The five-member committee established at the Graduate School of Design to hear the appeal case of Chester W. Hartman '57 has been scrapped following Hartman's successful challenge to the procedures under which the committee was formed.

Hartman said last week that he was told by Peter P. Rogers, associate professor of City Planning that the Rogers Committee--the group designated to implement the ad hoc procedures established by the GSD faculty last May to govern Hartman's appeal--"has decided that my challenge to the procedures is correct and they have elected to go through the entire nomination and election procedure again."

Rogers, who formed the committee in early January, refused comment Wednesday on any aspect of the Hartman case.

Hartman said he was "pleased" that the Rogers committee "recognized the defects of the procedures that led to the committee they chose." But he expressed "dismay" that "they plan to go through the same drawn out process once again."

The committee formation under the ad hoc procedures took seven months. The ad hoc procedures were established after Rogers was unable to form a committee under the original appeal procedures, which were embodied in the Rogers Motion of May 1970.

Terminated

Hartman, formerly an assistant professor of City Planning at the GSD, was told two years ago that his contract would be terminated. He appealed his dismissal, maintaining that the action was prompted by personal and political considerations and constituted a breach of academic due process.

Hartman's successful challenge maintained that the Rogers Committee had violated his rights in two instances.

The full text of Hartman's statement appears on page 3.

The statement was originally a January 11 memorandum from Hartman addressed to the faculty of the GSD. He last week released the memo for publication, maintaining that "it never reached the GSD faculty, but was acted upon by the Rogers Committee alone, in consultation with Dean (Maurice D.) Kilbridge."

Rogers yesterday refused comment on whether the GSD faculty had in fact seen the Hartman memorandum.

The ad hoc procedures had stipulated that the appeal committee was to be selected from a list of 20 faculty members outside the GSD. The list was to have been selected from a previous list of June 1970, with a additions made by both Hartman and Kilbridge.

Hartman maintained that he "was given no opportunity to add names to this list of nominees." He said that Rogers had acknowledged the omission in a letter to him dated December 15, 1971.

The ad hoc procedures also had stipulated that the five members of the committee were to be selected from the list of 20. Hartman charged that the Rogers Committee went beyond the list of 20 in forming its committee and that he had received a letter dated December 28, 1971 from Rogers stating that the final committee member selected was 23rd on the list.

Hartman called the two violations "a serious breach in the few rights I have remaining under the Rogers Committee procedures."

Idiocy

He said he is unsure how he will respond to the Rogers Committee's decisions to form a new committee using the same as hoc procedures. "This time (the committee formation) could take longer (than seven months), since people will be even more reluctant to serve after this new idiocity on (the Rogers Committee's) part," he said.

Hartman said he still maintains that "the basic premises (of the ad hoc procedures) are unfair." "Having one party to the dispute choose the body to hear an appeal to its original decision" is a conflict of interest, he said.

Hartman said he will further respond to Rogers sometime this week. He added that Rogers told him to have a list of his nominees for the reformation of the review committee by February 23, and that the GSD faculty will select a new list of 20 at its March 3 meeting