0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

[6] > Image [6] of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1971-05-may4.

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

6 was accepted and ordered made a matter of record. (See FCR I at the end of the Minutes.) M. Student Code Revision Mr. Griffin, Chairman of the Student Code Revision Committee, reported that his committee had received recommendations for revisions in the present Student Code from students, from the Student Government, and from the Office of the Dean of Students. An open hearing was held by the committee and additional recommendations were received from students and faculty members. The com- mittee took the various recommendations and suggestions it had received and, after a thorough and careful evaluation of each one, prepared its recommendations for changes in the Student Code for presentation to the Board. He said that several changes were proposed primarily in the interests of clarification of the present Code. Copies of the revised document were mailed to the Trustees in advance of the meeting so that all members would be familiar with the proposed changes. Mr. Griffin called attention to Sections 1. 2a and 1. 2b which have been added to the present Code. A student charged with engaging in interference, coercion or disruption which impedes, impairs or disrupts University missions, processes or functions or interferes with the rights of others on University property under Section 1. 2a would appear before the University Judicial Board rather than before the Appeals Board which has jurisdiction when a student is charged under Section VI of the Code. Section 1. Zb was added to place the student on more effective notice with regard to narcotics on the campus. Mr. Griffin moved that the Code of Student Conduct as proposed in the document before the Board of Trustees be adopted. His motion was seconded by Dr. Sears. Mr. Wendelsdorf said he wished to propose several amendments and requested that the Board members vote for them "for the University's good". Although each Board member had received a copy of Mr. Wendelsdorf's proposed amendments to the report of the Student Code Revision Committee a few days prior to the meeting, he indicated his desire to present the amendments individu- ally rather than as a whole. The Board agreeing to this procedure, Mr. Wendelsdorf then gave a brief statement of support for amendments 1. 311 and 1. 32 and moved their adoption (these two amendments and subsequent ones are contained in Mr. Wendelsdorf's document at the end of the Minutes. ) His motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bell, saying that he felt the Board should not and could not act on Mr. Wendelsdorf's amendments without further study, moved to amend Mr. Griffin's motion so that Mr. Wendelsdorf's amendments might be accepted and referred to the committee and any action on the Code be postponed until this committee reported back to the Board at a special called meeting. Mr. Wendelsdorf seconded the motion and, on roll call vote, it was defeated by a vote of eight to one with two abstentions.