xt7k9882nv2f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7k9882nv2f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1988-03-07  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 7, 1988 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 7, 1988 1988 1988-03-07 2020 true xt7k9882nv2f section xt7k9882nv2f LNNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

March 7, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building

Minutes. December 7, 1987 and January 18, 1988

Remarks by the Honorable Michael Moloney, Chairman of the Senate
Appropriations and Rebenue Committee.


a. Proposed Changes in University Senate Rules, Section VI —
3.0 and ff.Academic Offenses and Procedures and Section V1
4.0 and ff. Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses.
(Circulated under date of 24 February 1988).




Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section 111——
Course Numbering Systems and Curriculum Procedures,1.3, "R"
(REMEDIAL) Courses. (Circulated under date of 23 February


Proposed change in University' Senate Rules, Section. IV —
2.2.5, Admission to the Honors Program. (Circulated under
date of 25 February 1988.)



If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton (7-7155) in advance. Thank you.




The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March
7, 1988, in Room 115 of the C011ege of Nursing/Hea1th Sciences Bui1ding.

Ni11iam E. Lyons, Chairman of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent were: John J. A11en, David A11good*, Char1es T. Ambrose*,
Richard Ange1o, Michae1 A. Baer, Lisa Barc1ay*, Char1es E. Barnhart, Susan
Bean*, Dibaker Bhattacharyya, Frank J. Bicke1*, David Bingham*, G1enn C.
B1omquist*, Jeffery A. Born, G1en Buckner, Ben Carr, Edward A. Carter, Michae1
Cibu11, Harry C1arke, Richard R. C1ayton, Dona1d CoIeman, Emmett Costich,
Frederick Danner*, Joe T. Davis*, Leo S. Demski, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, J.
Burton DougTass*, Nancy S. Dye, Pau1 M. Eakin, Char1es E11inger, James
Freeman, Richard N. Furst, Art Ga11aher, Jr.*, Jeff Goodyear, Ann Griesser*,
Andrew Grimes, John R. Groves, Ottfried J. Hahn, Zafar Hasan*, Freddie
Hermann, Rona1d Hoover, Raymond R. Hornback, Jeffrey Hughes, Thomas Ingram*,
Mehran Jahed*, Richard I. Kermode*, Lisa King, Jim Koege1, James M. Kuder*,'
John Kuege1, Robert G. Lawson, GeraTd Lemons*, Arthur Lieber*, Wi11iam C.
Lubawy, Martin J. McMahon, Robert Murphy, David A. Nash*, Michae1 T. NietzeT,
Arthur J. Nonneman, Jose Oubrerie*, Rosanne Pa1ermo, A1an Perreiah*,
Antoinette P. Powe11*, Deborah E. Powe11*, Mary Tripp Reed, Thomas C.
Robinson, Jo Ann Rogers, John M. Rogers, David P. Rose11e, Edgar L. Sagan,
Kary11 N. Shaw, Stephen Stigers, Andrea Suffi11, Marie Vittetoe*, Scott Ward,
Cyndi Neaver, Char1es T. Methington, David White*, Caro1yn A. Wi11iams*, Gene
Wi11iams, Jason NiITiams, Angene Hi150n, w. Doug1as Ni1son*, and Peter

The Chair made the fo110wing remarks and announcements:

”Let me ca11 your attention to something that I hope
everyone received in the mai1. .It is the first issue of the
SIS Update. I think it is going to be usefu1 and he1pfu1 to
fo11ow that project. It is a rather e1aborate system and this
NewsIetter wi11 be a means that wi11 be used to keep you
informed. In addition, I wouid 1ike to point out that the
Senate Counci1 is going to meet with Randy Dah1 this Wednesday
afternoon and ta1k about some of the academic imp1ications of
the various po1icies that wi11 have to be put in p1ace to make
this system work. I want everyone to be aware of that and if
anyone has any concerns about the academic issues as you see
this thing begin to unfoid, p1ease don't hesitate to contact
the office so that we can attend to them before they are
etched in stone.

I hope most of you have received the initia1 memo from
President Rose11e regarding the Honors Day which is to be her
on Apri1 14. This is going to be a ce1ebration of achievement
on this campus for facu1ty, staff and students. I wouId 1ike
to urge a11 of you to make p1ans to participate in this

*Absence exp1ained.


 particular event. It will be held on the afternoon of April
14 and it will involve an academic procession. Plans are
being made for accommodating those of you who need to get caps
and gowns. It is going to be an attempt to recognize all
faculty and staff and students who have won University—wide
awards, and I think it behooves those of us in the Senate to
be there and to urge our colleagues to be there to recognize
those members of the University family who have succeeded in
winning these awards.

The last Senate meeting for this academic year will be on
April ll, the second Monday in April. (NOTE: Date has been
changed to April 25.) There will be several things on the
agenda for that meeting that ought to be of interest to you.
First of all, it will be a meeting where we will have the
annual report from the faculty trustees. We will also have a
report from the ad hoc Committee on Course Changes and Program
Changes. The ad hoc committee is trying to make some sense
out of this process and add some sanity to the process, and we
will be looking at that. In addition to those items there is
a possibility that we will have to bring before you another
college reorganization proposal. This just arrived on my desk
today. We hope that we can get that to you for the April

I would like to remind all the people who chaired various
Senate Standing Committees that I will be sending a memo ‘
shortly requesting your annual report. I would hope that we
can get the reports summarizing the works of the various
committees this year in time so that the Senate Council can
have them for this summer's deliberations aimed at planning
what issues need to be addressed for the coming academic year.

You will be hearing more of the details about the Honors
Day Celebration in the very near future.”

The Minutes of the meetings of December 7, l987, and January l8, l988,
were approved as circulated.

The Chair said it was his pleasure to introduce someone that everyone had
been reading a lot about in the newspaper, and he felt the speaker would be
giving a message that everyone was interested in particularly given the
reports that have come out in the newspaper for the past several days. He
said that perhaps there are only a handful of people in Frankfort who really
understand the budget in Kentucky and all the mysteries that go with the
budgetary process. The Chair introduced one of the people who understands the
budget process for some comments and asked the Senate to welcome the Honorable
Michael Moloney, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee.
The Senators gave Senator Moloney a round of applause.

Senator Michael Moloney spoke to the Senate as follows:

”I find it a little difficult to actually say 'with
pleasure' that I was asked here today given what we have to


 talk about and what we are looking at. Let me try to place a
couple of things in perspective as to where we are with
respect to the budget. I think everyone in this room is
cognizant of what the proposal was that came from the
Executive. They talk about a l.l percent increase in
appropriations for higher education in the first year of the
biennium and 3.9 percent the second year. When you get down
to it, there is no increase in appropriations. That is
playing with figures. The largest single figure in that whole
thing is state contribution to the Kentucky State Teachers
Retirement System that has to be paid for the first time this
year to Morehead, Murray, Western, Eastern and Kentucky

State. Their faculty members are members of that system
rather than TIAA/CREF. Those payments constitute about .8
percent of that 1.1 percent increase in the first year. Those
monies stay at the University just as long as it takes to
electronically transfer them through the University and put
them back into the Teachers Retirement System. I might also
add that what the Governor referred to as the overmatch and
what I call the payback is not included in that. The
appropriations to the University of Kentucky in the first year
of the biennium on its $226 million general fund base total of
$800 thousand of which every penny is earmarked as far as
operating dollars are concerned. You have the Japanese
Saturday School and some other programs that have specific
earmarked appropriations. The University's appropriation is
zero. '

I am sure you read in the paper a couple of weeks ago a
proposal that I put forward. The Governor was kind enough to
suggest, and I'll use his words, 'Since I had been wallering
around in this mess for several years' that I should come
forward with a plan. I did. To tell you the truth he has not
commented on the plan. That's one of the nicest things he has
said about me this time. What I proposed to do was the
unheard of-—raise taxes and spend that money. I was proposing
to raise $440 million the first year of the biennium and the
second year about $460 million for an average of $450, and I
was going to spend $236 million in the first year and $339
million the second year for elementary, secondary and higher
education. That plan would have proposed to bring the formula
funding up to 92 percent the first year and 96 percent the
second year rather than what we are looking at: the
Governor's proposal is dropping back to 82.5 percent the first
year of l988-90 biennium and 81.5 percent the second year.

The House A & R Committee subcommittee chairs met over
the weekend to analyze the reports of the various
subcommittees of the House A & R Committee. The House
Committee operates in subcommittees. Their division is three
members for the Appropriations and Revenue Committee plus
advisory members from committees of standing jurisdiction on
the subject matter and they make advisory recommendations to
the full committee which then acts upon the recommendations.


 The subcommittee chairs all met this weekend and adopted a
plan which calls for putting about ll million additional
dollars in the first year of the biennium and a little over
nine million to nine and one-half million in the second year
of the biennium into higher education. I haven‘t seen it, but
I've had it described to me by our staff and as it was
described to me, it gives me some cause for concern. For
example, they made one gut decision, and I can understand it,
but at the same time I think it may be a little shortsighted.
It‘s a whole lot like the Governor's budget. There will be no
bricks and mortar. I can understand that when you have money
problems there will be a day when there will be no bricks and
mortar. I don't know that the life safety systems at our
universities really qualify as bricks and mortar. I think it
might be a little bit beyond that. They have cut out the
appropriations for life safety improvements. They have cut
out the appropriations for the Business and Economics
Building, and they have cut out the second year of the
biennium debt service for a new facility at Ashland Community
College. They have cut out specific appropriations for the
Japanese Saturday School and the engineering enhancement of a
million dollars, half each to University of Louisville and
University of Kentucky to be matched by private funds. In its
place they have taken the eleven million dollars and divided
it about equally between the formula and the salary incentive
fund. I am not going to get personal on that base, but when
one takes money and divides itahalf way between the formula
and half way between the salary incentive fund, what that does
is to allow the-institutions high in formula funding to get
funds they would not otherwise have gotten if it had all gone
into formula. If you want to know what those institutions
are, look at the makeup of the budget and the new subcommittee
and you will understand where they are located.

In the second year basically the same thing is done
again. The money that the House subcommittee is recommending,
is additional funding in higher education, and I might add
that this money came from basically three sources. The first
source was Governor Wilkinson's new educational initiatives in
elementary and secondary education, his benchmark schools and
his, I call it ”son—of-power equalization," his disadvantaged
districts program. There is a total of ten million dollars
the first year and thirteen the second year. They also took
some additional money from the economic development program
from the Governor and some from the energy program and put
substantial money back into the Teachers Retirement System--
about half of that 38 million dollars back into the Teachers'
Retirement——and the balance they put in this area of funding
for higher education at least to the extent recommended.

The Senate Committee has begun its work, and when Dr.
Jewell mentioned to me earlier that he saw where the House was
working on weekends, I said that we sometimes work on weekends
too, but we don't always have to call a press conference after


 the meeting. They work a TittTe differentiy. They have
twenty-three members and we have nine members so we obviously
work differently. We have been working over weekends
ourseTves, primariTy over the teTephone in conferences. I
think there is strong sentiment of the Senate Committee for
putting additionaT money in higher education. That wiTT be
done, in my judgment, and wiTT aTT go into the formuTa. It
wiTT not be kicked into saTary incentives. I think if we are
going to do anything in higher education its got to be spread
across the system and we can't pick and choose among

Life safety system appropriation, which was number one
with a1] of the institutions, has fiat got to be funded.
Whether we have too many institutions, whether we are doing
things at some institutions we shoqun't be doing, is not
reaTTy the issue. The issue is whether or not we are going to
have faciTities that we can use. I don't know if any of you
have been to Morehead and seen the situation they have. It is
unbeTievabTe. Their entire electricaT system is being spread
around campus in the same tunnel that their steam heat system
is being put around campus. It doesn't take a whoTe Tot to
imagine what is going to happen if they have a Teak. When
they do, they shut the eTectric down, which shuts everything
else down unti] the Teak is repaired. We have to do something
about that just as we have to do something to some of the
systems here at the university and eTsewhere throughout the

university system.

I can't stand here and teTT you that we are going to have
a tax increase. Governor WiTkinson has fiat said we are not
going to have one. It doesn't take a whoTe Tot of encourage—
ment on the part of a Tot of the members of the Genera]
AssembTy to vote against taxes and when the Governor encour-
ages you to do it, that's a1] you need. 'It's just that
simpTe. I wiTT stand here and teTT you that before the
Legisiature convenes again in 1990, the Governor wiTT be
begging for a tax proposaT. Whether that wiTT come in Tate
1988 before the succession amendment is voted on or after the
succession amendment is voted on, I don't know. If I had to
guess it wiTT be shortTy after the succession amendment is
voted on and in my judgment defeated. We wiTT have a session
in 1989 or 1990 in which the Governor wiTT be making a tax
proposaT. I can aTso stand here and teTT you that aTthough it
won't be caTTed that, it wiTT resembTe a whole Tot what I
proposed about two weeks ago. It is going to invoTve a
combination, in my judgment, an income tax restructuring and
reform and saies tax increase. I don't know what the
specifics are going to be, and I'TT read about it about the
same time you aTT do. At that time I think there wiTT be
support. The support woqu have been here now had it not been.
for the Governor because there are a Tot of peppTe who wiTT
vote for it one time but don't want to vote for it twice which
woqu be required to override the Governor's veto.


 What I can report to you is that there will be additional
funding in higher education, but not enough, not nearly
enough. I think if we were able to do what I had proposed
that would at least give the signal, not only to our faculty
within the state, but also outside the state that Kentucky is
serious about higher education and indeed all of education and
we could continue to recruit the people of quality and keep
those we have now. We are going to be sending the opposite
signal, in my judgment, and that's the problem I foresee for
higher education in this biennium, and I hope it ends with
this biennium. He will be trying to get that message across.
I know it certainly got across in the Fayette County delega-
tion. I would commend the faculty at the University for
getting that point across. Ironically, I think if the issue
of a tax increase came up for a vote in the House and in the
Senate with it understood that the money was going no where
other than for education, we would not have unanimous support
for that tax increase from the Fayette County Legislative
delegation. In the House I believe you would have four to
five votes and in the Senate you would have two or three.

That is the situation where we are right now. I'd be
glad to try to respond to any specific questions that you all
have concerning the budget or any other legislative issue.“

Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and Astronomy) wanted to know if Senator
Moloney felt that it was worthwhile for faculty to continue to write their
legislative representatives. Senator Moloney said absolutely because if the
faculty didn't the legislators would think they didn't care. He said he met
with the group from leadership Lexington which the Chamber of Commerce spon-
sored. One of the members of the delegation said he had not heard from anyone
saying they support increased funding for higher education or that they are
concerned about the budget. Senator Moloney saw that same person about five
days later and he took back what he said. He had gotten about l50 letters in
about four days. He said it was important that the faculty continue to let
members of the General Assembly know how they feel and why they feel that way.

Professor Mary Sue Coleman (Biochemistry) said there was a Bill out—
standing about undeserved competition of University services that are provided
by private contract. She said that had some bad implications. Senator
Moloney said if it passed in the House, it would die in the Senate State
Government Committee or the Senate State Appropriations and Revenue Committee,
whichever one it got to first.

Professor Donald Leigh (Engineering) asked about the Bill on the
Coldstream farm. Senator Moloney said that would die in the Senate Appropri—
ations and Revenue Committee after being held in State Governmental or
Agriculture Natural Resourses for the maximum period of time and then it will
kick out and go to A & R and die there. He said he would get the original
copy and bring it back to the Dean of the College of Agriculture.

Professor Malcolm Jewell (Political Science) said that Senator Moloney's
Bill on income tax devised a more progressive tax and removed some of the

lower income people from paying taxes. He said it was more a reform and


 sooner or later, if not in this session, is it reasonable to think that kind
of tax can be sold more effectively because the people in the state most
likely to be opposed to a tax increase completely are lower income people. He
wanted to know if that was a good tactic to be stressed. Senator Moloney felt
it could be. He said that Representative Clark‘s Bill is primarily a con-
formity plus elimination of the federal income tax deduction on the state
return. It would take about 200,000 people off the tax rolls, reducing taxes
for about one—half of the remaining l,250,000 tax payers, and raises taxes for
the other one—half. Senator Moloney said his own proposal conforms but also
gets political. His proposal exempts from Kentucky income tax income from any
Kentucky retirement system. The bottom line on his was to start the taxable
income of people at the federal taxable income. He said that would raise $24l
million dollars the first year. He said what it really does is eliminate the
necessity for filing income tax returns for 2ll,000 tax filers. It reduces
taxes for 842,000 people and raises taxes for 382,000.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) wanted to know if the University's
TIAA/CREF retirement would be exempt from the state income tax. Senator
Moloney said that would not be exempt. Professor Gesund felt that was unfair
for the University personnel to pay taxes on their retirement when others did
not. Senator Moloney said the Bill was subject to adjustment.

Professor James Applegate (Communications) said that the Moloney proposal
was clearly the most comprehensive and probably the most radical, but Clark's
proposal might be seen as some sort of compromise or middle of the road thing
and therefore would become a political alternative. Professor Applegate
wanted to know if that would happen. Senator Moloney said there was no chance
of that happening in this session. In his judgment the thing that was politi-
cal was the one percent increase in sales tax. He said there are a lot of
people in the legislature that say they don't want to touch income tax but
want to hit the sales tax on the existing items.

Professor John Just (Biological Sciences) wanted to know if the faculty
contacted their legislators would they be preaching to the converted. His
concern was that if the University faculty started writing the Fayette county
legislators, it would probably not be the group making the most proposed
legislative changes. Senator Moloney's response was, ”If the University
faculty can convince the Fayette County legislators of the necessity of
producing more money and the University of Louisville faculty get Jefferson
County, get the folks in northern Kentucky, western Kentucky and on down the
line, it would be the majority of the legislators.” He said it was important
to have a solid block coming from Fayette County in support of the legisla—

Professor Mary Sue Coleman wanted to know if it was a lost cause with the
Governor in terms of trying to educate him or to convince him that there are
an awful lot of people who vote and who care about education. Senator Moloney
said the first time he knew that the Governor showed attention about the
impact of the budget on higher education was when he was told in a meeting
with the presidents of the universities, ”Do you understand how rapidly your
popularity is dropping in our area?" The Governor understood that and showed
some concern.


 Chairman Lyons asked Senator Moloney to comment on the current status of
the Saturday school. His response was that the Saturday school was a specific
appropriation included within the $800 thousand in the first year and a com-
parable amount in the second year to pay for the Japanese Saturday School at
the University. He said the Saturday sChool is in the Executive budget and
that money is part of UK's "growth". It seemed to him the state had the same
obligation there as it did to provide training funds to Toyota. He feels the
Governor is now knowledgeable about the universities' budgets.

Professor Loys Mather (Agriculture) wanted to know where the money was
coming from to put in the formula. Senator Moloney said in conversations with
members of the Senate he felt there was sentiment to put back all of the money
in teacher retirement. He said when anything was done in higher education it
would be impossible to put it all back. Therefore, some of the money could be
put back and some kept out, strip down the appropriations to economic develop-
ment, commerce cabinet, to finance new bond issues, to take out tourism. He
said the Governor said that we would not have improved economy in the state
unless there is economic development. Senator Moloney's primary emphasis is
to put the money back into education and not economic development.

Professor James Applegate thanked Senator Moloney for being a model of
some sane voice that the faculty could listen to and if Senator Moloney needed
some help in his re-election campaign to call a faculty member and if he
wouldn't help, let the Senate know the faculty member's name. The Senate
gave Senator Moloney a round of applause.

Senator Moloney said he met with Professor Lyons and other members of the
Senate and one of the points made at that meeting was that it wasn't that many

years ago that legislation had to be passed in Frankfort to take the salary
cap off of faculty salaries, because until that time faculty salaries were
under the state personnel board and the maximum salary for anybody was
$5,000. The Governor was paid $7200. He said his father introduced that
piece of legislation. He felt some of his commitment to the University came
from that direction. He said he did appreciate Professor Applegate's comments
and sometime between now and May 24 he hoped he would get to see all who live
in ’ istrict because he would be walking the streets. Again the Senate
gave the Honorable Michael Moloney a round of applause. He said if anyone
nee e anything not to hesitate to call him. His office number in Lexington
is 255—7946 and the toll free number in Frankfort is l-800-248-2947. He
thanked the Senate for letting him visit.

Chairman Lyons recognized Professor Loys Mather, Chair-elect of the
Senate Council. Professor Mather, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved~
approval of the proposed changes in University Senate Rules, Section VI - 3.0
and ff. Academic Offenses and Procedures and Section VI 4.0 and ff.
Disposition of Cases of Academic Offenses. This proposal was circulated to
members of’the Senate—finder date of 21 February l988.



The Chair noted that the proposal was a recommendation from the Senate
Council and did not require a second. He said that Professor Malcolm Jewell
who chairs the Rules Committee would be able to help if anyone had any ques-
tions. He added that the proposal had been returned to committee and some
changes had been made.


 The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Donald
Leigh moved an amendment in Section 4.0 Disposition of Cases of Academic
Offenses. The amendment would read: ‘_'


"....in person (including a witness and/or a signed receipt) by
certified mail (to the local address as contained in the Registrar's

He felt by saying ”the local address as contained in the Registrar's Office"
would clarify the address and some of the faculty would need to understand
that "in person“ would have to include more than just the faculty member's
word with the student against the students's word to have a witness and/or a
signed receipt. The amendment was seconded.

Dean Nimberly Royster (Graduate School) wanted to know what would be done
if the Registrar's Office address is wrong. Professor Leigh said it was the
student's responsibility to have the correct address, and the address in the
Registrar's Office was the official address. The Chair said the issue was
whether or not the university should be sending the certified letters to the
home address. Professor Nilliam Fortune (Law) said that he would rather leave
the proposal as it is. He felt anything that was done to make the rule more
specific which narrows it down, creates a possibility of a case that does not
fit, and it seemed to him the whole argument was to get some kind of notice to
the student. He did not feel it was a good idea to make the proposal so
specific that there would be situations where students could not be effec-
tively notified. Chairman Lyons said there were two ways of notifying the
students and that was by certified mail or in person. Professor Jesse Neil
' asked if having a witness or returned receipt be grounds enough. Professor
Fortune felt it was unfortunate that the UniverSity would have to be so
legalistic, but the students are bringing attorneys with them to the
hearings. Professor Robert Spedding (Dentistry) felt that one of the attrac—
tive features of the amendment was that the local address is defined. He said
the students tend to move around and not notify the University, but the
University still carries the responsibility of knowing where the students are.

Professor Jesse Neil moved an amendment to the amendment to inform the
student in person (preferably in the presence of a witness or a signed receipt
from the student). Professor Leigh accepted the amendment. Professor John
Rea (French) pointed out that certified mail delivery could be anyone that
happened to answer the door. Professor Leigh felt that was a good point about
certified mail. Chairman Lyons said that the University's Legal Office tradi—
tionally asks that the person to whom the letter was sent to sign. He said
that was the way it was done at the University, and he felt that situation was

The amendment with modifications by Jesse Neil passed and reads as

"....in person (preferably in the presence of a witness or a
signEH receipt from the student) by certified mail (to the local
address as contained in the Registrar's Office.)"


 Professor Hans Gesund asked what the "fact" meant in the sentence,
"Information regarding the academic offense other than the fact and term
.. " He wanted to insert the phrase "that an offense was committed” before
the word "fact" and "the" be inserted before "term of any mandatory restric-
tion ..... " Professor Rea seconded the motion to amend. Professor Wei] wanted
to know if that was any vioTation to the privacy act.

Dr. RandaTT DahT (University Registrar) said the Tanguage where it stated
"the fact and term of any mandatory restriction" appTies exciusiveTy to the
mandatory restriction which is in essence a suspension. The notation on a
transcript woqu be "suspension and duration" and woqu not indicate suspen—
sion for an academic offense of a particuTar type. It woqu simply note the
fact of suspension and the duration of suspension and that is what the Tangu—
age says and not the Tanguage Professor Gesund is suggesting. Professor
WeiT's question is if the Senate accepts Professor Gesund's amendment and it
says "suspended for academic offense for six months or whatever" would that be
in vioTation of federaT reguTations. University Registrar RandaTT DahT said
the record woqu not say "suspended for academic offense” but mereTy say
"suspended." Dr. DahT's understanding was that it woqu be permissibTe to say
that it was a suspension other than academic, but that is not the normaT
practice of institutions.

Professor Gesund feTt that the wording as is hurts the student that is
simpTy a poor student and gets suspended for Tow grades. Another student
might get suspended for having committed an academic offense. He feTt that
was unfair to the student who just cannot "cut the mustard" in caTcuTus. He
feTt his amendment pointed a finger at those who had committed an academic
offense but at the same time it shows the innocence of those who have not. 'In
fairness he feTt no doubt shoqu be left for prospective empToyers or other
schooTs. Professor HeiT said that the transcript woqu speak for itseTf.

There was no further discussion on the amendment which faiTed in a voice

Professor Gesund proposed an amendment in 4.10a to omit everything after
the word ”transcripts" in the Tast sentence, and to add a sentence to the
effect that exceptions may be made for students Tess than eighteen when they
transgress, so if a student who is seventeen and does something stupidTy they
woqu not be part of the ruTe. He said that an aduTt shoqu not be abie to
get away with hav