xt7jdf6k178x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jdf6k178x/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 19890228 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1989-02-jan28. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1989-02-jan28. 1989 2011 true xt7jdf6k178x section xt7jdf6k178x 








       Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Board of Trustees and
Athletics Association Board of Directors of the University of
Kentucky, Saturday, January 28, 1989.

        The Board of Trustees and the Athletics Association Board of
Directors of the University of Kentucky met in the Board Room on the
18th floor of the Patterson Office Tower at 8:30 a.m. Lexington time
on Saturday, January 28, 1989. The meeting had been requested by the
Board of Trustees and issued by the Acting Chairman, Mrs. Edythe Jones
Hayes.

        A.    Meeting Opened and Rolls Called

        Mrs. Edythe Jones Hayes, Acting Chairperson of the Board of
Trustees called the joint meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and the
invocation was pronounced by Mr. William B. Sturgill.

        Board of Trustees

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

        Athletics Association Board of Directors

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

        B.    Minutes of the Board of Trustees Approved

        On motion made by Governor Chandler, seconded by Mr. Wilcoxson
and passed, the Minutes of the January 24, 1989 meeting of the Board
of Trustees were approved as written.




 






- 2 -



        C.     President's Recommendation on Presiding Chairperson

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

        D. Update by Mr. Darsie on the Courts and Appeals

        President Roselle called on Mr. Darsie to provide an update on
the legal status of the various court actions and appeals.

        Mr. Darsie distributed copies of the ruling of the Kentucky
Supreme Court with respect to whether or not the Board can, if it
wishes, go into Executive Session and the Temporary Restraining Order
issued by the Federal Court in Pikeville on Friday, January 27, 1989.

        Mr. Darsie began with the temporary Restraining Order issued
by the Federal Court. He explained that the order would restrain the
employees, agents and attorneys of the University from divulging
specific things (i.e. test scores, high school grades, ACT scores,
University courses taken, etc.) relating to Mr. Eric Manual, to
anyone, including the Board, press, public or NCAA. He pointed out
that the court's order is applicable irrespective of whether there is
a closed or open meeting.

        Mr. Darsie continued with the second ruling from the Supreme
Court of Kentucky and stated that it Is self-explanatory to a large
extent. The ruling states that if the Board should wish to adopt a
motion going into Executive Session to discuss matters which may lead
to the discipline or dismissal of employees or students, it may do
so. Mr. Darsie stated that it would require, in his opinion, a
separate motion to be made and voted on by the Athletics Association
Board of Directors and by the Board of Trustees of the University. He
then asked for any questions.

        Following a request for Mr. Darsie to repeat the second
ruling, he explained that a motion would have to be made if the Board
decided to go into Executive Session. The ruling does not require
that the Board go into Executive Session but is merely permissive. He
presented a suggested motion for a closed session should anyone wish
to make the motion.

        E. Series of Motions

        Mr. Stricker stated that he would like to make such a motion.

        Mr. Darsie explained that this would have to be applicable to
the Board of Trustees only and that the Athletics Board would have to
vote separately.

        Mr. Stricker's motion was seconded by Governor Chandler; Mrs.
Hayes called for any questions or discussion.




 





3



       Mr. Darsie explained that Mr. Stricker moves that the Board of
Trustees go into Executive Session to discuss (1) matters which may
lead to the discipline or dismissal of individual students, (2)
matters which might lead to the discipline or dismissal of individual
employees, and (3) matters constituting confidential communications
between attorney and client.

        Mr. Forgy asked for President Roselle's view on the matter.

        President Roselle called upon Mr. Darsie to go back to the
issue of confidentiality as it surrounds Mr. Eric Manuel's situation
and explain what the Board might be doing to replicate that situation
in other places.

        Mr. Darsie informed both Boards that an allegation was made in
the Federal Court in Pikeville Friday, January 27, that members of the
Board have leaked information with respect to Mr. Eric Manuel. He
pointed out to the court that there was no proof of the allegation
offered, and it was merely a charge made by people representing Mr.
Manuel. Mr. Darsie then reminded the Board of his speech at the
previous closed session and said the situation with respect to
maintaining the confidentiality of any material which may be disclosed
in closed session certainly is underscored by the Eric Manuel case.
The administration is, of course, restrained from giving out any
information to the Board or to anybody else with respect to Mr.
Manuel. There are, obviously, similar matters relating to other
various individuals. He emphasized the seriousness of the
consequences of divulging any confidential information which may be
shared with the Boards in a closed session, especially in view of the
current legal situation in Federal Court.

        President Roselle explained that the federal law is very clear
on student entitlements, and there is an obligation on everybody,
including members of the Board of Trustees, to protect those rights.
He then called on Joe Burch to report on the manner in which the
investigation has been conducted and how information has been
exchanged.

        Mr. Burch reported that it would be helpful for the members of
both Boards to know that all of the facts contained in the NCAA Report
are already known to the NCAA. He stated that a cooperative
investigation had been conducted from the very first day that the
matters came to the University's attention with the Emery package.
Most of the investigation took place with the University's
investigators, Judge Park and himself present as well as
representatives of the NCAA. He reported that the investigation
started in April, 1988 and reminded the members that the
administration was in front of the NCAA Infractions Committee the
preceding February. They concluded that the administration was not
cooperative with the NCAA. He explained that the administration did
not agree with that stance. Since that had happened, the
investigators did not want to repeat that process in the present NCAA




 







- 4 -



proceeding. He emphasized that the report is a compilation of those
facts that have been gathered jointly and cooperatively. The facts are
known and everything that the investigators have done has been known
to the NCAA staff. The report then will be our interpretations placed
upon those facts and what they deem to be the institution's
responsibility to properly gather information about their athletics
programs and to properly judge those programs and interpret those
facts to the NCAA. It is well known that the NCAA expects its member
institutions to cooperate and investigate themselves. He explained
that the philosophy of the NCAA, to which the University subscribes,
is that institutions of higher learning will police their own programs
and will do the proper thing in terms of advising the NCAA. They will
then jointly work with the NCAA to set about having a program that is
operated in compliance with the rules. Mr. Burch indicated that in
light of the federal restraining order, the report may not be
submitted on Monday, January 30. He asked Judge James Park to speak
about the submission date.

        Judge Park stated that he had had a telephone conversation
with Mr. David Berst of the NCAA late Friday afternoon to inform him
of the issuance of the restraining order by Judge Karl Forester. The
restraining order not only affects the information which can be
communicated to the Board but also the information which can be
communicated to the NCAA. The problem of having to pull out, at this
point in time, all of the information that is enclosed and enumerated
on the order was discussed. He stated that he informed Mr. Berst that
the order had a time limit on it which was until the hearing on
February 3 at 3 pm. It was discussed that it would be best not to
ship the report piecemeal on Monday. He indicated that he hoped that
the completed report could be delivered all at one time.

        A question was asked as to whether the report became public
once it had been submitted to NCAA and Judge Park deferred the
question to the Legal Counsel, John Darsie.

        Mr. Darsie stated that there will be litigation by various
members of the media seeking to have the report declared a public
document. The Fayette Circuit Court will be asked to rule on the
question.

        Mr. Lawson, Secretary to the Athletics Association Board of
Directors, stated that he thought it might be worthwhile to say a word
or two about the Infractions Committee of the NCAA as a follow-up to
Mr. Burch's report about the NCAA staff. The group, which will
ultimately judge the institution, is made up of six members.   Five of
the members are faculty like himself -- faculty representatives from
other institutions -- and four of them are law professors who are very
serious about integrity in college athletics. They do not think that
an educational institution ought to view itself in a proceeding like
that as a criminal defendant might view itself. Essentially, what
they want to see is an educational institution that is interested in
finding out whether or not it has problems in its athletics program,




 







- 5 -



and if it does have problems, do something to straighten them out. He
stated that was the real sense of the cooperative spirit and that he
was not sure what kind of impact the developments of the last week
might have upon that spirit. It did appear that the University would
not be able to meet its deadline in filing the response. He stated to
his colleagues on the Athletics Association Board that if they wanted
to help the institution in this situation, the way to do that would be
to have the institution make an effort to find out if it has problems
in its athletics program and straighten them up if they are there.

        Judge Park indicated that he would like to add one thing to
what Joe Burch indicated and it has to do with the nature of a
response to an official inquiry by the NCAA. He stated that it was an
unusual procedure, and to some extent, he was speaking to the lawyers.
and judges at the meeting. He explained that the response comes close
to an administrative record. You have to put into the response or
attach to it all of the information that has come to the NCAA and to
the University during the investigatory process. They look at the
response to make their decision. The enforcement staff may disagree
with the response, but that would require that the University
officials, in making the response, discuss information or charges that
they don't agree with necessarily and which may be disposed of at the
pre-hearing conference with the enforcement staff. The response
itself is completely unlike a response in a court case. He stated
that everything must be included in the response and reported that it
consists of seven notebooks with some 129 interviews, statement
summaries, depositions, etc. He remarked that there was a tremendous
amount of information in the response that potentially impacts a lot
of people.

        Mr. Ockerman stated that the theory of the NCAA was evolved at
a time when it was not contemplated that everything would be published
and asked that if it is determined that the report is to be public,
Nwhat's the chance that the NCAA might change the requirements for
reporting?"

        Judge Park stated that he hoped he did not have to go back and
do a whole lot of tinkering with what is in the response. The report
has been put together and basically is ready to go. The NCAA is quite
concerned because there has never been a situation in their history
where it appears that the response is being made public or might be
made public before the hearing and before they have had an opportunity
to pass on it. Their rules provide that the entire procedure be
confidential. He referred to the quotes by David Berst of the NCAA in
the morning's Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier Journal with
respect to the fact that they do treat this as a case of first
impression. He stated that the NCAA has never had this kind of a
situation presented to them before and he does not know that they are
going to change their legislation between now and the time the
response is submitted. This could not be done legally, and it would
really revolutionize their whole procedure. Ultimately, down the line
there may be some changes as a result of this case.




 





6



        Judge Tackett asked if they could give more time for the
report while they review their requirements.

        Mr. Burch reported that the NCAA convention meets in January
every year, and stated that they are not likely to change their
legislation until next January.  It is not likely to change, as
difficult as it might be for them and the University. He stated that
they may perhaps delay, but any delay in the matter would be very
difficult for the University's athletics program. The delay has been
very difficult and no one would want to see it delayed any further.
He expressed his concern about not being able to submit the report
until after the Federal Court hearing on Thursday.   In order to know
what to send in the report, the report is going to be delayed until
sometime after Thursday with the understanding of the NCAA. He
emphasized his concern about the likelihood that if the matters were
discussed at the meeting, they would be out before the University
submitted the report. He indicated that it would not look good for
the institution to have the report discussed publicly in the media
before it is sent to the NCAA.

        A discussion regarding the release of the report to the public
prior to the NCAA being disruptive to the NCAA process followed.

        Mr. Darsie added that it not only would not be helpful to the
institution to have the business made public, but it probably would
not be helpful to some of the participants as well. He explained that
the NCAA has altered its procedures by permitting individual coaches
and students, against whom allegations are made, to be represented
separately and make their own case to the Infractions Committee. He
remarked that he did not feel that it would be helpful to those people
to have only part of what will occur at the ultimate NCAA hearing out
in a public session before the individuals have had the opportunity
that the NCAA has afforded them to make whatever defense they care to
make.

        Mr. Burch reiterated that the University was trying to
accomplish a different result from the previous one of being accused
of being uncooperative and also in a sense mitigate any damages that
might occur to the University and to its athletics program. Efforts
to conduct an investigation that the NCAA feels is honest and with
integrity is an effort on the University's part to show them that the
University wants to run a proper program under the rules. The NCAA
Infractions Committee publishes their opinions in a newsletter called
THE NCAA NEWS. He stated that he had been following the opinions for
the last year and a half, and it is very clear that where universities
show the NCAA that they are In charge and in control of their
athletics program and are planning to operate them in compliance with
the rules, any damages that occur to the universities are mitigated.
They have suspended probations, and they have taken various actions
that are favorable where the institution shows it is in control. The
Investigators knew that going in and thought not only was it right, it
was in the University's best interest to conduct the investigation
that way.




 





- 7



        President Roselle returned to his original point that his
concern centers on confidentiality. The Supreme Court of Kentucky
made clear their concern for confidentiality when they made their
ruling at 2:00 a.m. It is important that persons named in the
allegations have the opportunity to make their case to the NCAA
Infractions Committee without having it discussed in the paper first.
The University must protect that right to the best of its ability. He
expressed thanks to the Board members who had come to his office to
talk about the allegations and the report during the last several days
and stated that he hoped that they found the meetings informative. He
indicated that he was available to meet with any Board member for that
purpose.

        Mrs. Hayes asked for any other questions or concerns from
members of either Board.

        Mr. Ockerman asked, "do you have any feeling as to when the
courts will move on whether the report will be public when filed or
not?" Mrs. Hayes referred the question to Mr. Darsie and President
Roselle asked Mr. Darsie to explain the whole situation.

        Mr. Darsie explained that the question is in the process of
being remanded from the Court of Appeals back to Judge George Barker
In the Fayette Circuit Court. Obviously, one thing a lawyer hesitates
to do is make a very firm prediction on how long it is going to take a
Judge to rule. He continued that Judge Barker has, in this case, been
very prompt in making rulings as has the rest of the judiciary. It is
evidenced by the fact that the University's legal counsel was able to
go from a Circuit Court through the Court of Appeals to the Supreme
Court on Friday, January 27. He explained that he could not, however,
predict when the courts would decide on whether the report would be
public when filed.

        Senator Huddleston then inquired about the parlimentary status
at the present time and if there was a motion before the Board.

        Mrs. Hayes stated that there was a motion with a second that
the Board go into Executive Session.  She reminded the Boards that the
motion was for the Board of Trustees only and the Athletics
Association Board would have to deal with the same issue.   She stated
that if there was no further discussion, the Board was ready to vote
on the motion.

        Mr. Forgy stated that he would like to address a question
because it appeared that the Board was caught in an interesting legal
situation that requires a lot of thought before they vote. He then
stated the question, what is in the best interest of the University?
He stated that he thinks the entire Board of Trustees feel that the
people of the Commonwealth expect the Board to know the contents of a
report of this magnitude. An enormous amount of publicity has
attended it, and the Board is caught in the position that the public
need for the members to know about this is offset by the problems that




 






8 -



the Board has with regard to pending litigation or potential
litigation as it relates to various people that are named in the
report. He reminded the members of his remark at the previous meeting
which was, "it would not be my intention to support any change in the
report that the administration is submitting to the NCAA." He stated
that he believes this administration Is where the evidence warrants
its intent on defending the institution and where it does not is
obviously another matter. He further was of the view that the Board
can, by creating a continual problem with regard to the
confidentiality of this material, jeopardize the institution's legal
position In further proceedings. He stated that he felt the Board is
confronted with the public's right to know and the Commonwealth's
demand on the Board as the final repository of authority in the
Commonwealth to know what is going on, and on the other hand, the
problem of trying to disseminate that information to the Board without
continuing problems. He continued that he wondered if there was not
some point between the two points. He stated that, without being
inflamatory about it, he was Inclined to think that the NCAA is an
organization where flexibility ought to extend to the fact that the
Board has serious problems in terms of the right to know as opposed to
the need for confidentiality. He continued that a court has already
ruled in this case that the allegations are a document subject to the
reach of the open records law and Mr. Darsie confirmed his statement.
Mr. Forgy then asked President Roselle about the possibility of a
deferral of the NCAA response and stated (1) that the University could
ask for a reasonably quick adjudication of the matter from a court so
that the reach of the law could be extended to the documents
themselves, (2) that the documents would be, insofar as legally
possible, made public at the same time this Board receives them, and
(3) that part that may subject the institution to litigation could be
left outside because the courts would indicate that it is a matter
that should not be released. He asked if there was a possibility that
the University could proceed along that line.

        President Roselle expressed the opinion that the University
should not take a judicial role in determining the public's right to
know versus the individual's right to privacy. The University's role
is to maintain the privacy of the individuals named in the response
while the media's role is to assert the public's right to know. This
should be done in the courts of law.

        Mr. Forgy asked if there was a possibility that Judge Barker's
pending ruling may relieve the University of its responsibility to
protect the privacy of the individual's named in the response by
ruling that the response is subject to the open records law.

        President Roselle indicated that it was possible but there
were risks Involved.

        Judge Park stated that the question of editing the response is
not a simple Patter because you are dealing basically with an
administrative record which has already been created.   Judge Park




 





- 9 -



agreed with President Roselle and stated that he did not believe that
the University is in a position to edit the response. This will be
Judge Barker's decision to some extent; however, he did not feel the
NCAA would be agreeable to in letting Judge Barker determine what
material would be submitted to the Infractions Committee. He stated
that Mr. Berst did not feel that an extension until Friday would be a
problem.

        Mr. Forgy then said that "it is obvious that you can get to
the courts pretty fast since this whole question of the open meeting
under the open meetings law went all the way to the Supreme Court in
one day. I guess I am trying to probe here is the possibility that if
the NCAA's response was delayed by a week or ten days and if the
document itself was completed and was available at the reach of all,
it was not a partial document, it was here, we admitted it was here,
and the court ruled that certain segments of it as I think they
ultimately will, I don't want to prejudice your case, John or Judge,
but I think this whole question of the reach of the open records law
to this response is probably ves judicada to the decision that was
made in the prior case. I Just make that statement because it is
virtually the same document. The first was a set of allegations, the
second is the response. I am wondering if the document was available
on the President's desk and it was obviously there if the court
decided it was going to disseminate it and that it was subject to the
open records law, the NCAA delayed slightly, then whatever Judge
Barker decides is in the public domain and at virtually the same time
that order would be executed, we have a meeting and we talk to the
Board about it. Now, that gives us some of each."

        President Roselle stated that the University's position at the
present time in a legal sense is that any information made public
about the investigation, etc., is better made public as a result of a
court order. That is true whether it is Information that is released
or whether it is information that's told by persons to whom the
information has been told.

        Mrs. Hayes called for other questions or concerns.

        Mr. Darsie cautioned the Board that further litigation may not
be resolved as expeditiously as the temporary restraining order.

        Mr. Wilcoxson asked if the information available in President
Roselle's office would be the same information that would be disclosed
in a closed session.

        President Roselle stated that he would be available to consult
with the Board members and/or legal counsel at any time. He indicated
that the report was still not complete and that he only saw a draft
copy recently, noting the October 9th resolution that said the
investigation should be carried out free of influence of the
University President.




 





- 10 -



        Mr. Wilcoxson asked why would the matter of confidentiality be
any different in a closed session than it would be in a private
session.   He expressed concern about Mr. Manuel 's attorney having
mentioned that somebody on the Board had disclosed the allegation.

        President Roselle stated that Mr. Darsie had made the argument
that the allegation that someone on the Board disclosed information
was not supported by any evidence.

        Mr. Sturgill asked if there was a possibility that the
University could get additional time over and beyond the Monday
deadline.

        President Roselle indicated that Mr. David Berst, Director of
Enforcement for NCAA, had stated that he did not want the report
piecemeal. He explained that addenda may be submitted later. Mr.
Berst wants to wait for resolution of the Eric Manuel federal court
case which is scheduled for Friday, February 3.

        Mr. Forgy asked if the motion was to go into Executive Session
and discuss the matter rather than discuss the procedural
complications that may come from the discussion in the Executive
Session. Mrs. Hayes replied affirmatively.

        Mr. Forgy indicated that did not want to be on record or be
voting on going into Executive Session to go through the report piece
by piece.

        Mrs. Hayes asked Mr. Stricker to clarify his motion.

        Professor Betts stated that on the basis of the legal counsel
and the President's discussion, it seemed to him that the meeting is
unnecessary and unwarranted at this time. He explained that when he
voted for the meeting, It was for information only and that
information was to be the completed report. The Board has heard from
Judge Park and others that the report is going to have to be seriously
amended to remove those materials which Judge Barker said could not be
included in his decision of the other day. Therefore, it seemed to
him that to discuss the report at this particular time would be only
to discuss a portion of it.  He stated that it seemed to him that the
meeting could be delayed until the final report is submitted as was
the intention of those who voted for the meeting in the first place.
He, therefore, stated that if the motion does include discussion at
this point, he could not support it.

        Mr. Stricker stated that the intent of his motion was to go
into Executive Session and indicated the reason to go into Executive
Session was to determine whether or not the Board is going to review
the report.

        Mr. Darsie reported that "the open meetings law declares that
all meetings of public bodies which we are dealing with here are open
to the public with certain very narrow exceptions. The law further




 





- 11 -



says that in order to fit within one of those exceptions, a motion
must be made in public session specifying the business to be conducted
in the closed session. And that specification of what you are going
to do in the closed session has to fit within one of the
exceptions."   He stated that, "the possible exception applicable here
is exception (6). Exception (6) has to do with discussions which may
lead to the discipline or dismissal of an individual student or an
individual employee. So, in arguing this case in the courts, the
basic position we have taken is that there are serious allegations
against employees and students of this institution which this report
contains and further that the report contains proposed corrective
actions with respect to those." He then repeated Mr. Stricker's
motion, to go into closed session under exception 6 which would be
discussions leading to the possible dismissal or discipline of an
individual student or an individual employee.

        Mr. Stricker remarked that he stood corrected, that he agreed
with what Mr. Darsie said and his motion remained. He also agreed
with Mr. Wilcoxson about not seeing the difference between meeting in
closed session as far as information and confidentiality is concerned
versus meeting individually and reading the report privately.

        Senator Huddleston asked if the only material in the prepared
report that the University is not permitted to submit even to the NCAA
or make public in any way by court order, is that material relating to
Eric Manuel? Mr. Darsie replied in the affirmative. Mr. Huddleston
then asked if the report is in position to be sent -- the only thing
that would have to be deleted from it would be that particular section
relating to Mr. Manuel?   Mr. Darsie asked Judge Park to speak to that
question.

        Judge Park stated that the discussion would impact a number of
areas because the whole matter is interrelated. The specific
information which cannot be discussed with the Board, the media or the
NCAA under Judge Forester's order is fairly specific. There can be
some discussion of that matter but obviously not complete.

        Senator Huddleston stated that the Judge's order was narrow,
and it related only to his grades.

        Judge Park replied that there were six items that the Board
could not discuss.

        Senator Huddleston asked if you took the position that that
was the only thing that prevented the submission of the report and
that could be done relatively easily to expunge that part of the
record, what is the downside or upside to presenting the rest of the
report? Now or as soon as possible without waiting to se