xt71c53dz70k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71c53dz70k/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 1989035 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1989-03-feb5. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1989-03-feb5. 1989 2011 true xt71c53dz70k section xt71c53dz70k 

       Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Board of Trustees and
Athletics Association Board of Directors of the University of Kentucky,
Sunday, February 5, 1989.

       The Board of Trustees and the Athletics Association Board of
Directors of the University of Kentucky met in the Board Room on the
18th floor of the Patterson Office Tower at 1:00 p.m. Lexington time on
Sunday, February 5, 1989. The meeting had been requested by the Board
of Trustees and notice issued by the Acting Chairman, Mrs. Edythe Jones

       A.    Meeting Opened and Rolls Called

       Mrs. Edythe Jones Hayes, Acting Chairperson of the Board of
Trustees called the joint meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and the
invocation was pronounced by Judge Julia Tackett.

       Board of Trustees

       The following members of the Board of Trustees answered the call
of the roll: Mrs. Edythe Jones Hayes (Acting Chairperson), Mr. Ted B.
Bates, Professor Raymond F. Betts, Mr. William E. Burnett, Jr.,
Professor Ma ry Sue Coleman, Professor David R. Driscoll , Jr. , Mr. Tracy
Farmer, Mr. Lawrence E. Forgy, Jr., Senator Walter D. Huddleston, Dr.
Nicholas J. Pisacano, Mr. James A. Rose (James), Judge Robert F.
Stephens, Mr. Jerome A. Stricker, Mr. William B. Sturgill, Judge Julia
K. Tackett, and Mr. Billy B. Wilcoxson.   Absent from the meeting were
Governor Albert B. Chandler, Mr. Foster Ockerman, Sr., Mr. James L. Rose
(Jim), and Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr.   The University administration
was represented by President David P. Roselle, Mr. Edward A. Carter,
Vice President for Administration; Chancellor Peter P. Bosomworth, Dr.
Wimberly C. Royster, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies;
Mr. Eugene R. Williams, Vice President for Information Systems; and Mr.
John C. Darsie, General Counsel.   In addition, Mr. James Park, Jr.,
Special Counsel, and Mr. Joseph Burch, Acting Director of Athletics,
were in attendance.

       Athletics Association Board of Directors

       The following members of the Athletics Association Board of
Directors answered the call of the roll:   President David P. Roselle,
Dr. Jack C. Blanton, Dr. Charles W. Ellinger, Mr. Lawrence E. Forgy,
Jr., Dr. Art Gallaher, Mr. Phil Greer, Dr. James Kuder, Mr. Robert
Lawson, Dean Peggy Meszaros, Miss Leah McCain, Dr. Ernest J. Middleton,
Dr. Nicholas J. Pisacano, Mr. Bruce Rector, Professor Daniel R. Reedy,
Mr. S. T. Roach, Dr. Paul Sears, Mr. Jerome A. Stricker, Mr. William B.
Sturgill, and Dr. Charles T. Wethington. Absent from the meeting were
Governor Albert B. Chandler, Mr. L. D. Gorman, and Dr. J. R. van Nagell,

       Members of the media were also in attendance and Mrs. Hayes
expressed appreciation for their interest in the affairs of the



       B. Minutes of the Board of Trustees Approved

       On motion by Mr. Sturgill, seconded by Senator Huddleston and
passed, the Minutes of the January 28, 1989 meeting of the Board of
Trustees were approved as written.

       President Roselle stated that the rapidity of the Board meetings
had not allowed much time for generation and digestion of the Minutes
and expressed apologies for their being handed out at the recent weekly

       C. President's Recommendation on Presiding Chairperson

       With the permission of the Athletics Association Board of
Directors, President Roselle ceded his chairmanship for the joint
meeting to Mrs. Hayes. Mrs. Hayes stated that it would be for presiding
purposes only and that the separate Boards may have to act as individual
boards on certain matters as was the case at the January 28, 1989 joint

       D. Remarks by President Roselle

       President Roselle reminded the Board of the October 9, 1988
meeting when the Board adopted a Resolution regarding the NCAA
allegations concerning the University's basketball program. He read the
Resolution and stated that it was the Board's policy statement on the
matter.  He informed the members that the administration had been
operating for the past several months according to the Resolution

       President Roselle reminded the Board of its meeting on January
24, 1989 when it had voted to be briefed on the report to the NCAA prior
to submission of the report and of the January 28, 1989 meeting when the
Board voted that "the administration is directed to submit the report to
the NCAA as soon as legally possible but not before the report is
presented to the Board of Trustees."

       He stated that the administration is prepared to carry out the
motion adopted by the Board at the January 28, 1989 meeting; however,
several members of the Board have indicated that the motion should be
reconsidered.  He stated that by these conversations, the members had
placed themselves in three groups:

       1.    those who desire to meet in Executive Session and hear a
             presentation of the report,

       2.    those who prefer individual presentations on the report
             before or after submission, and

       3.    those who want the report to be submitted to NCAA without
             first hearing any presentation.

       President Roselle stated that the administration and the
investigators were prepared to accommodate any of the desires.   He



reminded the Board that the basketball problem was not part of the
agenda he brought to Kentucky, but that he has had to deal with it. The
October Resolution asked the administration to proceed in such a way as
to protect the integrity of the institution.  The administration has
carried out the charge described in the Board Resolution adopted at the
October 9, 1988 meeting.  He stated that the administration's report has
been completed and is ready to be submitted to the NCAA and the SEC.
The administration will proceed as directed by the Board.  For
individual Board members who want to pursue other avenues to gain
information about the report, he indicated that he would make the
report, himself and members of his staff available for review and
questions regarding the report.

       President Roselle stated that should the decision be made by the
Board to go into Executive Session, it is important that the members
understand and observe the mandates of the open meetings statutes. He
asked Mr. Darsie to review those mandates.

       E. Review of Open Meetings Statutes

       Mr. Darsie stated that open meetings are mandated by KRS 61.805
et seq, and there are certain narrow exceptions to the requirements for
open meetings. He reviewed the exceptions that might be arguable:

       Exception 3 -- Discussions of proposed or pending litigation for
       or against the Board.

       Exception 6 -- Discussions which might lead to the appointment,
       discipline, or dismissal of an employee or student.   In
       connection with this exception, the statutes note that the
       exception is designed to protect the reputation of individuals.

       Exception 10 -- Meetings which federal or state law require to be
       conducted in private.

       He continued that the statutes also provide for certain
requirements for the conduct of closed sessions. Those are as follows:

       1.    A closed session of a public body is possible only after a
             motion is made and carried by a majority vote in open

       2.    No final action in the form of a vote may be taken in
             closed session, i.e. any vote on any matter must be taken
             in the public session.

       3.    No matters may be discussed in the closed session other
             than those which have been announced in the public session.

       fir. Darsie stated the following about the privacy of closed

       Several questions have come up with respect to what may or may
       not be divulged from that which occurs in a closed session. He
       stated that the three newspapers had made a motion in the cirtuit



      court to require that the proceedings of any closed session be
      video taped so that no evidence of what occurred in the closed
      session would be lost.  In the process of overruling that motion,
      Judge Barker said that in the event of litigation growing out of
      that closed session, the deposition of anyone at the session
      could be taken to provide their best recollection of what
      occurred. There is no guarantee of perpetual secrecy in a closed
      session though the public and the media may be excluded at the

      Professor Betts asked if the statement that no matter may be
discussed in closed session which has not been announced in open session
would almost suggest by implication that some aspects of the report
would be announced in order for them to be discussed?

       Mr. Darsie provided his opinion of the requirements of a closed
session. He stated that one cannot announce that he is going into
closed session to discuss things which might lead to the dismissal of an
individual employee or student and then get into the closed session and
talk about property acquisitions.  In terms of the report, if one takes
the view that any of the matters contained in the report may lead to
personnel actions of one kind or another, then one could proceed on that
basis. He indicated that there are contrary legal opinions.

       F.    Notice of Meeting Provision and Closed Meetings

       Mr. Burnett stated that for the Board to have the benefit of the
protection of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the meeting has to be
properly called in accordance with the Kentucky Revised Statutes.    He
asked Mr. Darsie to confirm to the Board that in his opinion the meeting
had been properly called.

       Mr. Darsie stated that he assumed Mr. Burnett was referring to
the ten-day notice provision.  He explained that a ten-day notice is
mentioned in the statute relating to Board of Trustees meetings. In his
opinion, the intent and spirit of the statute had been met.    The matter
of listening to the report or having it presented was the subject of a
motion by Mr. Farmer on January 24, 1989.  He noted that there had been
three meetings within thirteen days. Therefore, he concluded that the
notice provision had been effectively met.  He said that the open
meetings statute has a different provision for the notice. The open
meetings statute provides that any public agency may hold a meeting with
only 24 hours notice.

       Mr. Burnett stated that he did not believe that the Board wanted
to lose the protection afforded to it by the statutes of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky nor did it ever want to be put in a position
where there would be illegal Board meetings. Mr. Burnett then asked
for Mr. Darsie's opinion regarding the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky and Judge Lambert's decision on closed meetings.

       Mr. Darsie stated that the Supreme Court had not voted to
reconsider Judge Lambert's opinion.  The Supreme Court had issued in
order which states that it will hold a he3ring within a few days, as
provided in the statute, to decide whether they will reconsider Judge
Lambert's opinion.



       Mr. Darsie stated that he had heard arguments that there really
is no effective remedy should it be later found that a session is
illegal. He stated that, in his opinion, the most that could occur, if
the meeting were later found to have been improperly attended, is that
any action taken would be voided.   Since there is no action contemplated
at the meeting, there will be no action to void.

       President Roselle stated that he did not know that there was an
easy answer. A lot of people in a lot of organizations had spent a lot
of time trying to find leaks and generally it is not very productive.
There were people briefed on the report during the last week. He
explained that the idea was to get agreement from all people named in
the report that they had current, complete information and no further
questions about information related to them that went into the report.
There were complete briefings of the people named in the allegations and
some may want to look at the administration as having leaked the
report.  A number of people could have leaked the report.    It might,
however, be productive to look to some of the other people because what
was leaked was kind of selective.

       G. Motion to Close Meeting and Forward Report

       Mr. Forgy stated that he intended to make a motion that the
meeting be closed and the report be discussed. Before making the
motion, he discussed some of the background. He stated that he feels
the people of the state want both Boards briefed on the report. An
action to brief the Boards would not be a diminution of the trust and
confidence that the Boards have placed in the University's
administration. He continued that he does not feel it is an
unreasonable request on the part of the University's Board of Trustees
to be briefed on the matter. It is in the best interest of the
institution that the Boards hear the administration's summary or outline
of the report and that the Board act on the report.    He made a motion
that the administration forward the report to the NCAA forthwith. He
said that the people of the state are getting tired of the matter, and
it is creating a spectacle that the University does not need.

       Mr. Forgy emphasized that no perception should be drawn by anyone
that any secret votes or watering down of the report in the private
session is either contemplated or legal. The purpose of a closed
meeting is to hear the report.   It is not to attempt to alter or subvert
the truth.  In his opinion, the people of the state expect the Board of
Trustees to know what is in the report and for that reason he moved that
the Board of Trustees go into executive or closed session in order to
discuss matters which might lead to the appointment, discipline or
dismissal of certain individual employees or students and to discuss
assorted pending litigation and to engage in discussions with attorneys
representing the University in several pending matters.    He stated that
if there are those who do not feel they do not want to hear the
briefing, it is their prerogative to conduct themselves as they see
fit. He stated, however, that there should be a substantial number of
the Board that hear the briefing.   His motion was seconded by Judge



       H. Amendment to Motion

       Mr. Stricker stated that one of the positions is to protect the
people who are named in the report.  He stated that things should not be
leaked and that names should not be mentioned in a public session until
the courts rule that it can be done. One of the advantages of a closed
session is that everyone gets to hear the same thing at the same time
and questions may be asked. He continued that on the other hand, there
is a perception by the NCAA or the press that the purpose of the closed
session is to alter the report, and the net effect is that the
University's penalities, if there are any, may be more severe than what
they would be otherwise. He felt that going into a closed session could
do no harm. He stated that he was torn between hearing information as a
group versus the other side that possibly the University could be hurt
in the long run.  He stated that he would like to have a compromise that
may cover all of the things that Mr. Forgy had made in his motion. He
made the motion that Mr. Forgy's motion be amended as follows: that the
University administration be instructed to send the report intact, as it
is written prior to the meeting, and to have a closed session to be
briefed on the report.

       A discussion followed regarding Mr. Farmer's notion of January 24
and whether his motion was still in effect. Since several motions and
amendments to motions had taken place after the January 24 meeting, Mrs.
Hayes informed Mr. Farmer that his motion was no longer in effect.   Mr.
Stricker repeated his motion to amend Mr. Forgy's motion, and Professor
Coleman seconded the motion.  She stated, however, that it is not an
ideal motion and indicated her preference. She said that she did not
think the Board is a part of the investigative process.   The Board voted
not to be a part of the investigative process: therefore, there is no
reason for the Board to look at the report before it goes to the NCAA.
Her preference would be for the Board not to look at the report and to
only deal with the situation that results when the Board knows the
NCAA's ruling.  The Board's job is to look at the athletics program
after the NCAA has made its decisions.

       There was a discussion as to whether the closed session would be
held on February 5 or at a later date.   Mr. Stricker explained that his
motion meant that the report be mailed as soon as possible in the form
that it is written as of 1:00 ptm., February 5, 1989 and that the Board
go into a closed session to be briefed as Mr. Forgy described in his

       Judge Stephens stated that he did not feel the Board should have
a meeting on the report. The report should be sent, and if anyone wants
to know the contents, they should go meet with the President or the
attorney.  He stated that he would perhaps join in the notion if the
notion was to mail it and then reconsider the question at some later
date after the report had been mailed and received by the NCAA.    He
expressed that the Board should not be restricted.

       Senator Huddleston stated that there was merit to Mr. Stricker's
suggestion. He expressed the opinion that Mr. Stricker was not
hamstringing the Board any more than the Board did itself at the October
9 meeting when it suggested that the administration be charged with the



responsibility of conducting the investigation, preparing the response
and sending it on without the involvement of the Board. He feels there
is also merit and legitimacy to the idea that members of the Board, the.
governing body of the University, should have some knowledge of what is
being done on behalf of the University. He reminded the members that
part of the October 9 Resolution was also that the Board would act in
the best interest of the University. He does not feel that having
knowledge and being aware of the contents of the report is going to
jeopardize that responsibility. He opined that the Board needs a
certain amount of knowledge in order to carry out its responsibility.
The leaks that are occurring do bother him; however, the direction or
the policy of the administration cannot be changed on the basis that
there might be leaks. There are always going to be leaks. The Board
should make its policies on the basis of its responsibilities and
interest in the University. He stated that he would like for the
report to be sent to the NCAA as soon as possible. The purpose of the
Board is not for looking behind the very competent attorneys and trying
to second guess them. He said that it would be wrong and that he did
not feel anybody on the Board seriously wanted to do that. There is,
however, an interest in hearing about the problems. He personally felt
that Mr. Stricker had perhaps hit upon a procedure that would meet the
Board's need.

       Senator Huddleston said that he did not like the perception that
if a member of the Board of Trustees knows something about the report,
it is somehow jeopardizing the integrity of the University. One of the
newspapers castigated several Board members for voting in favor of
having a closed session strictly for informational purposes and two days
later filed a suit to let the whole world know what was in it. It does
not make a lot of sense that it is alright for everybody to know about
the report except the Trustees.   He stated that he did not see how the
NCAA could in any logical process believe that because the Trustees saw
the University's report that the response was compromised.

       Senator Huddleston stated that he feels that all of the Trustees,
the University family, and the people of Kentucky owe a great debt of
gratitude to President Roselle, his staff, Dr. James Park, and all the
people involved in the investigation, for the manner in which they have
conducted this investigation. He indicated that he did not know what
was in the eight books and that he had not had a personal briefing from
the President on the report. He does know, however, that they have gone
about it in a very serious, competent way and have tried very hard to
defend the University. He feels they will defend the University and
make the best presentation that is possible given the facts.

       Senator Huddleston added that the University has not been on
trial just for the eighteen allegations made by the NCAA. The
University of Kentucky has been on trial by the NCMAA, which is the
prosecutor and the jury, for the manner in which it has conducted the
investigation. The investigators and President Roselle have done the
job in such a way as to reflect credit on the University.



       Professor Betts expressed his views on the motions made by Mr.
Stricker and Mr. Forgy and indicated that under the complicated
circumstances the Board should not have a closed session.

       President Roselle stated that at the meeting on January 24 he
made the proposal to convene the Board to hear a briefing on the report
and that may have gotten lost in the process. It would have been in
complete conformity with Mr. Stricker's amendment.

       tar. Wilcoxson asked for clarification on Mr. Forgy's motion
regarding when the report would be sent to the NCAA.

       Mr. Forgy replied that his motion was "forthwith", which
indicates with all due haste or with all deliberate speed.

       Mr. Wilcoxson stated that President Roselle and his staff have
been charged with the duties concerning the issue; the NCAA and their
staff have been charged with their duties, and he believes that as a
member of the Board he is charged with the duty to see the report.

       FMr. Forgy stated that there was a point being missed that needed
to be understood. Under the open meetings law that had been explained
by tMr. Darsie, there could be no change in the report in the closed
session without violating the law.   If someone started to violate the
law in the closed meeting, he felt that there would be an exodus of
people on the Board.  He confirmed with Mr. Darsie that the Board could
not change, alter, amend or in any way cause the report to be changed
without a motion in open session.   He explained that the Board would
have to meet in closed session, reconvene, and in the presence of
witnesses in an open session, vote on any changes. Mr. Stricker's
amendment would have the Board approve the report prior to hearing it,
and he expressed that such a course of action would be a mistake.    He
stated that the Board and the Board of Directors of the Athletics
Association should hear the report, come back into open session, and
instruct the administration to forward the report.

       I. Remarks by Mr. Sturgill

       Mr. Sturgill stated that he had read the Minutes of the Board and
its actions for the last calendar year and in the October 9 Resolution,
it was obvious that the authority granted to President Roselle and his
administration was all encompassing.   He believes that President Roselle
and his administration have followed the authorization in the Resolution
by conducting the investigation with professional, competent people and
with people whose honesty and integrity cannot be questioned. He
complimented President Roselle and his administration. He stated that
Mr. Farmer's motion on January 24, Mr. Burnett's amendment of January 28
and Mr. Forgy's motion of February 5 are consistent with the October 9
authorization.  He, therefore, encouraged the Board to vote for Mr.
Forgy's motion and get on with the Board's duties, working to support
the University of Kentucky.   He remarked that the basketball matter
should be put behind, and the Board should get on with its business of
looking about the affairs of the University.    He noted that he was
probably the only person around the table who had played on a University
of Kentucky national basketball championship team and knows what it



       Senator Huddleston stated that Mr. Forgy's comment that implied
that the closed meeting would be for the purpose of approving or
disapproving the report bothered him. The Board was removed from
getting involved in the substance of the report in the October 9
Resolution.  He emphasized that he did not want anything to imply that
the Board of Trustees did in fact endorse or approved the report
itself. The Board would be approving the submission, the responding and
the method by which the administration went about preparing the report.

       Mr. Forgy replied that he could not agree more, that the meeting
is for informational purposes, and he accepted it as a legitimate

       J. Vote on Mr. Stricker's Amendment

       Mr. Stricker clarified his amendment and Mr. Darsie was asked to
call the roll.  Upon a vote being taken on the amendment, the result was
as follows:

       Yea's for the Amendment          Nay's Against the Amendment

       Raymond F. Betts                 Ted B. Bates
       Mary Sue Coleman                 William E. Burnett, Jr.
       David R. Driscoll                Tracy Farmer
       Walter D. Huddleston             Larry Forgy
       Nicholas J. Pisacano             Robert F. Stephens
       James Rose                       William B. Sturgill
       Jerome A. Stricker               Julia K. Tackett
                                        Billy B. Wilcoxson

       Mrs. Hayes stated that the amendment failed by one vote.

       K. Action to go in Executive/Closed Session

       Mr. Forgy then moved that the Board meet in executive or closed
session in order to discuss matters which might lead to the appointment,
discipline or dismissal of certain individual employees or students and
to discuss assorted pending litigation and to engage in discussions with
attorneys representing the University in several pending matters. He
stated he made his motion on behalf of the Board of Trustees.

       Mrs. Hayes asked for a vote on Mr. Forgy's motion.    The motion
passed. Judge Stephens asked that the record show that he voted nay on
Mr. Forgy's motion.

       L. Athletics Association Board Invitation

       President Roselle stated that the sense of the meeting on January
24 was to invite the Athletics Board of Directors to be briefed at the
same time that the Board was to be briefed and he sought the counsel of
the Board as to whether that invitation was still in effect.

       Mr. Darsie stated that the Athletics Board is primarily
responsible for the operation of the Athletics program.     It does have a
different Board of Directors but it is, of course, directly involved in
the operation of the program whether it be in accord with NCAA rules or
not in accord with I4CAA rules.


-1 0-

       President Roselle stated that it would be the intent of the
administration to have a briefing of the type being discussed for the
members of the Athletics Board. If that is the desire of the Trustees,
the Athletics Board would be asked to go into executive session and join
the members of the Board of Trustees for the briefing. If not, a
briefing of the Athletics Board would have to be held at some separate

       Mr. Farmer asked if going into executive session with another
Board that is outside of the Board's jurisdiction would present legal

       Mr. Darsie stated that it is within the discretion of the Board,
if it wishes, to invite the Athletics Board to hear the report at the
same time, or if it does not, it does not have to.

       Professor Coleman moved that the Athletics Board of Directors be
invited to the executive session, Mr. Stricker seconded the motion and
it carried.

       M. Closed Session

       Mrs. Hayes stated that the Board would go into executive session
at 2:05 p.m. following a six-minute recess.

       Dr. Pisacano and Judge Stephens left the meeting and did not
participate in the executive session.

       N. Meeting Reconvened

       The meeting reconvened at 4:25 p.m. and Mrs. Hayes assured the
public that the Board had carried out both the spirit and the intent of
the Board when it went into closed session.

       Mr. Sturgill stated that he felt the agenda of the meeting had
adequately been covered as the members had listened for four hours and
seen the administration carry out the charge of the Board.    He thanked
the administration for the briefing that they gave to the Board through
the very professional staff that had been assembled to conduct the
investigation.  He stated that it was a fair presentation, and the Board
supports completely the responses that are going to be filed. He then
moved that the meeting be adjourned.

       0. Meeting Adjourned

       There being no further business to come before the Board, the
Acting Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m.

                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                        John C. Darsie
                                        Assistant Secretary
                                        Board of Trustees