the Catt Hall issue isn’t important to students anymore.

“A few years ago, a lot of people cared,” he said. “People are not voicing their positions now. I thought a lot more people would show up for this [meeting].”

At the time of the discussion, the audience consisted of about five people.

“One of the reasons a lot of people aren’t here is because it is not a renaming bill. People have enough faith in GSB to pass a bill to just form a committee to discuss it,” said Jamal White, engineering and vice president-elect.

Burkhardt reaffirmed that the resolution called for the proper procedure.

“We are saying we want closure, some kind of solution,” he said. “[Through the survey] the students have spoken.”1