Here is the text:
"NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The President of the University, after
consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees and the ad hoc
DAA Selection Group of the Board of Trustees, shall have the authority to revoke
any previously granted University award or distinction in the event that the
individual to whom such award or distinction has been conferred is later convicted
of a felony or engages in conduct which is significantly detrimental to the reputation
of such individual such that continued name association between such individual
and the University would be contrary to the best interests of the University. If the
recipient of any such award or distinction is a corporation, the authority to revoke
the award or distinction shall also be exercisable by the President, after
consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees and the ad hoc
DAA Selection Group of the Board of Trustees, in the event that any of the officers
or directors of such corporation are later convicted of a felony or incur civil
sanctions in their capacity as officers or directors of such corporation, which crimes
or sanctions are significantly detrimental to the reputation of the corporation such
that continued name association between such corporation and the University
would be contrary to the best interests of the University. Notice of any such
revocation shall be provided to the Board of Trustees. "
Those that opposed it, led by Alice Pope, believed that such power should be retained by the full BoT rather than being singly vested in the President. Given recent Presidents, it's hard to argue with that position. Additionally, since the resolution appears to have been drafted by Frank Guadagnino, it should have been rejected on its face.