Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1932 [PAGE 606]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

604

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[June ii

U S E O F O L D MEDICAL BUILDING B Y G O O D W I L L INDUSTRIES M r . Armstrong reported, for the Committee on Buildings and Grounds and Dr. Noble, a recommendation that permission be granted to the Goodwill Industries to use the old medical building, without expense to the University, and that the proper officers be authorized to execute a suitable lease, providing that the University shall be able to regain possession of the property at any time after the expiration of two years, on giving due notice; and that any changes in the building must be approved in advance. O n motion of M r . Trees, this recommendation was adopted. MATTERS PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT CHASE The Board considered the following matters presented by President Chase. PAYMENT TO ARTHUR HALL FOR LEGAL SERVICES (i) A letter from the University Counsel concerning the payment to Mr. Arthur Hall, attorney, for his services in connection with the administration of the Carter-Pennell Trust. May 18, 1932 President H. W . Chase, 355 Administration M y dear President Chase: I have read the copy of your letter of May 16 to Mr. Morey which you sent to my office. I have also examined the action of the Board on page 571 of its Minutes under date of April 20, 1932. I note that the Board ordered the Hall attorney fees to be paid out of the Reserve and Contingent Fund. I wonder if I may call your attention to something in this connection, althougk you do not ask for any sugestions from me on it? I am volunteering these suggestions because i occurs to me that conceivably the matter may some t time take on an importance not at this moment obvious. In the f r t place, the only reason for employing Mr. Hall was and i that is s the Carter trust deed specified that Mr. Hall should be retained in connection with the administration of the trust. Nothing has come up in connection with the trust estate which the Legal Counsel for the University could not and should not have handled alone and unaided. It would seem, therefore, from that standpoint alone that his professional fees should be a charge upon this estate or trust and not upon the general or any special funds belonging to the University. I raise another point which is perhaps more important. The Board of Trustees in administering these various trust funds is really acting in the capacity of a conventional trustee of an ordinary conventional trust. That is to say, i is acting in the capacity of an ordinary natural or corporate person that t undertakes to serve as a trustee under a trust deed. In my judgment, therefore, any expenses incurred by the trustee in the performance of its duties are a lawful charge against the trust estate and not against anybody else or any other fund. I therefore suggest that as a matter of law i is exceedingly t questionable whether the Board has the right to pay out of i s general funds t attorney fees in connection with the administration of a trust estate, and this more particularly when the trust deed specifies what counsel shall be employed. The point I am endeavoring to make is that these various trust estates which the Board undertakes to administer should be self-sustaining, and I do not believe that the Board should draw upon public funds in i s custody for the t purpose of meeting disbursements properly chargeable against a trust estate or trust fund. Cordially yours, Sveinbjorn Johnson Counsel On motion of this matter was reconsidered. page 571), on Mr. Trees, the action of April 20, 1932 (Minutes,