Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / April 4, 1985, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
frit -tr-a0 No sweat Just warm and sunny, high 73, low near 50 Copyright 1985 The Daily Tar Heel Blue-collar worker at shortstop Please see page 4 i ii it it it Serving the students and the University community since 1893 Volume 93, Issue 28 Thursday, April 4, 1985 Chapel Hill, North Carolina News Sports Arts 962-0245 BusinessAdvertising 962-1163 A diministraiors label vneai plan report biased By JANET OLSON University Editor The University administration has labeled a recent Student Government report on the mandatory meal plan as inaccurate and biased. The "Report to Patricia Wallace, Student Body President, on the Man datory Meal Plan," released toward the end of March, alleges that University administrators have misled students about the need for a $100 mandatory meal plan, which is scheduled for implementation in the fall. The report also states that the administration did not consider enough student input into the meal plan. But in a report released Monday to Wallace, the administration refutes those charges, saying, ". . . The current $100 meal plan was established after a very lengthy process of studying and researching the various options open to the University for improving the food service facilities and operations." That process involved adequate student input at all stages, and the final plan was negotiated between Student Government and the administration as a compromise "that was felt to be acceptable by both" groups, the admin istration's report states. "(The meal plan) was negotiated between the administration and the Student Government as the best pos sible alternative among the various alternatives (to provide) a stable base for food service on campus," the report says. Overall, the administration's report focuses on specific charges made in the Student Government report. In a memorandum to Wallace, the authors of the administration's report state that they feel those charges must be dealt with in detail. "For this reason, the (administration's) response addresses each charge one at a time, rather than dealing with broader issues raised by the report," the memorandum states. The administration's report was submitted to Wallace by Biruta A. Nielson, assistant vice chancellor for business and finance, Charles C. Antle, vice chancellor for business and finance, and James O. Cansler, associate vice chknceilor and dean of Student Affairs. Among the allegations the adminis tration's report addresses is the charge that the University administration has used the 1981 food service survey as evidence of student support for a mandatory meal plan. In their report, the administrators agree with the authors of the Student Government report that the survey does not support the mandatory meal plan. But they disagree with the allegation that they misstated the purpose of the survey in a January memorandum to students explaining the need for a meal plan. The January memorandum could be interpreted as stating the survey sup ported the meal plan, and "to the extent the inference can be drawn, the memo is in error," the administration's report states. "It can also be argued that the survey gives indirect support to the concept of a mandatory plan, if required for food service improvement," the report continues. Explaining this indirect support, the report says that parents and students responding to the survey said a good campus food service was important, even if it would require direct costs to students. The administration and the Board of Trustees decided that improved food service was not possible without a mandatory meal plan. Another allegation addressed in the adminstration's report is the claim that the Food Service Advisory Committee inaccurately suggested to students that the consultants' report supported the mandatory meal plan. The administrators say that the report to Wallace ". . . has drawn fine semantic differences and used selected editing in order to suggest that the FSAC has used the consultants report deceptively . . . ." An objective reader of the consul tants' report would see that the con sultants preferred upgrading food service in the new dormitory on Sta dium Drive to renovating Lenoir and Chase halls, the administration's report states. The consultants recommended building a cafeteria in the new dormi tory and implementing a mandatory meal plan for its residents. If the University had found the recommenda tion infeasible, the consultants said some other sort of mandatory plan would have been necessary. According to the administration's report, "Renovation of Lenoir was deemed the best alternative for this campus, and a meal plan was included accordingly." Addressing the allegation that the administration did not consider student input when deciding on the mandatory meal plan, the administrators state that they sent the BOT copies of reports -listing the objections of the Residence Hall Association, the Black Student Movement, the Interfraternity and Panhellenic councils and the Bob Saunders, Scott Norberg and Mike Vandenbergh administrations. In addi tion, the BOT was informed of student opinions voiced at FSAC minutes and at student forums, the report states. The administrators also state that the report to Wallace is incorrect in labeling the meal plan as a subsidy for ARA. "The meal plan assesses no one anything," the report says. "It subsidizes See REPORT page 3 "" . , f .:S:r ' $ ,v , - - Ajf -, f ? i it' 4 ,- - j - vXv ' ' : v f v - q- yfi V -... -- -i a DTH Jonathan Serenius A relieved Johnston talks to press after assault charges were dropped By LEE ROBERTS Sports Editor Assault charges against UNC athletes Brad Daugherty and Brian Johnston were dismissed, Orange County District Attorney Carl Fox said at a press conference in his office Wednesday. Daugherty and Johnston were arrested Sunday and charged with striking John North Smith Hinkle at the Franklin Street bar, He's Not Here, Friday night. Daugherty and Johnston maintained their inno cence throughout the incident in which Hinkle sustained a dislocated jaw and deep bruises. "They were not in any way par ticipants in this particular assault, and basically from the conversations IVe had with the witnesses in this case have been exonerated as far as any wrongdoing goes," Fox said. "1 just wanted to conduct this investigation quickly so we could determine whether or not they were involved, and it did work out that they weren't involved," he said. There was one and perhaps two other persons involved in the assault on Hinkle, Fox said. "Both persons are athletes at the University, and at least one person has come to me and indicated his involvement in this particular assault," he said. "Neither of those persons indicated that Mr. Daugherty or Mr. Johnston were involved in the assault." When asked to identify the pos sible assailants, Fox would not release any names until he decided whether or not they would be charged. "At this point they appear to be members of the wrestling squad," he said. There is a good chance the wrestler or wrestlers will be charged, Fox said. No charges will be filed until Fox determines who was involved. He said it would probably be assault charges if they were filed. Hinkle said he was satisfied with Fox's investigation. "I like to watch these people play," he said. "They weren't involved in it." Daugherty and Johnston both said they had no hard feelings against Hinkle. "He's in a situation where he relied on his friends who gave him the information," Daugherty said. "I would probably have done the same thing, but like I say, it's just unfor tunate that me and Brian were the ones who were picked." Johnston agreed that he had no hard feelings against Hinkle. "He didn't know who did it," Johnston said. "He's just got to go by what his friends tell him. I believe what my friends tell me." However, both still said that because of the adverse publicity they had received, a counter-suit may be charged. "Someone's name was falsified very badly, and it just happened to be me and Brian," Daugherty said. "I'm thinking about a countersuit. You know, it's only fair to me. It's only fair to Brian. We were slandered, and you can't do people like that." Johnston said that a countersuit was a definite possibility. "But the damage has already been done," he said. "Well just have to see what happens with the procedures." See ATHLETES page 5 Media seem as culprit in coverage of incident By LEE ROBERTS Sports Editor At 9:10 Wednesday morning, Brad Daugherty and Brian Johnston sat and waited in District Attorney Carl Fox's Franklin Street office. The white walls were decorated sparsely with a few of Fox's diplomas and degrees. The starkness of the room focused even more of the '-attention on the two UNC star athletes who had been accused of assault Sunday. A clutter of whispering reporters talked about things like the Academy awards and this year's movies, while Daugherty and Johnston sat still in chairs facing Fox's desk, save for a few impatient taps of their feet. Fox was late. When he finally showed up at 9:15 a.m., Fox told everyone the news, a relief to Daugherty and Johnston. The assault charges were dropped. It was paradoxical that the announcement came before the group of people who Daugherty and ' Johnston blamed for many of their problems over the last three days the media. The topic most discussed by the two was the damage to reputation that they had sustained since their arrests Sunday morning. "We really got a lot of bad publicity off this," said Daugherty, the most outspoken critic of the media coverage. "I wish the media could handle it in other ways at times, because the media really have a way of reporting things all out of proportion. "You know, it's cost us a lot of hard times from this, for our family and friends and whatever people we're close to," Daugherty said. Johnston added that his immediate future had possibly been threatened by the media exposure of the event. "IVe got the NFL draft coming up in three weeks, and the NFL scouts don't like seeing their potential football players accused of bar-room brawls," he said. "This thing went in USA Today, and my parents are reading about it up in Maryland. It's just blown up pretty big." Johnston also touched on a topic that has university officials worried athlete paranoia. "I guess with Chris Washburn and Percy Moorman and all that, people are just itching for things to happen with athletes," Johnston said. "It's very upsetting being charged with something I didn't do," Daugherty said. "It's just where you're placed in society, and being a basketball player, you're recognizable." So what can athletes do to avoid posing as sitting ducks, waiting as willing victims of a potshot from anyone at anytime? UNC Athletic Director John Swofford has an idea. "One wonders if a few defamation-of-character suits aren't in order," he told WTVD-TV Wednesday. Basketball coach Dean Smith said Tuesday that he thought Daugherty should counter-sue Hinkle. Daugherty did not rule out that possibility. "Oh yes, I'm thinking about a countersuit," he said. Johnston said he may do the same, but added that the damage was already done. "Someone's name was falsified very badly," Daugherty said. "And that just happened to be me and Brian." Preppingfor summer m.- '-:-:o.oieAv;v' a: . . . .turn..:-: w .-.--aw,-.-.---. m ltt vc- ' JL AW 1 fJ y4 . ' A ' 1 f Marty Harris, an employee of the UNC Physical Plant, with screwdriver in hand, helps install a new chiller unit on the air conditioning system DTH Charles Ledford for the Morehead Planetarium. This installation was part of a Spring move to improve cooling systems for the hot summer weather. Owner of Taylor's songM on worthless check charges SLS planning legal action if debt unpaid By M ELAN IE WELLS and LEIGH WILLIAMS Staff Writers Chapel Hill police are searching for Richard N. Taylor, owner of Taylor's, a nightclub on Franklin Street, to serve a warrant for his arrest on charges of writing worthless checks. Durham Distributing Co. obtained the warrant for Taylor, of 124 Brook wood Apartments, after three checks from Taylor totaling $1,065 were returned to the company due to insuf ficient funds in Taylor's account. Taylor also owes $1,100 to Hender son Residence College for Springfest, which Taylor agreed to co-sponsor. HRC received a check for the amount from Taylor and gave the check to the Student Activities Fund Organization, but the check was returned when SAFO tried to cash it. Anne Fulcher, general manager of The Daily Tar Heel said five checks the paper had received for advertising from Taylor had been returned due to insufficient funds in his account, but that the paper had collected for all the checks except one. An employee at Taylor's who asked to remain unidentified said the employees' last wages had been paid in cash. Taylor is the registered agent for Entertainment Research Inc., Fulcher said, but his checks didn't bear the corporation name and were signed only with his name. Dorothy Bernholz, director of Stu dent Legal Services, said they have sent a ten-day demand letter to Taylor on behalf of HRC which states that if no payment is received by HRC within ten days, they will proceed with legal action. HRC already had 1,000 Springfest t shirts made with Taylor's printed on the back, John B. Bare, chairman of Springfest, said. The concert will still be held even if HRC has not collected full payment from Taylor, Bare said. HRC lacks approximately $700 to cover the costs, but the Residence Housing Association agreed Wednesday to loan HRC $300 for the concert and has requested a $400 loan from the Campus Governing Council for the balance HRC needs. Hayes Foscue, draft supervisor for Durham Distributing Co. said the last time he had spoken with Taylor was Friday, March 22, and at that time he didn't know the checks Taylor had written the company were bad. Foscue said he had a feeling something was wrong from "his (Taylor's). . .not buying beer when they had (previously) gone through a lot of kegs." Durham Distributing obtained the warrant on March 27, as soon as they realized Taylor was out of town, Foscue said. The distributing company had never had problems with Taylor before, he added. George Draper, owner of the building which houses Taylor's, said he was unaware that Taylor had changed the name of the club from Purdy's and said the club had recently been sold. Draper would not disclose the new ownership. John K.elly, of Consolidated Enter tainment, said Consolidated Entertain ment considered buying Taylor's, but no deal had been finalized. Draper said Taylor had paid his rent, and there were no problems with it. He also said he knew where Taylor was, but would not comment on it. Employees at Taylor's said they had been in contact with Taylor. They would not disclose his whereabouts. Taylor could not be reached for comment. Ill play it first and tell you what it is later Miles Davis
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 4, 1985, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75