• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Board of Regents Meeting Materials University Archives 1977 Board of Regents Meeting Materials, March 23, 1977 Eastern Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.emich.edu/regentsminutes Recommended Citation Eastern Michigan University, "Board of Regents Meeting Materials, March 23, 1977" (1977). Board of Regents Meeting Materials. 364. http://commons.emich.edu/regentsminutes/364 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Board of Regents Meeting Materials by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact lib- [email protected]. Index for March 23, 1977 Meeting of the Board of Regents . 1779M Appointments ........ 59 . 1777M Appointments - Faculty, Spring 1977 ...... 24 .1771M Authorized Signature - College Work-Study Program 22 .1772M Authorized Signature - Tax-Free Alcohol 22 . 1768M Banking Services Depositories & Investments - Policy Revision. 10 � � .1769M Budget Transfers - Policy Revision 13 .1781M Changes of Status ...... 64 .1775M Department of Social Foundations 23 .1766M Educational Grants. 9 .1767M Ernst & Ernst - Reappointment 10 .1778M Faculty Promotions - Arbitration Award 58 .1765M Gifts ........... 9 .1776M Interdisciplinary Non-Teaching Minor in Geronotology 23 .1782M Leaves of Absence 67 .1772M President's Salary. .. 23 .1772M Property Sale - 855 Davis Street. 22 .1770M Registration Schedules & Payment of Tuition & Fees-Policy Revision 13 .1780M Separations 62 . '•... BO/-\RD OF REGENTS EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Official Minutes of the meeting of March 23; 1977 Regents Room - McKenny Union ' Board members present: I Richard N. Robb, Chairman Timothy J. Dyer, Dee Kinzel, Edward J. McCormick, Carleton K. Rush, Mildred Beatty Smith and John F. Ullrich Board members absent: Beth Wharton Milford Administration present: President James H. Brickley Vice Presidents;· Anthony H. Evans, Gary 0. Hawks, James S. Magee and Laurence N. Smith Assist�nt Treasurer Walter Eisele, Jr. Administration absent: Vice President Robert J. �omkema Chairman Robb called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Chairman Robb stated that before any business is transacted he wanted to inform the Board of the death of Mrs. Habel, the wife of O. William Habel, a former Regent of this Board. On behalf of the Board of Regents Chairman Robb, Regent McCorm"ick and Regent Smith expressed deep sympathy to Dr. Habel and his family. Regent Dyer moved and Regent Ullrich seconded that the February 16, 1977, minutes be approved as distributed. Motion carried. Regent Rush asked Chairman Robb if the order of the Board agenda could be changed, as there were a number of people in the audience interested in the appeal of Tom Eddings. Chairman Robb queried the Board to see if ther€ were any objections to changing . the order of business so that the Edding's request would be considered as the first item of business for the day. After some discussion Chairman Robb informed t'he Board that this is not an appeal, this is a statement by a representative of Mr. Eddings as to why this Board should grant an appeal. The Chairman noted that Mr. Richard Gienapp would speak in behalf of Mr. Thomas Eddings. Chairman Robb suggested that the Board grant ten minutes time to Mr. Gienapp to state his case as to why this Board should consider an appeal. 2 Hearing no disagreement from the Board, Chairman Robb introduced Mr. Gienapp. Mr. Richard Gienapp is the Director of the Student Defenders Union. Mr. Gienapp speaks: "I think by now you have all received the statement made by the Student Defender's · Union on behalf of Mr. Thomas Eddings. We are asking, today, that you grant him a hearing. This will not be a discussion of the merits of the case, only asking that you do, at a later date, decide to grant him a· complete hearing. "On December 8, Mr. Eddings was involved in an incident and later on February 2, 1977, was placed on administrative probation for one year by the University Judicial Board. The Dean of Students appealed that decision, and on February 17, 1977, the Judicial Appeals Board suspended Mr. Eddings for one year. We started judicial review to President Brickley, who after a five day period, allowed the decision to stand and not be overturned. "At this time then, we are appealing to the Regents as the final appeal in the Judicial structure. We think that the judicial system of Eastern is now almost analagous to the civil system which we are familiar with. We are alleging that a lot of procedural errors were made in the judicial appeals for a hearing. And those errors had a substantial impact on the outcome of the hearing. Because of the errors and because they were such serious errors, we think that the decision itself should not be allowed to stand. "Preamble of the errors: The errors should not be judged relative to the errors that would appear in the civil system. I think that because of the extra procedures, the university must take extreme precautions so the hearings are error free and they are very fair to all the students and all the parties involved. "That duty of fairness should be an over-riding duty of the university. The courts have allowed the university to have a system to pursue misconduct but haven't done it without warning. They said that the university, and they emphasize must, guarantee that every precaution is taken to guarantee a fair hearing. Frankly, we don't think that the hearing in which Mr. Eddings was suspended was fair. "Reasons: The conduct code and rule that Mr. Eddings was charged with appears to be a violation of the law. As of now, there has been no violation of law. Mr. Eddings is in the process of being prosecuted for this and as of yet has not been found guilty of violating any law. He just has not broken the conduct code in the way in which it is written. " Mr. Gienapp said there were also procedural errors and violations if Items 8, 9, and 10 relating to witnesses. He said; "At that time it was Sgt. Garland. He testified, we were given the right to cross-examine, given the opportunity to ask questions. At that time Sgt. Garland should have been dismissed as a witness and shouid not have been _questioned any further. He was questioned further, this was an obvious procedural error according to the establ; : ed procedures of the university. His testimony a second time around was, we �--�1, a deciding factor in the decision of the 3 hearing board. Had the error not have been made, the testimony would not have been interjected and the decision would not have been what it was. Also, one of the basic procedures of students is to cross-examine those testifying· against him. Assistant Dean of Students, James Scott, who presided in his closing statements to collaborate some testimony by Sgt; Garland, indicated the testimony of Detective Vigo, who was not at the hearing, did not testify and certainly was not available for cross-examination. Again, this is another serious error of violation of student procedural rights, and again, we feel it had a substantial impact of the outcome of the hearing and·baring that error, the decision would not have been as it was. "The third reason we feel that the Regents should give us a hearing is that it is exclusively stated in the Conduct Code that Regents are a part of the system. (Conduct Code, page 9, section 11, #7.) It is almost implied that the Regents are the fi na 1 .appea 1 in any university appea 1 action. But this goes beyond implication and it explicitly states that it was designed this way, that the Regents are certainly there when it warrants their investigation. "We feel this is one case that warrants their investigatfon. We would like to say that this is not a precedent setting thing. I don't think the Board of Regents would become an every day part of this system, but then this is hardly a typical case. Normally, procedures are followed and hearings are very fair. In this case, there were so many procedural errors, in so many ways, that we think the only way fairness can be reached is for the Regents to grant the hearing. It is a complex case, it involves a lot of things. As of right now our office is working on research into the case trying to find out exactly what we think would be the best approach and the probable ruling and how this case relates to similar cases at other universities. For these reasons, a hearing should be granted. It can't be sorted out by looking at the validity of the errors or the seriousness of the errors. I think the only way to do it is to sit down and listen to all the facts and make the decision. What we are asking for today is a hearing. There are enough procedural errors we think to justify granting a hearing. This isn't a piddly issue. It threatens the very issue of the judicial system and the foundation on which this university is based. So far in talking with various administrators, response seems to be that the process is basically fair. The concern for law and order on this campus seems to be the over-riding concern. Law and order is crucial to the campus functioning smoothly. I think it is time though, that the Regents took care. Underneath the cries of law and order is some justice. I hope that you will take the time it takes to sort out this issue, grant Tom a hearing, and make a ruling on it after you sit down and hear the whole case.

Load more

  72

Copy Link