Another attempt at talks between The September 29th Movement and the Iowa State administration abruptly ended after several misunderstandings.

According to information just released by The Movement, on Wednesday, Oct. 29, five members of The Movement and five people representing the administration held a confidential meeting conciliated by a Department of Justice official. There was no agenda or topic of discussion for the meeting.

However, according to the transcript, the meeting abruptly ended after nearly an hour of confusion about the meeting’s guidelines, which were previously set by the conciliator.

The meeting officially ended when Pascual Marquez, senior conciliator with the Department of Justice, walked out after discovering The Movement was tape recording the talks.

“Let me say this meeting is over as far as I’m concerned, OK?” Marquez said, after the tape recorder was discovered about 45 minutes into the meeting by university representative Barbara Mack, professor in journalism and mass communications.

“We were disappointed that the confidentiality guidelines had been broken,” President Martin Jischke said Thursday in an interview. “I was surprised and disappointed.”

However, The Movement contests they had never agreed upon Marquez’s guidelines.

Milton McGriff, member of The Movement and graudate student in creative writing, said The Movement was firm in its opposition to the secrecy guideline set forth by Marquez.

In a document sent out by Marquez, 13 guidelines were outlined for the meeting. Guideline number 12 states, “The CRS conciliation process is not a judicial proceeding. It is an informal process where parties come together, in good faith, to discuss issues and mutually attempt to resolve them. Therefore, recording devices or court stenographers will not be allowed. This does not prohibit the parties from taking copious notes.”

However, Movement members said a tape recorder was needed at the meetings to eliminate confusion. “[Jischke’s] asking us to believe that he will be more honest if there is not a tape recorder there,” he said.

The administration objected to a tape recorder because of Marquez’s stipulations.

“When [the meetings] are tape recorded, it changes the character of the meeting,” Jischke said

Although The Movement members said they set a tape recorder on the table in plain sight of everyone at the meeting, members of the administration said they did not recognize the tape recorder.

Thomas Hill, vice president for student affairs, said the tape recorder looked like a black box.

“You could not see any wires or buttons on it,” Hill said. “Even if I stood up I couldn’t see buttons or a place to put a cassette.”

Hill said even if he had noticed the tape recorder he would not have assumed it was recording because of the guidelines previously set by Marquez.

Mack said she was also surprised by the tape recorder. “I guess I wasn’t looking for a tape recorder because I thought the understanding was that there wouldn’t be one,” Mack said.

This was not the first meeting The Movement tried to document.

McGriff said when they presented a tape recorder at an Oct. 7 meeting between The Movement and the university, Marquez asked them to put it away.

“We understand the need for confidentiality of information while you’re in the process, but shouldn’t the Iowa State community have the right to know what happened in the meetings if they want to?” McGriff said.

Another area of disagreement at the Oct. 29 meeting was whether silent observers were allowed to attend.

Monica Willemsen, an ISU alumna and a freshman in sociology, attended the meeting as a silent observer. However, halfway through the meeting, she was asked to leave by members of The Movement because the administration said The Movement was not acting in good faith because they were violating Marquez’s guideline which stated each side could only have five representatives present.

Movement members said the organization makes decisions as a central committee and therefore needed as many members of The Movement as possible present.

“The purpose of having silent observers is just that The Movement is based on collective leadership,” Willemsen said.

“It was not a sticking point for us, so I offered to leave,” she said.

McGriff said the purpose of the meeting was to talk about the issues, but the guidelines needed to be resolved first.

“If they didn’t agree with the guidelines then why did they come to the meeting?” Hill asked. “I really thought that we would get there, iron out the differences and problems there were with the guidelines, and then begin working on the issues.”

If the meeting would have progressed to a discussion, the issue of Carrie Chapman Catt Hall, which has been on The Movement’s front burner for more than two years, would have been discussed.

Mack, who is also an attorney, said the issue of Catt Hall was the reason she attended the meeting.

“I was there certainly not as a lawyer,” Mack said. “I am a donor to the Catt Center and am involved in the Catt Center. I think I hold the opposite view that is held by The September 29th Movement.”

Brian Johnson, a member of The Movement and a senior in English and philosophy, said he had not expected the meeting to end like it did.

Johnson said The Movement agreed with Marquez and the administration that the meeting should be kept confidential. However, he said “People have a right to know” that a meeting was taking place.

“[The administration] wanted the meetings to be secret,” he said.

While Johnson would not comment on the next course of action for The September 29th Movement, he did say they still want to discuss concerns with Jischke.

“We’re totally interested in continuing talks,” he said.

Members of the administration are also willing to continue the discussion.

Hill said the university would like to meet again, however he doubts they will use Marquez as the conciliatator.

“As far as they’re concerned [Marquez] is out of it,” he said. “I think the thing that’s next is that I will continue to be available to talk to them.”

Willemsen said The Movement filed a complaint against Marquez because his behavior at the meeting was “unprofessional.”

The Movement is searching for another conciliator, either an independent agent or one within the Department of Justice, Willemsen said.

According to McGriff, The Movement has written the university twice since the Oct. 29 meeting stating they want to continue the discussion.

“Our position is we are willing to still work with the Department of Justice, but not with Pascual after his performance that day,” he said.

Jischke agreed that future discussion will likely take place.

“We continue to be willing to meet … to discuss the concerns,” Jischke said.