Simmons v. Budds

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before HOUSE; HOUSE
• Citation: Simmons v. Budds, 338 A.2d 479, 165 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1973)
• Decision Date: 04 December 1973
• Parties: Donald C. SIMMONS v. John J. BUDDS et al.

Page 479

338 A.2d 479

165 Conn. 507

Donald C. SIMMONS v. John J. BUDDS et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Certiorari Denied April 15, 1974. See 94 S.Ct. 1943.

Norman J. Voog, Waterbury, with whom was Donald C. Simmons, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

John G. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., for the appellee (defendant University of Connecticut).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

HOUSE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff Donald C. Simmons is a tenured associate professor of anthropology serving at the University of Connecticut's Hartford campus. He brought this action seeking mandamus and injunctive relief to compel the defendants, who are the university's chairman of the board of trustees, the president, the provost, the dean of students and the registrar, to restore any grade marks given by the plaintiff to his students and subsequently changed without the plaintiff's consent, and to refrain from granting course credit to any student enrolled in the plaintiff's courses who did not take a final examination therein for the 1970 spring term of the academic year 1969-70.

The basic facts are not in dispute. On May 8, 1970, a special meeting of the university senate, which is composed of the president and faculty members, was called as a result of a student strike, agitation and unrest which prevailed at the university's main campus in Storrs. The student strike was allegedly in response to events in Indochina and at Kent State University in Ohio. Final examinations were scheduled to commence on May 18, 1970.

At the emergency meeting, the first in over thirty years, the university senate, by voice vote, adopted grading regulations for the 1970 spring term which provided, inter alia: that instructors could not in any way penalize students for absenting themselves from classes between May 5 and May 15, 1970; that, while any student who so desired could take a regularly scheduled final examination, it would be based only on course work covered before May 5, 1970; and that students who had a passing grade on May 5, 1970, could, by electing not to take a final examination, take instead a course grade of 'S.' The designation 'S,' meaning satisfactory, had formerly been the mark which a student received if, at the beginning of a course, the student had elected a 'pass-fail' option and had passed the course after taking the final examination. An 'S' grade entitled its recipient to course credit. The new grading regulations altered the existing policy of the University of Connecticut in that, previously, it was the instructor who determined whether a student was passing a course, and a student did not receive a grade without offering evidence as to what the grade should be. The trial court found that the new grading regulations permitted many students to pass who would have otherwise failed, and that students enrolled in the plaintiff's course who neither completed the course requirements nor demonstrated that they possessed sufficient knowledge of the course were nevertheless awarded full course credit by the university.

The plaintiff began teaching at the University of Connecticut in 1957. It had been his policy to announce at the first class of the semester that a final examination in his courses was required to be taken and passed by the students in order to receive course credit. As a matter of academic policy, the plaintiff presumed each student to be failing until the student rebutted this presumption by passing the mandatory final examination. The plaintiff refused to comply with the regulations adopted on May 8, 1970, as they pertained to allowing students to elect a course grade of 'S' rather than to take a final examination, and he marked absent ('ABS') on the grade sheets of those students who did not take his final examination. Prior to May 8, 1970, a marking of absent would have been converted into a failing mark, 'F,' unless the student took another examination or completed some equivalent project satisfactorily. Of 220 students in his classes, the plaintiff marked as 'absent' twenty who failed to take the final examination. Five of the twenty took another examination later and were given appropriate letter marks. In November, 1970, the defendant Edward V. Gant, provost of the university, directed the defendant Ronald E. Dickerson, registrar, to change the grades of the remaining fifteen students from 'absent' to 'S.' It was this direction which precipitated the present action which the trial court expressly found was brought by the plaintiff 'not to penalize students but because he did not want the professional integrity of his courses invaded for political reasons.'

The trial court denied the relief sought by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has assigned as errors the court's conclusions that the temporary regulations were lawfully adopted by the university senate acting within the scope of its delegated powers; that the regulations were not violative of either the Connecticut constitution or of the United States constitution; that the regulations were not invalid as being arbitrary and capricious; and that § 53-153 of the General Statutes which proscribes the alteration of official records was inapplicable.

The University of Connecticut was established as the Storrs Agricultural School by the General Assembly in April, 1881. Public Acts 1881, c. 74, p. 40. The constitution of Connecticut as adopted in 1965, article eighth, § 2, empowers the General Assembly to 'determine the size, number, term and method of appointment of the governing boards of The University of Connecticut . . ..' The General Assembly has conferred upon the governor, under § 10-118 of the General Statutes, the responsibility of appointing the members of the university's board of trustees, who, under § 10-119, 'shall make rules for the government of the university and shall determine the general policies of the university . . ..'

Pursuant to its statutory directive, the board of trustees delegated to the university senate the authority to establish rules and regulations for the undergraduate schools. ¹

The rules and regulations of the university senate govern undergraduate markings, examination requisites and course credit requirements. The bylaws of the university senate prescribe that its rules and regulations 'may be changed at any regular meeting of the Senate by a majority vote of those present and voting, provided, however, that due warning has been given in the call the proposed changes in the rules and regulations are to be considered. If due warning has not been given, a two-thirds vote of those present and voting shall be required.' Univ. of Conn.Bull., 'Laws and By-Laws' (9th Ed.), pp. 56-57. The parties stipulated that due warning of the special meeting held May 8, 1970, was not given. For this reason, a two-thirds majority vote was required to change the rules and regulations, and it is the plaintiff's contention that there is no way of knowing what the voice vote to change the grading regulations was, and accordingly that the motion to adopt the changes cannot be considered to have been passed properly.

The atmosphere surrounding the May 8, 1970, meeting was conducive to uncertainty. Nine students were given permission to attend the meeting. One of the students who was president of the student government, a coordinator of the student strike and one of those to whom the plaintiff gave a marking of absent, testified that he could not ascertain by looking or listening whether a two-thirds majority approved the motion. He attributed the difficulty to the circumstance that some 500 students who were watching the proceeding on closed circuit television in an adjoining room could be heard inside the meeting room noisily yelling to indicate agreement or disagreement with certain points during the senate's debate and deliberation. Nevertheless, no request was made for a head count upon the announcement of the result of the voice vote. The senate accepted the result...