This page was created for the purpose of providing a thorough, honest, and complete accounting of the October 29, 1997 conciliated meeting which not only “broke down,” but resulted in the Department of Justice criticizing The September 29th Movement for “bad faith.”
Late last week (the week of January 26th, 1998) we got a message from President Jischke through one of his messengers. The message was this: the Movement was to back off requests to meet with President Jischke or else President Jischke would release the letter from the Department of Justice in an attempt to embarrass us. Our response was this: Go ahead and release the letter. We welcome it. We are tired of an administration which operates in secret and tries to bully its students in the manner demonstrated by this threat. We see this as just another excuse to not address issues, such as the naming process of Catt Hall.
We consider the letter from Atkins Warren (Department of Justice) to be a real gem. Mr. Warren is the supervisor of Pasqual Marquez, the conciliator who was present at the October 29, 1997 meeting. In his letter Mr. Warren insinuates that the meeting broke down not because of the actions of DOJ conciliator, Pasqual Marquez, but because the Movement demanded that all of our concerns “be met no matter what the cost to the other party” and that we seek to “win by embarrassment.” Neither President Jischke nor Atkins Warren can produce any documentation which supports either of these assertions. In fact, the transcript and tape of the meeting demonstrate that we were negotiating in good faith.
Previous to the meeting of October 29, 1997, Pasqual Marquez (Conciliator for the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service) had told us that his list of guidelines “is not all-inclusive, feel free to develop additional ground rules to contribute to meaningful dialogue if you feel they are needed.” Unfortunately, when we suggested additional or revised guidelines, Mr. Marquez and President Jischke were completely unresponsive. In fact, they didn't even respond to some of our questions and concerns
The evening of October 28, 1997 (the night before the conciliated meeting), Milton McGriff spoke with Atkins Warren’s supervisor, Jonathon Chase (Deputy Director of DOJ-CRS, Washington, D.C.). During that telephone conversation, Mr. Chase expressed concern that our groups were not yet ready to meet because we had not agreed to the guidelines. Mr. Chase informed Milton that although he wasn't speaking for Mr. Marquez, he felt Mr. Marquez would work to resolve the issues which weren't yet agreed upon as his first order of business – before conducting the meeting. With regard to the issue of recording the meeting (discussed below), Mr. Chase told Milton that the Department of Justice Community Relations Service department has no policy against recording meetings.
To be honest, we were torn whether or not to attend the meeting. On one hand we hadn't yet reached an agreement on all of the guidelines. We had been trying, but Mr. Marquez and President Jischke were unresponsive. On the other hand, a date had been set and we knew that President Jischke would claim that we refused to meet with him if we didn't go. So we went with the expectation that resolving the guidelines would be the first order of business, as suggested by Mr. Chase (supervisor of Mr. Marquez and Mr. Warren). We sincerely hoped that the remaining disagreements on guidelines would be quickly resolved so that we could move forward with our discussions.
The meeting began with Mr. Marquez asking the students to identify themselves. Mr. Marquez did not ask the administrators and faculty to introduce themselves. It was apparent that he had previously met with them long enough to have established a rapport.
The ISU administrators and representatives
in attendance were:
Martin Jischke (President)
Thomas Hill (ISU Vice President of
Student Affairs)
Barbara Mack (attorney and ISU Professor)
John Kozak (ISU Provost)
Charles Dobbs (ISU Executive Assistant
to the President)
The students attending this meeting
were:
Milton McGriff
Allan Nosworthy
Meron Wondwosen
Monica Willemsen
Brian Johnson
Bob Mohr
Following the introductions of the students, Mr. Marquez started the meeting by passing out a list of ground rules and stating they had been agreed to by both groups. Remember, the ground rules had not been agreed to by both groups. At this point Milton interjected and clarified that we had not agreed to the list of guidelines. Mr. Marquez then acknowledged that was correct -- the guidelines had not been agreed to.
Although Mr. Marquez initially acknowledged that an agreement had not been reached on all of the guidelines, he then stated that “as mediator” he had agreed to all of the guidelines for us.
The following hour focused on the guidelines which were not yet agreed to.
Specifically, the guidelines which were discussed were:
A decision was reached during that meeting to issue a joint press release that meetings were going to take place. Later, however, Thomas Hill and Pasqual Marquez forgot portions of that discussion. They were the only two persons at the October 7th meeting who had trouble "remembering." Had the meeting been recorded, we could have referred to the tape or transcript for accuracy. But because there was no record, our discussion stagnated at the “he said/she said” level. That is exactly why we wanted to record the meeting -- so we wouldn't waste time later on disputing what was really said.
Secrecy and Confidentiality. It was made clear to us that President Jischke wanted secret meetings. He did not want the community to know that he was meeting with us and he wanted the meeting off-the-record. We strongly objected for a couple of reasons. First, this is a public institution. Secondly, The September 29th Movement has been visible and active for over two years. Therefore, we feel it is important for the community to understand that we are meeting to achieve conflict resolution.
Mr. Marquez did not seem to have any objection to Jischke’s condition of conducting secret meetings off-the-record. In fact, in a direct response to our objection to secret meetings, Mr. Marquez asked whether we really wanted our concerns to be addressed by President Jischke. In other words, we should concede to secret meetings in exchange for the opportunity to get to the table with Jischke.
Another point of confusion was who exactly objected to issuing the press release. Was it President Jischke or Mr. Marquez? President Jischke’s canned response throughout this process was that he was deferring to Mr. Marquez’s 26 years of experience. Initially, Mr. Marquez stated he did not want to issue a press release before a meeting had taken place. At one point, however, Mr. Marquez directly contradicted himself by telling us that he actually has no problems notifying the media or even having them in the room. The issue was whether both groups agreed to it, not that Mr. Marquez objected. He stated he would welcome notifying the media as long as both groups agreed to it [and the groups had agreed to this at the October 7, 1997 meeting].
About 40 minutes into the discussion, Iowa State Professor Barbara Mack asked “I have one quick question. Is that a tape recorder?” We answered affirmatively. At that point Mr. Marquez “lost it” for lack of better words, alleging that the Movement had acted in bad faith. He carried on, muttering under his breath, minimizing our concerns, and finally stating he was leaving and not coming back. During this time, Milton, Brian, and Meron all objected to the charge of “bad faith” stating that there was no agreement on the issue of tape recording.
When Meron tried to speak to Mr. Marquez about the charge of “bad faith,” Mr. Marquez interrupted her stating “this meeting is through, I am through.” When Meron asked Mr. Marquez if she could finish her sentence, Mr. Marquez replied in a hostile tone “No, you cannot finish.”
Meron did finish her sentence, and Milton and Brian supported her concerns:
Meron: "We did not
agree to all the issues here, and our understanding is that we are here
today to discuss the guidelines."
Milton: -- and Mr. Chase, Mr. Chase
was also very clear about that, Mr. Marquez.
Brian: Mr. Chase has said that
there is no Department of Justice policy on recording.
Mr. Marquez then responded, "It is for me. This is my meeting, okay?!"
Mr. Marquez later added: "This is my process, okay. This is my process."
Meron asked President Jischke to explain his objection to recording the meeting. Jischke deferred to Mr. Marquez’s “26 years” of experience. When pressed, however, President Jischke explained that he felt the taping would affect his ability to be honest, stating “It doesn't allow for honest dialogue.” Note: We do not have a problem with being honest regardless of whether or not we are being taped. We do not understand why President Jischke feels he can't be honest if he's being recorded.
Mr. Marquez left the meeting after only one hour.
Our Thoughts about the Conciliated Meeting and Mr. Marquez
Mr. Marquez's unprofessional behavior alarmed us greatly, and we filed a complaint with his supervisor (Atkins Watkins).
First, Mr. Marquez stated the guidelines had been agreed upon. Then he acknowledged they weren't. Then he stated that “as mediator” he agreed to them for us.
Second, we question Mr. Marquez's judgment in urging us to consent to secret meetings just for the sake of “getting to the table” with President Jischke.
Third, Mr. Marquez changed his story during the course of an hour as to who exactly was objecting to issuing a press release that meetings were taking place. Initially, he explained he objected but then later contradicted that statement by stating he had no problem as long as both groups agreed to it (which they had on October 7, 1997).
And finally, Mr. Marquez lost his cool over the issue of the tape recorder. He muttered under his breath, minimized the issues raised by the students, stated he wasn't going to come back, and even swore at the students before leaving. For a conciliator with 26 years of “professional” experience, it is alarming that Mr. Marquez stormed out of the meeting after only 60 minutes. Mr. Marquez was supposed to be a neutral, professional conciliator. We lost complete faith in his ability to continue serving as the conciliator in this process.
This was not the first problem we had encountered with this process. At the end of September 1997, we learned that Mr. Marquez had not been reliable in his communications between the ISU administration and the Movement. For instance, there were a couple of times that we asked Mr. Marquez to relay information to President Jischke and we later learned he had not done so. This resulted in some bad feelings because we felt that President Jischke was not responding in a timely fashion when in fact Mr. Marquez had not relayed certain information as asked. It was also not the first time Mr. Marquez swore at a student. In a phone conversation with Allan a couple of months earlier, he lost his temper and swore at Allan. At that point, Allan requested Mr. Marquez’s supervisor's name from Mr. Marquez himself. Although we were concerned about Mr. Marquez’s professionalism, we nevertheless proceeded because we were so close to a meeting date. We felt that if we refused to utilize Mr. Marquez at that point, President Jischke attempt to claim we weren't willing to meet.
Even after we filed the complaint with Atkins Warren, President Jischke still continued to publicly state that he wanted to continue the process with the Department of Justice. That seems highly inappropriate considering Mr. Marquez's previous behavior and our complaint regarding his unprofessional behavior.
The Tape Recorder
The room was set up with two long tables facing each other. At one table was Iowa State's President Jischke, Thomas Hill (Vice President of Student Affairs), Barbara Mack (attorney and ISU Professor), John Kozak (ISU Provost), and Charles Dobbs (ISU Executive to the President). At the other table were ISU students Allan Nosworthy, Milton McGriff, Meron Wondwosen, Monica Willemsen, Brian Johnson, and Bob Mohr. At the end of both tables (in between) sat Mr. Marquez.
The tables were covered with white tablecloths. In the moments preceding the beginning of the meeting, Allan opened up a carrying case and removed a tape recorder. It was not a pocket tape recorder, but one of the old fashioned types (estimated dimensions: 11 inches long, 6 inches wide, 2 inches high). The color of the tape recorder was black. Allan placed the recorder directly in front of him on the table which was covered with a white tablecloth. All five administrators were sitting at the table directly across from the students, facing us. As the meeting began, Allan pushed the tape recorder forward and pressed the record button.
Allan and the other students felt the
first conflict would be over the tape recorder. But as Allan pressed
the record button, President Jischke was staring right at him – and said
nothing. The other administrators too were all staring. It
was a relief to know they weren't going to protest the tape recorder.
Of course, it didn't dawn on us that they didn't see the recorder because
they were facing us and staring at Allan when he put it on the table and
turned it on. It was a black tape recorder sitting in plain sight
on a white tablecloth right in front of them.