Design School students and alumni who have worked for the reinstatement of Chester W. Hartman '57 as assistant professor of City Planning were frustrated anew by yesterday's GSD faculty meeting.

Student hopes were raised May 8 when the Harvard Graduate School of Design Association (HGSDA), primarily an alumni organ although it includes faculty and students, rejected the administration's explanation of why Hartman's contract was not renewed for 1970-71.

HGSDA called for a three-man committee to investigate the case. Students allege that Hartman was fired for his radical political activities and radical approach to city planning.

NEWS ANALYSIS

At the request of Dean Maurice D. Kilbridge the faculty yesterday voted 24 to nothing with three abstentions not to accept the HGSDA resolution on Hartman.

The faculty also rejected an HGSDA statement of May 8 "that there is a clear need for wholesale and dramatic improvement in the Department of City and Regional Planning." During the meeting, Kilbridge termed that statement a "gratuitous insult."

Technically, there was no need for Kilbridge to bring the formation of a fact-finding committee before the faculty. According to the HGSDA resolution he simply had to appoint one person to the committee and allow students to appoint one. The two committee members would then appoint a third.

But many feel that Kilbridge is delaying the formation of any committee until everyone leaves Cambridge in June. After requesting a formal state-ment from HGSDA Council President Harry Cobb before making an appointment, he insisted on faculty approval. Kilbridge has also expressed doubts about establishing a fact-finding committee without the express consent of the University President and the Corporation.

Others, however, feel that Kilbridge could have been stalling for time until the student-faculty committee headed by Peter Rogers, assistant professor of City Planning, finished its report recommending procedures and mechanisms for hiring and firing faculty.

Some faculty members opposed the HGSDA resolution because they felt it would be more appropriate to wait for that report, which includes a provision for retroactive action.

But the Rogers Committee report has not yet been passed by the faculty. And the HGSDA's intent was clearly to effect a more immediate action than yesterday's faculty action will permit.