Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1944 [PAGE 279]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

276

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[February 20

scales was added to the appropriation bill for the current biennium. The appropriation act therefore provides that expenditures of "salaries and wages" shall be in accordance with that classification. No attempt was made, however, to list every individual position. F o r example, the title "Administrative Officer" is used to cover general officers responsible directly to the President, of which the University Counsel is one. The State Auditor, however, accepted vouchers certified in accordance with titles previously used, until instructed by the Attorney General not to do so in Judge Johnson's case or in the case of Air. Hodges. The Court has said that, because the titles "University Counsel" and "Assistant University Counsel" are not named in the appropriation bill, there is no authority to pay these persons under these titles even though this was the intention in the appropriation bill. 4. T h e Court has raised no question about other general officers also not named by title in the appropriation act but classified by the University under the category "Administrative Officers." Among these may be mentioned Provost, Comptroller, Registrar, University Health Officer, High School Visitor. They have been certified under their University titles, and their salaries have been paid to date. T o avoid any question about these officers from this time on, they can be certified under the category "Administrative Officers." The same is true of numerous other positions both major and minor. There are many good reasons why the question of reclassification of these other persons should not be raised. 5. T h e Court indicates that Judge Johnson performs various duties. Sears and Short have suggested that a separation be made as to (a) professorial, (b) administrative, and (c) legal duties. It does not seem to me wise or practicable to attempt such a three-way division of his services; however, it is feasible to divide his time and his salary as between (a) Professor of Law, and (b) University Counsel, and all concerned have agreed on an annual distribution of $4,000 as Professor and $5,000 as Counsel. 6. The appropriation act contains no specific authority for the payment of "legal services." W e must pay Sears and Short for legal services, but no item in the present act will so permit (according to the Court's decision). This will require an amendment to Section 8 of the present appropriation act, to correct the failure of the act to cover payment for "legal services." No new money is required for this expenditure, as it can be taken care of within the present appropriations if the amendment becomes immediately effective. ( N o t e : — T h e Executive Committee should consider also the possibility that the amendment might fail to pass.) 7. For precisely the same reason an amendment, with an emergency clause, should be requested to Section 9, covering both "University Counsel" and "Assistant to University Counsel," to cover payments from "salaries and wages." This amendment seems to be necessary because the Court has pointed out that there is no classification for "University Counsel" or "Assistant University Counsel," and no appropriation "for the employment of attorneys or counsel, or for legal expenses, in any form or amount." Sears and Short have suggested in the two last paragraphs of their letter an amendment of Section 9 of the present appropriation act by inserting therein the designations of any and all positions which are not specifically enumerated therein but which are contained in the classification of positions and employments in the University, and that the legislative bill should contain an emergency clause. This would require no new funds, and would legalize all payments since July I, 1941, for such services from "salaries and wages." ( N o t e : — T h e Executive Committee should consider also the possibility that this amendment might fail to pass.) 8. In the case of Mr. Hodges, there seems to be no reason why the payment of his salary should not be resumed, and from now on he may be certified as "Administrative Assistant," in view of the fact that he is not rendering "legal service" in the accepted definition of that term. Recommended Procedure— In accordance with the foregoing principles and considerations, I recommend to your Committee the approval of the following procedure: 1. Approve a division of the total annual salary of Judge Johnson for 1041-42 and 1942-43 at $4,000 per year as Professor and $5,000 per year as University Counsel.