Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1984 [PAGE 12]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1982]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

3

to delays in site availability and for work alleged to be beyond the scope of the contract documents. With respect to this claim, the construction manager and the architects have advised the University that in their view the items claimed as extras are within the scope of the contract. T h e plumbing contractor, Fullerton Plumbing and Heating, Inc., has asserted a claim of $12,144 for additional costs alleged to be due to delays caused by Pora Construction's failure to meet schedules on the project. The contractor for general work (icework), Telander Bros. Contractors, Inc., has asserted a claim of $14,001 for increased labor costs due to delays by others. T h e construction manager, Pepper Construction Company, has claimed that an additional $170,418 is due it for services it alleges it was required to perform beyond those required by its contract with the University, attributable to substantial changes in the scope of the construction work and in the construction budget. Pepper also asserts that contractor delays which were not the responsibility of the construction manager entitle the company to additional compensation. The university counsel has conducted a preliminary review of the claims and believes that the University has a valid defense against substantially all of them. However, he states that in his opinion the initiation of litigation by some or all of these contractors is probable or imminent. Pursuant to previous delegations by the Board of Trustees, the university counsel has been given interim authorization to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate, including the employment of special counsel, to oppose the claims and to protect the interest of the University in these matters. The university counsel recommends that such authorization be ratified, approved, and confirmed in all respects. I concur. O n m o t i o n of M r . H o w a r d , this r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g v o t e : Aye, M r s . D a y , D r . D o n o g h u e , M r . F o r s y t h , M r . H a r m , M r . H o w a r d , M r . M a d d e n , M r . Neal, Mrs. S h e p h e r d ; no, n o n e ; absent, Mr. Stone, Governor T h o m p s o n . ( T h e s t u d e n t a d v i s o r y v o t e w a s : A y e , M r . B a n d a l a , M r . C o b b , Miss Forsyth; no, none.)

Settlement of Edna McLaughlin Estate

(2) On April 15, 1982, the board authorized the employment of special counsel in connection with litigation relating to the estate of Edna M. McLaughlin, the residue of which provides funds for the educational costs of university students based on financial need. The principal issues in the litigation are the federal estate tax amount and the apportionment of taxes and expenses between the residuary estate and certain estate property which was subject to an option to purchase exercised by the decedent's nephew. In May of 1981 the board authorized a settlement which contemplated that the nephew would pay $150,000 to the estate, but the nephew subsequently refused to complete the settlement and initiated litigation seeking specific performance of the option agreement. Also, the executor has filed a petition for directions from the probate court. Pope and Dricmeyer of Belleville, Illinois, has been engaged as special counsel for the University. In view of the uncertainties of the law in the areas of concern, the probability of further litigation relating to the federal estate taxes, the ensuing delay in the closing of the estate, and the additional expenses involved in completing the litigation, special counsel has recommended that the University offer to settle all of the nephew's claims upon his payment to the estate of $130,00 ). The university counsel supports this recommendation and requests authority to complete the settlement on the basis stated. I concur.