Currier, Eliot Settle Dispute

A four-month dispute concerning the expenses of a joint Eliot-Currier intersession ski trip was settled Monday evening, when Eliot agreed to pay half of the amount demanded by Currier.

But some students in Eliot House say they are unhappy with the compromise.

The dispute started at the beginning of February when the Currier House Committee sent a memo to the Eliot House Committee and Assistant Dean of Students Sarah E. Flatley requesting that Eliot pay Currier $273 for the ski trip, $24 for the food for Eliot residents and $21 for each of the 13 seats that Eliot did not fill for the trip.

But Jose M. Padilla '97, an officer of the Eliot House Committee, said the committee "never approved funds for any of the trip."

He said that former House Committee treasurer Lynn M. Itagaki '96 negotiated the ski trip arrangements on her own.

"According to [Itagaki]," Padilla said, "[the Currier House Committee] didn't make it clear that they expected Eliot to pay for any unfilled spots."

At a February meeting, the Eliot House Committee voted to pay for the food expenses, but voted not to pay for the spaces that Eliot failed to fill.

The issue was discussed by both House Committees for several months, but nothing was resolved until last week.

After debating whether to pay the money to have the University mediate the dispute, the Eliot House Committee passed a proposal on Sunday to pay $94.50, or half the sum of money demanded by Currier.

The Currier House Committee accepted Eliot's compromise at a meeting on Monday.

However, the compromise has not ended the debate on the issue.

Two officers on the Eliot House Committee said they were extremely unhappy with the results.

"I thought we got a raw deal," said Michael B. Garcia '97, a committee officer. "I am pretty upset about paying off stuff we are not responsible for. Paying it off puts the House in a weak position. It's like admitting guilt."

Garcia said many members of the House Committee would rather have entered mediation talks through the University in order to settle the dispute.

"One of the arguments against fighting it out in mediation was that the publicity would make the House look bad," Garcia said.

Padilla, who said he was upset at the decision to compromise, said the committee members just got fed up with the dispute.

"The people who voted for the compromise didn't want to deal with it any more," Padilla said. "Some people were flippant about the money issue. Since it's House Committee money and not theirs, they don't really care."

But not everyone was upset with the compromise.

Daniel J. Kolodner '97, a former member of the Eliot House Committee, said he was pleased with the outcome of the meeting.

"I think the compromise is the important thing," he said. "Ninety-four dollars and 50 cents is not the end of the world, it's not like thousands of dollars."

"It went on for a long time, but there was miscommunication on both sides," he said. "It was settled agreeably. We should all move forward and put this behind us."

Eliot House Committee Treasurer Natashya L. Trejo '97 said she is glad the dispute has been resolved.

"I think we're just glad that we figured out an easy solution," she said. "Next time there's deal everything should be written down, none of these verbal agreements.

The Currier House Committee accepted Eliot's compromise at a meeting on Monday.

However, the compromise has not ended the debate on the issue.

Two officers on the Eliot House Committee said they were extremely unhappy with the results.

"I thought we got a raw deal," said Michael B. Garcia '97, a committee officer. "I am pretty upset about paying off stuff we are not responsible for. Paying it off puts the House in a weak position. It's like admitting guilt."

Garcia said many members of the House Committee would rather have entered mediation talks through the University in order to settle the dispute.

"One of the arguments against fighting it out in mediation was that the publicity would make the House look bad," Garcia said.

Padilla, who said he was upset at the decision to compromise, said the committee members just got fed up with the dispute.

"The people who voted for the compromise didn't want to deal with it any more," Padilla said. "Some people were flippant about the money issue. Since it's House Committee money and not theirs, they don't really care."

But not everyone was upset with the compromise.

Daniel J. Kolodner '97, a former member of the Eliot House Committee, said he was pleased with the outcome of the meeting.

"I think the compromise is the important thing," he said. "Ninety-four dollars and 50 cents is not the end of the world, it's not like thousands of dollars."

"It went on for a long time, but there was miscommunication on both sides," he said. "It was settled agreeably. We should all move forward and put this behind us."

Eliot House Committee Treasurer Natashya L. Trejo '97 said she is glad the dispute has been resolved.

"I think we're just glad that we figured out an easy solution," she said. "Next time there's deal everything should be written down, none of these verbal agreements.