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