One federal agency withdraws. Another launches an investigation. Neither party in the controversy is completely satisfied. The saga continues.

In a letter to Iowa State President Martin Jischke dated Jan. 27, the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the U.S. Department of Justice announced their pullout from talks between The September 29th Movement and ISU administration representatives.

The discussions, which broke down Oct. 29 due to a dispute about meeting guidelines, had attempted to bring together the two sides on the topics of Carrie Chapman Catt Hall and other diversity issues.

Atkins Warren, regional director of CRS and author of the letter, said his office was withdrawing because “the methodology of the CRS does not lend itself to the resolution of this particular situation.”

He voiced his disappointment with the actions of the Movement.

“I do not feel that representatives of The September 29th Movement have acted in good faith in addressing their concerns through our process,” he wrote.

“Our process does not allow for one party to ‘win by embarrassment,’ nor to compromise the integrity of the system by demanding that all their concerns be met no matter what the cost to the other party,” he wrote.

Brian Johnson, Movement spokesman, said Thursday he thinks the Movement’s allegations about negotiator Pascual Marquez, Warren’s subordinate, negatively affected Warren’s opinion.

“He’s not neutral, because the complaints we made affected his office,” Johnson said. “He wasn’t in any kind of position to make that kind of judgment.”

Warren said his office was now “precluded from providing additional conciliation services” because the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is conducting a compliance review of ISU.

The review will be carried out at the same time as an investigation of “allegations made by representatives of The September 29th Movement,” Warren said.

A letter from Jischke to Johnson, senior in English, dated Feb. 2, states the administration would prefer to hold off on more talks until the completion of a “review in response to ‘allegations made by representatives of The September 29th Movement.'”

In fact, Johnson said, the DOE’s review was not prompted by Movement allegations.

He said the Movement filed its grievances in November 1997 after the DOE suggested they file, since federal investigators were coming to the ISU campus anyway for the unrelated compliance review.

“They asked us to file with them. We did not call them in,” Johnson said. “They were coming on another complaint.”

Both Jischke and Vice President for Student Affairs Thomas Hill said they had no prior knowledge that the Movement had made allegations.

“That’s the first time I saw anything identifying them as the source of the complaints,” Jischke said, referring to Warren’s letter.

He said ISU had already submitted many documents requested by the OCR, but “they did not tell us the reason for their investigation.”

Johnson said the Movement intentionally kept quiet about their complaints.

“[The OCR] said it would be better for their investigation if we didn’t tell anyone,” he said.

In a letter sent by the Movement Thursday to Jonathan Chase, associate director of CRS and Warren’s superior, Movement spokesman Milton McGriff said OCR investigator Patricia Boyd “had not yet informed the administration of our complaint and asked us not to publicize it.”

The most recent events in what is now almost a three-year ordeal began Jan. 13, with a letter from George Jackson, director of the Ames NAACP, to Jischke.

In the letter, Jackson asked Jischke to meet with several civil rights and religious organizations on Jan. 20.

The list of groups did not include the Movement.

Jischke wrote back, saying he could not attend because he had a Board of Regents meeting that day.

Confusing the situation was an article in the Jan. 21 edition of the Daily stating that Jischke had agreed to meet with the Movement.

A news release from the Movement, which the Daily received, listed them as scheduled to participate, but Hill said neither Jischke nor Jackson had discussed the Movement’s inclusion at that point.

“Where did they get the information that the president agreed to meet with them?” Hill asked.

“What would make them think 9/29 is involved in that conference? Dr. Jackson’s a very intelligent man. If he wanted to put them in [the list], he would have done that,” he said.

McGriff said the Movement was responsible for most of the confusion.

“That created a misunderstanding and we admit it. It was our fault,” he said.

“Our news release should not have said, technically, that the meeting was going to include us.”

McGriff said it was his understanding that any subsequent meetings with the rest of the groups would also include the Movement.

Johnson agreed, saying that same assumption was the reasoning behind the misleading press release.

“I had assumed that [Jackson’s letter] would mention the fact that if [Jischke] couldn’t make the first meeting, that was fine, then we ought to go right to meetings with these other groups and the Movement. I didn’t realize that Dr. Jackson’s letter didn’t contain that,” he said. “This is just bad communication.”

Jackson then sent another letter requesting a meeting on Feb. 3.

In a reply dated Jan. 28, Jischke said he could not commit to that date, saying his calendar was “quite complicated” by responsibilities to legislative committees and sub-committees discussing “matters of interest to Iowa State University.”

In the same letter, the president said he thought it was “wise not to include members of The September 29th Movement in such a meeting,” citing the ongoing DOE investigation.

But Johnson said the federal officials have given their consent to a meeting.

“We talked to the DOE and they told us there is no reason why we shouldn’t meet with them,” he said.

“They openly told us that it wouldn’t interfere with their investigation,” Johnson said.

Johnson said waiting for the results of the DOE’s research would be a waste of time.

“Education isn’t going to be in here until April 24th. We would basically sit here for three months without doing anything,” he said.

“We ought to meet now. Maybe if we meet now, by the time Education comes, there won’t be any problems anymore,” he said.