xt7fqz22g12c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fqz22g12c/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1986-03-10 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 10, 1986 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 10, 1986 1986 1986-03-10 2020 true xt7fqz22g12c section xt7fqz22g12c MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 10, 1986 The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:10 p.m., Monday, March 10, 1986, in room 116 of the Thomas Hunt Morgan Bui1ding. Brad1ey C. Canon, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided. Members absent: Roger B. Anderson, Michae1 Baer, Char1es E. Barnhart, Brian Bergman, Raymond F. Betts, Tex Lee Boggs, Peter P. Bosomworth, Ray M. Bowen, Stan1ey D. Brunn, D. A11an Butterfie1d*, I. K. Chew*, Emmett Costich, George F. Crewe*, Joe V. Davis*, Stephen C. Deger, Richard C. Domek*, Robert Lewis Donohew, Herbert N. Drennen, Pau1 M. Eakin, Anthony Eard1ey, Dona1d G. E1y, Richard w. Furst, Lester Go1dstein*, Wi11burt Ham*, Mari1yn D. Hamann*, Lawrence A. Harris*, S. Zafar Hasan, Leonard E. He11er, A1ison Hodges*, Raymond R. Hornback, James G. Houg1and, Jr.*, Susan Johnson, John J. Just, Jay T. Kearney*, James R. Lang*, Robin Lawson, Robert G. Lawson, Edgar D. Maddox, Pau1 Mande1stam*, Kenneth E. Marino, Sa11y S. Matting1y*, John Menkhaus, H. Brinton Mi1ward, Patricia Montgomery*, Mark Moore, Robert C. Nob1e*, Todd Osborne, Merri11 w. Packer*, Phi1ip C. Pa1mgreen*, Bobby C. Pass, Madhira D. Ram*, Kende11 Rice, Frank J. Rizzo*, Thomas C. Robinson, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Sing1etary*, Laura Stivers*, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Kenneth R. Thompson, Ke11ie Tow1es, Marc J. Wa11ace, James H. Ne11s*, Constance P. Wi1son, Peter Ninograd*, Judy Wiza* The Minutes of the meeting of January 20, 1986, were approved as circu1ated. The Minutes of February 3, 1986, were corrected by the Chairman as fo11ows. On page 2 the third fu11 paragraph shou1d read as fo11ows: "The Chair recognized Professor Robert Hemenway of the Eng1ish Department who spoke for the Senate Counci1 in the absence of Chairman—e1ect Wi1bur Frye. He exp1ained the Counci1's withdrawa1 of Version I. He said that when the Swift Committee made its origina1 report, the wording was "Option I, Ca1cu1us, or Option II, Phi1osophy 120 p1us Statistics 200." In subsequent discussions between the Counci1 and the Swift Committee, it was rea1ized that the origina1 wording was not in keeping with the Swift Committee's genera1 po1icy of not specifying particu1ar courses at this time. As a resu1t, the Senate Counci1 changed Option II to the 1anguage now designated as Version I. After it was circu1ated, Professor Constance Wood argued that this 1anguage was not fu11y in keeping with the goa1s of the Swift Committee, name1y to provide an introductory statistics course. She proposed Version 11...." With those corrections, the Minutes were approved as circu1ated. Chairman Canon made the fo11owing announcements: "First, the top three candidates for the Board of Trustees e1ection are Ray Betts (273 votes), Jim Kemp (168 votes) and Emmett Costich (118 votes). A ba110t with these names wi11 soon be circu1ated. If a majority is not reached on that ba1— 10t, the fina1 ba110t wi11 have two names on it. The Coa1ition of Facu1ty and Senate Leaders have under- taken some activities in the 1ast month or so to try to give the State Legis1ature a more favorab1e view of higher education in the state. The Coa1ition he1d a reception for members of the State LegisTature on Tuesday, February 25. About 35 1egis— 1ators came a1ong as we11 as some of their staff members and some other peopTe from the State Government administration. It *Absence exp1ained gave us a chance to talk to the legislators about the needs of higher education in the state. Several members of the State Legislature that we do not normally see were there and we talked to them at some length. Receptions like this do not buy votes. What they do is give us recognition. This is the first time that associated faculty members from the state univer- sities have gotten together and put on a reception, and I believe many of the legislators are now aware that we are organized and communicating with one and another and are inter— ested in the output of the legislature. The reception occurred at a very fortuitous time. The next day the State Senate was scheduled to take up House Bill 462. When 462 passed the house, it was a simple bill to require that one of the members of the Board of Regents of the regional universities be an alumnus of the university. When the bill got into the Senate State Government Committee, an amendment was added to prohibit the faculty and student members of the Board of Trustees at all state universities, including UK, from voting on personnel matters. In other words the student and faculty trustees could not vote on the selection of the new president. The bill was also amended to reduce the terms of the trustees of the univer- sity from six years to four years and to make it retroactive so that a large number of trustees would automatically lose their positions. Moreover, a floor amendment had been filed on House Bill 462 in the Senate that would have eliminated the student and faculty trustees altogether. We lobbied against the bill hard that night, as you might imagine. I think we convinced some of the legislators to vote against the bill as amended. The next day the Senate sent the bill back to committee. I think the main thing that bothered the Senate was reducing the trustees term from-six to four years retroactively. The bill is now back in the Senate State Government Committee chaired by Senator Ed Ford of Cynthiana. I don't quite know what its fate will be. The State Government Committee met last week and did not consider it. Some people I have talked with in Frankfort say that it now appears to have only minimal chances of coming out. However, I have been in Kentucky long enough to know that lots of things can happen in the last few days of any meeting of the state legislature. I urge you to keep your eyes on House Bill 462 and particularly the provision that it would prohibit faculty and student trustees from voting on personnel matters on the next president. When you are meeting with state legislators, you might tell them you are aware of this and are against it. While talking about the matter of the selection of a new president, let me remind you that at some future date the University Senate is going to be involved in the selection of a new president at the University of Kentucky. The Senate Rules provide that when a vacancy is announced, the Senate shall convene and through a specified process will nominate six (6) members of the faculty to serve on the search committee for the next president. These six (6) people will then be put on a ballot and circulated to all members of the faculty and the three nominees receiving the highest number of votes will be the faculty's representatives on the search committee. I do not know when this will occur; perhaps late this spring or early in the fall. It is no secret that President Singletary is nearing retirement age and we will be in the process of selecting a new president in the near future." Chairman Canon then recognized Professor Jesse Neil who announced that there would be a panel discussion on the role of faculty in the selection of a University president tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m. in the Gallery of Margaret I. King Library, north building. Chairman Canon resumed: I'Let me mention some other activities of COSFL. We held, in conjunction with the AAUP, a banquet Friday night in Frankfort to which legislators were invited, but not as many came to the banquet. In addition COSFL has sent some letters and will continue sending letters to the legislators on matters relating to higher education." The last item on the agenda, which was the report from the Committee on Cheat- ing and Plagiarism, was considered first so that Professor Charles Ellinger could attend another meeting later in the afternoon. The Chair recognized Professor Wilbur Frye to present the Report on Cheating and Plagiarism. Professor Frye said there had been some problems with inconsistency in proposing penalties for offenses of cheating and plagiarism throughout the university in the past and as a result the Academic Ombudsman organized a committee to evaluate the problems and to make some recommendations. Professor Frye moved approval of the proposal which was circulated under the date of February 28, 1986. The Chair recognized Professor Ellinger who chaired the Committee to speak on behalf of the proposal. Professor Ellinger said he had made the presentation in September as part of the annual report from the Office of the Ombudsman. It has since gOne through the Senate Council. Basically there are two purposes. One is to streamline the flow of the procedures and two, to create fairness throughout the university and eliminate inconsistencies. Professor Ellinger's feeling is that the committee put a lot of effort into the proposal. He gave Bill Fortune much of the credit for helping to rewrite the proposal to flow into the current regulations of the University. Professor Ellinger said he would answer any ques— tions. The Chair recognized the Dean of the Graduate School Himberly Royster who suggested the following amendment: 4.2 Academic offenses involving graduate students in 600 and 700 level courses or relating to masterrs examinations, doctoral qualifying examinations, master's theses and doctoral dissertations, or other work related to ful- filling requirements for a graduate degree, shall be considered to occur in the Graduate School and shall be reported to the Dean of the Graduate School or the Dean's deSignee. 4.2 Responsibility of the Dean of the College where the Offense occurred or of the Dean of the Graduate School, As Appropriate The amendment was seconded. Professor Hans Gesund wanted to know what the minimum sanction was when dealing with a thesis because there would be no grade. Associate Dean Dan Reedy said the Graduate School was trying to be as brief as possible without cataloging specifics. It would be feasible to have the advisor of a master's thesis acting as an instructor. He said there had been cases in a thesis or dissertation in which there had been discovery of alleged false data or misrepresentation of information. He said there needed to be an avenue to protect the integrity of the institution. Professor Gesund felt the Graduate School needed more options than it was giving itself. The Chairman asked what the Graduate School did now if they found a thesis related offense. Dean Reedy said the "minimum of an E" was stronger than what had sometimes been given in the past. However, in the case of a dissertation, the degree might not be given or even rescinded. Professor Trudi Bellardo wanted to know if under 4.1 (b) "as appropriate" meant any graduate student. Chairman Canon said it meant any graduate student falling in category "C". Dean Reedy said that graduate students were not members of separate colleges but were all students in the graduate school. Professor Lisa Barclay felt with the amendment that in some instances two different deans may give two different decisions. The Chairman said that could not happen because the amendment stated 600 or 700 level courses. Dean Royster said that students in 400 and 500 level courses were treated as any other undergraduate while 600 and 700 level courses are only for graduate students. There was no further discussion and the amendment passed unanimously. Professor John Rea expressed concern about the minimum penalty of an "E" no matter how small the offense. He said that each year he had students who copied minor papers from each other. He felt the students had no notion of what cheating involved and he had to educate them. With the proposal he would either have to fail them in the course the first week or overlook it altogether. He felt the "E" was fine for major offenses but too much for others. Professor Ellinger said that was an item which came up many times in committee, but the committee felt cheating was cheating. When students come to college they know what cheating is, and the committee felt when different people give different grades it is almost impossible for the Ombudsman's Office to support the professor. Professor Ellinger said the proposal would bring consistency to all professors. Professor Rea said that students do not understand that copying is not allowed. Professor Jesse Heil felt there should be more uniformity and there were pro- visions for that in the proposal. He said the fact that the faculty member would be working with the chairman would make the penalties more uniform. He said he would be uncomfortable to be in a position of having to ignore some offenses because he did not feel students should be penalized without a chance for appeal. Professor Ellinger said the committee felt there was significant number of pro— fessors who do not charge a student for fear of not being supported by the Ombudsman or the Appeals Board. Professor James Kemp felt the minimum "E" grade was like an analogy for get- ting jailed for jay walking as well as murder. He said it was redundant to get the same punishment for different offenses, and he felt it would make hypocrites out of many of the faculty. Professor Gesund felt the plea for uniformity was strange, because there is no uniformity in grading. He said every faculty member graded his/her own way. Another problem he felt was when a faculty member worked with a student in a cheating situation and did not report the incidence. That way the faculty member would be in violation of the Senate Rules. He moved that 4.l(a and b) be deleted, so that there would be no penalties spec1fied. The motion died from lack of a second. Professor Neil offered an alternate amendment to restore to the proposal what was 4.l (a) in the present rule which is "assign any grade on a paper or examina— tion related to the offense." He felt most of the faculty would like to have a lesser penalty. The amendment was seconded. Professor Robert Hemenway spoke against the amendment and in favor of the original version. He felt there was a fundamental procedure of pedagogy that can alleviate the fears of the faculty that they might be forced to act in violation of the Senate Rules. He said at the beginning of a class the professor could point out that any student cheating could get an "E" in the course. Professor Martin McMahon supported the original version, because he said that cheating was cheating and a minimum of "E" in the course was an appropriate penalty. The amendment to restore the penalty of allowing the instructor to assign any grade on a paper or examination related to the offense failed in a hand count of 32 to l6. Professor Constance Wood moved an amendment to insert in 4.10 on page 9 after the first sentence: "This minimum penalty may be reduced for minor offenses upon consultation with the academic ombudsman.“ Professor Rea seconded the motion. Professor Hemenway did not see that it was a good idea to go to the Ombudsman. Professor Hood felt there should be some con- trol in uniformity in what is considered to be a minor offense. The amendment failed in a hand count of 34 to l3. In further discussion Student Senator John Cain said that students were a major part of the committee, and they did not feel that a minimum of an "E" was too much of a penalty. The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The Ellinger Committee Report as amended passed in a voice vote and reads as follows: Background and Rationale: Historically, the Office of the Academic Ombudsman has observed inconsistencies in imposing penalties for academic offenses (cheating and Plagiarism) throughout the University. As a result of these inconsistencies, the Office of the Academic Ombudsman felt that a symposium to evaluate the problems of cheating and plagiarism would be the best initial approach. During the symposium it was decided by those in attendance that an ad hog Committee be appointed to further study the findings of the symposium. The members of the Committee were Vice Chancellor Don Sands, Dean Joe Burch, Ms. Gay Elste, Professors Bill Fortune, Jean Pival, Mike Brooks, Bill Lacy, John Piecoro, Mark Summers, Charles Ellinger, Ms. Barbara Mabry, Mr. John Cain, Ms. Margey McQuilkin, Mr. David Brownell, and Ms. Frankie Garrison. The Committee recommended the attached amendments in an effort to strreamline the overall process and to adopt a policy of consistency and fairness for all students. The amendments will accomplish four major changes: (1) they provide a minimum sanction for cheating or plagiarism of an 'E' in the course; (2) they provide a minimum sanction of suspension from the University for one semester for a second offense; (3) the instructor must consult with the department chairman about the recommendation of a minimum sanction; and, (4) the Registrar's Office will keep a record of all offenses. After the Ellinger Committee Report was completed, some cases occurred in which students enrolled in one college committed offenses in classes taught in another college. Under the present Rules, the sanction recommendation is sent to the dean of the student's college. In some of these cases, the dean of the student's college recommended a lesser sanction than that recommended by the instructor and chairman of the department where the offense occurred. This produced Some inequitable results, i.e., two students committing the same offense in the same class might receive different sanctions depending upon which college they were enrolled in. Both the Senate Council and Chancellor Art Gallaher, Jr., polled the deans (who can, of course, see both sides of this question) about their preferences; to insure equity in imposing sanctions, most favored having the dean of the college where the offense occurred recommend the sanction to the Chancellor. At Chancellor Gallaher's request, the Senate Council approved this change and incorporated it into the Ellinger Report. ***** Note: A Flow chart is attached to indicate the step by step procedures for handling academic offenses (cheating and plagiarism). Proposed Changes: (underlined portion new; delete bracketed portion) 4.0 Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses (US: 4/4/76) [4.lResponsibility of Instructor An instructor who has evidence that a student has committed an academic offense should first arrange a personal conference with the student and do the following: present the evidence with respect to the offense; give the student an opportunity to state his/her case; and make known to the student the charges, if any, and the possible sanctions which may be imposed or recommended. If the student is not reasonably available for or fails to attend such a conference, the instructor shall proceed to inform the student of the nature of the evidence, charges and possible sanctions by certified mail.] [The instructor may then take one or more of the followin actionszl ' [a. assign any grade on a paper or examination related to the offense;] [b. assign any grade for the course in which the offense occurred;] [c. recommend a more severe sanction than the instructor may alone impose, by forwarding through the department chairman a written report of the offense to the dean of the student's college. Notice of action taken under b. and/or c. must be sent by the instructor, within 5 working days after the accusation is made, to the student by certified mail, with copies to the department chairman and the dean of the student's college.(US: 4/11/83)] [4.2Responsibility of the Department Chairman] [After reviewing the report referred to in 4.1 c. and making appropriate investigation, including the hearing and examination evidence presented by or in behalf of the student, the department chairman, within 7 working days, forwards the file, with a recommendation to the dean of the student's college. If, however, the offense also involves a violation of Part I, Code of Student Conduct, the report shall be sent first to the dean of the college in which the offense occurred with a copy to the Dean of Students and the dean of the student's college. (US:4/ll/83)] [When it is the department chairman who initially finds that a student has committed an academic offense in a departmental non-classroom situation, the department chairman should first arrange a personal conference with the student and do the following: present the evidence with respect to the offense; give the student an opportunity to state his/her case; and make known to the student the charges, if any, and the possible sanctions which may be recommended. If the student is not reasonably available for or fails to attend such a conference, the department chairman shall proceed to inform the student of the nature of the evidence, charges and possible sanctions by certified mail. The chairman shall then transmit a written report of the offense with his recommendation of one or more sanctions to the instructor (where appropriate) and/or the dean of the college where the offense occurred.] [Notice of action taken must be sent by the department chairman to the student by certified mail with copies to the instructor (if involved), the dean of the college where the offense occurred, and the dean of the student's college.] 4.1 Responsibility of Instructor and Department Chairman An instructor who suspects that a student has committed an academic offense shall consult with the department chairman, or the designee of the chairman, as soon as practical after the instructor develops the suspicion. If the instructor is also the department chairman, he or she shall consult with the Dean of the college's designee. Prior to consultation, however, the instructor may take action to prevent or detect an academic offense or preserve evidence of same. In taking such action the instructor should minimize disruption and embarrassment to students. The instructor and department chairman shall review the evidence of an academic offense, ask the dean of their college to inquire of the registrar concerning prior academic offenses, and decide on an appropriate course of action. (See 4.9 and 4.10) If the evidence warrants an accusation of an academic offense, the student shall be invited to meet with the instructor and department chairman. The student shall be informed of the charge and given an opportunity to state his or her case. The student shall be informed of the possible penalties that may be imposed or recommended. If the student is not reasonably available or fails to attend the meeting, the instructor, with the approval of the department chairman, shall inform the student by certified mail or other means of delivery with receipt acknowledged in writing, of the nature of the evidence, charges, and possible penalties. The instructor and department chairman shall decide on an appropriate penalty. If there is disagreement the department chairman shall prevail. The instructor and department chairman may impose one or more of the following penalities in the event they determine an academic offense has occurred. Assign a grade of E for the course in which the offense occurred (the minimum penalty). b. Recommend to the Dean of their college that the student be suspended, dismissed or expelled. The determination or recommendation of the instructor and department chairman shall be made within 7 working days after the accusation is made, unless the student consents in'writing to an extension of this time. The determination or recommendation shall be made in writing to their dean with copies to the student and the dean of the student's college, if he or she is enrolled in another college. Certified mail or other means of delivery with receipt acknowledged in writing shall be used to notify the student. If the offense also involves a violation of Part 1, Code of Student Conduct, the report shall also be sent to the Dean of Students. [4.3] 4.2 Responsibility of the Dean of the College Where the Offense Occurred; Academic offenses involving graduate students.in 600 and 700 level courses or relating to master's examinations, doctoral qualifying examinations, master's theses and doctoral dissertations, or other work related to fUlfilling requirements fer a graduate degree shall be considered to occur in the Ghaduate School and shall be reported to the Dean of the Graduate School or the Dean's designee. After reviewing the file forwarded by the department chairman, the dean or his designee shall, within 7 working days, forward the file to the appropriate Chancellor. If the dean diSagrees Wlth the sanction recommended by the chairman, the dean shall forward only his or her own recommendation to the Chancellor. When a violation of Part I, Code of Student Conduct, Section 1.21 c,d,e,f,g,h,i,m,o,q, or r and a violation of Part II, Selected Rules of the University Senate Governing Academic Relationships, Section on Academic Offenses and Procedures, has allegedly been committed in the same set of circumstances or facts, the Dean of Students shall first consult with the dean of the college where the offense occurred. They shall determine whether the Dean of Students, the dean of the college where the offense occurred, or both will investigate and pursue the case in accordance with appropriate procedure(s) and authority(ies) as set forth in Part I'or Part II of STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. After reviewing the file or report, the dean may then take one or more of the following actions listed under a.[,] or b.[, and c.] '__ When it is the dean who initially finds that a student has committed an academic offense [in a college non-classroom situation], the dean should first consult with the instructor and department chairman, if available, and then arrange a personal conference with the student and do the following: present the evidence with respect to the offense; give the student an opportunity to state his/her case; and make known to the student the charges, if any, and the possible sanctions which may be imposed or recommended. If the student is not reasonably available or fails to attend such a conference, the dean shall proceed to inform the student of the nature of the evidence, charges and possible sanctions by certified mail or other means of delivery with receipt acknowledged in writing. Within 7 days of formally charging the student as set out above, the dean may [then] take one or more of the following actions [listed below]: [a. force the student to withdraw from the course in which the offense occurred;] impose the minimum penalty of E for the course in which the offense occurred; [if the student is enrolled in the college where the offense occurred,] forward the file to the appropriate chancellor recommending a sanction of suspension, dismissal or expulsion[;]; (US: 12/13/82) if the student is enrolled in another college, forward the file to the Dean of the student's college recommending a sanction of suspension, dismissal or expulsion. In any case of disagreement with respect to such a sanction, the deans shall forward their separate recommendations to the appropriate chancellor(s).] [Within 7 working days after determining action to be taken under a., b., or c.] Notice [must] of action taken under a. or b. above shall immediately be sent by the Dean or [in extraordinary circumstances] the dean's designee to the student by certified mail or other means of delivery with receipt acknowledged in writing, with copies to the instructor, and the department where the offense occurred, dean of the student's college, Registrar and Academic Ombudsman. [In case of acting under c.,] If the student is enrolled in a college in a different sector, notice of' action should also be sent to the appropriate chancellor. (US: 4/11/83) [4.4Responsibility of the Dean of the Student's College After reviewing the file forwarded by the department chairman or the dean of the college in which the offense took place, the dean (or in extradorinary circumstances his/her designee) shall, within 7 days, forward the file to the appropriate chancellor(s). Should a case arise where the deans are unable to reach agreement on the sanction to be recommended, their separate recommendations should be forwarded to the the appropriate chancellor(s). (US: 4/11/83) Notice of action taken must be sent by the dean to the student by certified mail, with copies to the instructor, department chairman and dean of the college where the offense occurred, Academic Ombudsman and the Registrar.] [4.5] 4.3 Responsibility of the Chancellor After the student has been notified of action, the appropriate chancellor will wait 10 working days to give the student an opportunity to exercise theiright of appeal to the Academic Ombudsman and then will proceed promptly as follows: a. If the student does not appeal the dean's recommendation of suspension, dismissal or expulsion within the specified period, the appropriate chancellor shall review the file, and may approve and implement or disapprove the recommended sanction; [4.6] [4.7] 4.4 4.6 If the student appeals the dean's recommendation of suspension, dismissal or expulsion within the specified period, the appropriate chancellor takes no action unless the University Appeals Board subsequently recommends that the sanction of suspension, dismissal or expulsion be imposed and implemented. If such a recommendation is received from the University Appeals Board, the appropriate chancellor shall review the file, and may approve and implement or disapprove the recommended sanction. (US: 4/11/83) Notice of action taken under a. or b. must be sent by the appropriate chancellor to the student by certified mail 25 other means of delivery with receipt acknowledged in writing, with copies to the instructor, department chairman and dean of the college where the offense occurred, dean of student's college, Registrar, Academic Ombudsman and chairman of the University Appeals Board. In the case of foreign students, a copy should also be sent to the Director of International Student Affairs. (US:12/lO/79) Rights of the Student The student may appeal: 1. the [fact] determination of his/her guilt; 2. the severity of the sanction if [the sanction is other than the assignment of a grade on a paper or examination involved] more than the minimum sanction is recommended. [This] Ehg appeal must be filed in writing with the Academic Ombudsman within 15 working days after the student's notification of the sanction [by certified mail]. It shall be the obligation of the student to provide the instructor with a current address and to keep the instructor advised of changes of address. The student shall have the right of class [attendance and] participation and attendance during the consideration of any appeal. Role of the Dean of the Student's College When the student involved is not enrolled in the college in which the offense occurred, the dean of his or her college shall be informed by copy of all official correspondence pertaining to the sanctions being recommended. Should the student appeal to the University Appeals Board, the dean of the student's college may appear on his or her behalf. Responsibility of the Academic Ombudsman The Academic Ombudsman shall, within a reasonable time, preferably within [3 weeks] 20 working days of receiving the student's written appeal, attempt to resolve the case to the satisfaction of the student and of the instructor or dean imposing or recommending the sanction. If the Academic Ombudsman cannot within [3 weeks] 20 working days of receiving the student's written appeal satisfactorily [4.8] 4.7