Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1940 [PAGE 285]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

282

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[April 27

University officials were asked what reductions could be made in the University's budget. Their reply was t h a t since the University's budget had been made up by the Board of Trustees they had no authority to make any changes therein, but that they would submit a full report of this conference to the Board, together with any recommendations the State officials desired to have the Board consider. Following further discussion of various other items in the University's budget it was the consensus of opinion of the State officials, formally expressed by adopting a motion to that effect, t h a t the University's budget should be reduced by eliminating the item of $250,000 for a residence hall for men and by making further reductions of $555,000 in the operating budget, a total of $805,000, as representing the University's proportionate share of the total reductions to be made in proposed major appropriations. This matter is being presented to the Board for its consideration.

This matter was discussed at length, and action was deferred until later in the day (see page 303).

C . P . A. CERTIFICATE O F P A Y S O F F T I N K O F F (2) There has been pending before the Board of Trustees since July, 1937, the complaint of the Illinois Society of Certified Public Accountants against Mr. Paysoff Tinkoff. The Society asks that the certificate of Certified Public Accountant issued to him by the University in 1923 be revoked, as provided by law, on the ground of unprofessional conduct, and has submitted evidence in support of its complaint. Three hearings with Mr. Tinkoff present have been held before the Executive Committee (April 27 and May 14, 1938) and the Board (September 30, 1938), at which latter date Mr. Tinkoff was given forty days to submit his brief. This time has been extended to November 21 and then to December 15, on Mr. Tinkoff's request. Following is a schedule of references to this case in the minutes of the Board. 1. Board of Trustees authorized the University Committee on Accountancy to set the time and place for a hearing on above complaint, to make a finding of the facts, and to submit its conclusions and recommendations to the Board for final action. July 16, 1937, page 320. 2. Report of Committee on Accountancy on above hearing. March 18, 1938, page 644. 3. Hearing of Paysoff Tinkoff before the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. April 27, 1938, page 797. 4. Continuation of hearing. May 14, 1938, page 803. 5. Hearing before the Board. September 30, 1938, page 87. 6. Announcement of President of the Board t h a t this case would be up for final action a t the December meeting of the Board, if all briefs are filed. November 29, I93 8 - P a ge 158. 7. At the next Board meeting (December 17, 1938) word was received from the Attorney General's office t h a t Mr. Tinkoff had instituted injunction proceedings to restrain the Board from revoking his certificate, and t h a t consequently action should be deferred. These proceedings having been disposed of, the way is open for the Board to take such action as the evidence submitted to it warrants. A summary of the case and the actual exhibits submitted in evidence were sent to the members of the Board for their examination. The case has been continued several times a t respondent's request and there appears to be no legitimate reason why it should not be finally disposed of a t this meeting. Two orders are accordingly submitted in this matter; one finding the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct and revoking his C.P.A. certificate, the other dismissing the complaint against him as without support in the evidence. One or the other, in substance, should be made.

ORDER 2A IN THE M A T T E R OF PAYSOFF T I N K O F F

The above-entitled matter coming on to be heard before the University of Illinois and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and the University of Illinois and said Board having examined the complaint against the respondent, heard the