Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1940 [PAGE 679]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

676

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[December 18

1. T h e regular schedule for Commencement is June. Those who graduate in February are irregular in their academic schedules and must therefore forego the rights to which regular performance would entitle them. 2. February candidates may defer graduation until June. This does not seem to be widely known among undergraduates. T h e Committee feels that at the present time it should not encourage February graduates to defer graduation until June, because any increase in the present graduating class would be a serious embarrassment due to the limited seating capacity of the George Huff Gymnasium where the exercises are held. 3. T h e time of Commencement would be inconvenient since it would have to come on Sunday, February 4, or Monday, February 5, which is registration day. 4. A February Commencement held in the Auditorium would cost about $750. This includes cap and gown rental and all other expenses. There is no appropriation for it, and there is no surplus in the regular Commencement budget, so that a supplementary appropriation would be necessary. 5. T h e holding of Commencement exercises in February would probably involve similar exercises in August. This year 244 received degrees in August and 295 in October in the Urbana Departments. Those receiving their degrees in October are normally not at the University at that time. 6. W h a t would be the reaction of students in the Chicago departments? This year thirteen finished work for degrees in August and 35 in October in those departments. 7. Since the number of students involved is large, when considered over a period of years, the element of building good will by a proper recognition at the time of graduation may justify favorable consideration of the request. Before making a definite recommendation, the Committee feels that a letter ballot of the prospective February graduates should be taken to see how much demand exists, but even before this is done the Committee desired that the matter be brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees because of the questions of policy enumerated above. Obviously, if such a canvass did not show a majority demand this would in itself make an adequate reason for refusal. N o action w a s taken on this matter. SOIL TESTING SERVICE IN AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT (9) T h e Dean of the College of Agriculture recommends that the Agronomy Department be authorized to establish a soil testing laboratory and service which will offer farmers and other citizens facilities for testing of soils for available potassium, for phosphorus, and for acidity. A schedule of charges would be established to cover all the expenses of such a service. I concur in this recommendation and recommend further that a "Soil Testing Service Revolving F u n d " be authorized, the initial credit for which will be provided by an allotment from the Agricultural Extension Service Revolving Fund, this allotment to be repaid when receipts make it possible. T h e fund will be credited with all receipts of the service and charged only with the expense of that work. Any surplus above a reasonable working balance which may accumulate shall be turned into the general funds of the University as an offset of general overhead that may be involved. T h i s m a t t e r w a s r e f e r r e d t o t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e U n i v e r s i t y further study and report at the J a n u a r y meeting. for

PERQUISITES OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES (10) F o r many years certain employees of the College of Agriculture and the Experiment Station who a r e required to live on University farms and other properties have been granted such perquisites as the use of a house rent free, with heat, light, and water. Previously other perquisites such as grounds for