The University committee currently investigating alleged human rights abuses by the Coca-Cola Company has found credible evidence to support two allegations of human rights abuses, according to University spokeswoman Julie Peterson. It does not appear, however, that the committee will recommend the University cut its contract with Coca-Cola that expires in June.

The University’s Dispute Review Board, which began its investigation of Coca-Cola following a recommendation from University Purchasing Services on March 8, spent over four hours last Monday at a meeting held in the Fleming Administration Building deliberating final recommendation regarding the University’s contract with Coca-Cola. The meeting was closed to the public and the press.

The DRB has found evidence to support two of the four allegations of human rights and environmental infractions it was charged with investigating.

Peterson wrote in an e-mail message that the DRB currently believes there is credible evidence in support of allegations of pesticides in the product in India and concerns over labor practices in Colombia.

Although the DRB has not yet released its final statement, it appears unlikely it will recommend that the University halt renewal of its contract with Coca-Cola that expires in June.

According to an e-mail sent to the United Asian American Organizations mailing list the DRB decided to renew the contract with Coca-Cola through September.

After September, the contract would be renewed on a month-by-month basis, provided that Coca-Cola shows it has improved its human rights record. According to the e-mail, the criteria for evaluating Coca-Cola after September are still under debate.

DRB chair Frank Stafford acknowledged that the ideas in the e-mail had been discussed at the meeting. He denied, however, that a final vote had been taken on the plan outlined in the email, noting that it “may not be a workable mechanism.”

“I think the general direction here is clear. We’ll have to see changes in the way Coke runs its operations,” Stafford said. The DRB has not yet finished determining the specific details of its recommendation concerning Coca-Cola.

“We have to figure out a timeline on which we can expect to see milestones of progress to see them continue as a vendor in good standing,” Stafford said. Failure to show progress on Coca-Cola’s part could lead to the loss of its business with the University, Stafford said.

Coke Coalition members were heartened to learn that the DRB had upheld two of the allegations against Coca-Cola, but were not pleased that the DRB’s recommendation appears likely to give the company time to bring its operations in-line with University standards without terminating the contract.

“It’s not our job as the University to force Coke to change,” RC sophomore and Coke Coalition member Jory Hearst said. “The DRB’s role should be to evaluate whether a company is in violation of the code of conduct. Here they clearly are, so we should cut the contract.”

The DRB’s investigation has taken longer than planned due to the difficulty of investigating events in India and Columbia.

“We don’t want to start issuing recommendations without credible information,” Stafford said.

Because all of the DRB is not in Ann Arbor, its members will continue deliberations by phone and email, according to Peterson.

The DRB hopes to release its final recommendation within the next one to two weeks. The recommendation will go to Timothy Slottow, the University’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, who has authority to make a final decision regarding the contracts with Coca-Cola.

Some students criticized the DRB’s choice to hold final deliberations in a closed meeting.

“They have definitely made a lot of efforts to alienate the public from DRB meetings,” said RC senior Andrea Coronil, a Coke Coalition member who attempted to attend the meeting last Monday.

Both students from the Coke Coalition and The Michigan Daily were denied access to the meeting and were not permitted to wait in the hallway outside the conference room where the meeting took place.

The DRB’s written procedures state that its deliberations leading up to a final recommendation must be held in a closed executive session.

Michigan’s Open Meetings Act requires most meetings of public bodies to be accessible to the public. However, Debra Kowich, an attorney in the University’s Office of General Counsel, said that the DRB is an advisory board without authority to make a final decision, and as such is not subject to the Open Meetings Act.