The University Hearing Board submitted a summary of one CIA on-campus recruitment case to the Office of Conduct Standards last week, allowing two suspended University student activists to begin planning their joint appeal.

While one of the students, Undergraduate Student Government Executive Assistant Travis Parchman, claims the summary omits pertinent testimony and favors the University, officials defend the document as an accurate representation of the two-day hearing.

Parchman received disciplinary dismissal for at least a year and Jessica Stern (sophomore-liberal arts) received a two-semester suspension for student conduct code violations they were charged with following last November's CIA recruitment protest at McAllister Building.

Parchman said the students are currently formulating their appeal strategy. As part of that process, Parchman traveled to New York City this past weekend to speak with Morton Stavis, a New York attorney associated with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Parchman also met with Philip Agee and thanked him for a letter of support the former CIA employee wrote to the students during their hearing. Agee was in New York this past weekend to speak at a student conference held at Columbia University.

Donald Leslie, chairman of the Hearing Board, summarized the testimony of the hearing into a five-page report after negotiations with the other board members. The hearing lasted two days and included eight and one-half hours of testimony from six University witnesses and nine student witnesses.

"The board normally discusses what testimony is relevant and what testimony is to be discharged," said Donald T. Suit, director of OCS. "A lot of the testimony was repetitive and the trial took so long because each witness was asked to explain what happened." Suit presented the University's evidence during the trial.

Parchman said he believes the public and the defendants should have the right to decide what testimony is pertinent. This can only be accomplished from an exact transcript of the hearing, he added.

"I'm outraged that this summary could possibly pass as the official testimony of our case," he said.

According to OCS policy, the only official record of the hearing is the summary submitted by the hearing board chairman. OCS policy also forbids all tape recordings of the proceedings.

A third student demonstrator, Timothy Fasnacht, received three semesters of disciplinary probation in a separate hearing. He said he was found guilty on one count of disorderly conduct, which, according to a summary of charges prepared by OCS, stemmed from his "attempt to interfere with University operations" by "jumping and stomping on the floor" at McAllister.

Fasnacht withdrew from the University Jan. 16 in an attempt to "beat the University to the punch," but still plans to appeal his sanctions in conjunction with Parchman and Stern.

Suit said the summary of this specific case was not treated in a different manner from any other hearings handled by OCS.

"This hearing was handled in the normal process," he added.

But Parchman said he has grave misgivings about the process, claiming pertinent points of testimony from both the students' and University's witnesses are absent from the summary.

Discrepancies arise in University testimony about a charge that Parchman physically abused University Police Officer Don Hazle, Parchman said. During the first day of testimony, Jack Rayman, director of the Career Development and Placement Services, said he saw Hazle in a "virtual wrestling match" with a protester he could not identify at the time, but later believed was Paul Sample. This portion of Rayman's testimony is omitted from the summary.

Parchman said this testimony is vital to proving false charges that he physically abused Hazle. Sample, a fourth student charged with conduct code violations, was suspended for at least a year at the end of last semester for failing to respond to an initial letter from OCS within the required 10 days.

But Hazle and University Police Services Officer Michael Teeters testified that Parchman was involved in the scuffle.

Suit said minor discrepancies are expected in any presentation of evidence, and one should be suspicious if all testimony is exactly the same.

"If there are no slight differences in the testimony then it looks predesigned," he added.

Parchman has previously said he has no confidence in the University's appeals process and plans to pursue formal legal channels if the appeal is denied. He said he and Stern would appeal on the grounds that the sanctions imposed are not justified by the nature of the offense.

Suit said students can appeal the Hearing Board's decision to the University's Appeals Board on three grounds -- failure to provide due process during the hearing, unduly harsh sanctions or insufficient facts to support the case.

The board hears the students' support for the appeal and reviews the summary from the original hearing. If the board accepts the appeal, the case goes back to the University Hearing Board and a new hearing is granted, Suit said.

If the appeal is denied, the case goes to Vice President for Student Services William Asbury to render a decision.

Suit said this process could take about two weeks to complete.