Chi Heorot fraternity was officially informed for the first time on Friday that the house failed four of six Minimum Standards during its annual review last term and has requested the College reconsider the evaluation.
Although such generalized deficiencies in living up to College expectations, if proven to be accurate, could lead to suspension or permanent revocation of the organization's College recognition, sources told The Dartmouth the fate of Chi Heorot is still undecided.
Dean of Residential Life Martin Redman was non-committal about the outcome of the initial decision and was careful to qualify the validity of the information on which it was based.
"The review is probably accurate based on the information presented that day," Redman said about the day the review was conducted, but repeatedly emphasized that Chi Heorot's request for reconsideration expressly entails the College addressing information not presented during the initial review.
Conclusions reached by the Minimum Standards Review Board may not have been accurate if the group did not have access to all the facts, Redman said.
During a meeting last Friday with Chi Heorot President Michael Salice '02 and fraternity advisor Richard Akerboom '80, Redman presented the Review Board's finalized report on the fraternity's affairs during the year 2000.
"Upon seeing it, [Salice and Akerboom] were immediately struck by some missing items and immediately requested a reconsideration," Redman said. "That raises in my mind the specter that maybe [the review board] didn't get it right."
Salice, who had been verbally informed of the outcome of the review earlier in the week, could not be reached for comment before press time.
According to Coed Fraternity Sorority Council President Shihwan Chung '02, Chi Heorot was found to be in violation of the Minimum Standards addressing issues of membership, leadership, behavior and budget.
He said, however, that based on the information he and other members of the CFSC have seen so far, the CFSC is "in full support of [Chi] Heorot."
According to a source familiar with the review board decision, the failing grade on the behavior standard was the result of repeated violations of College policies on keg registration during the four terms preceding the review.
Failure to meet the budgetary requirement was provisional, resulting in the possession of debt by the fraternity and also the diversions of house funds into a social account, the source said.
Violation of the membership standard was in part the result of failure to include a copy of the College hazing policy in the new member education manual, the source said, as well as problems keeping house residence at the required level of four less than capacity.
The process that will take place over the next three weeks is not an appeal in the conventional sense, Redman noted. The College will reevaluate its decision, not based on information initially presented, but only on the basis of previously unintroduced evidence.
"I am a bit concerned about the Heorot case, in large part because there seem to have been communication problems and other extenuating circumstances," Chung said. "There were a lot of problems with their review and that needs to be reviewed carefully."
The group which conducted Heorot's review was composed of Acting Assistant Dean of Residential Life Cassie Barnhardt, Alpha Delta fraternity advisor John Engelman '68 and Assistant Director of Residential Operations Bernard Haskell.
According to the College's published Minimum Standards, however, two students and the ORL director of housing services should also have been members of the review board.
Redman said that it has been normal practice in the last few years to have smaller review boards, and that the house being reviewed may request that the audit be postponed if they believe there are too few people present.
When the fraternity president supposed to have been a member of the review board did not show up on the day of their review, Chi Heorot did not object, Redman said.
Redman declined to discuss the specific decision of the review board and did not speculate on the fate of the ongoing reevaluation process.
