Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1964 [PAGE 1227]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1182

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[May 20

Faculty Advisory Committee, the President may take official cognizance of such failure." It will be observed that the Section has been recast to note the faculty member's institutional identification in the eyes of the public, and to clarify that, when a faculty member is exercising his freedom of speech as a citizen, the provisions relating accuracy, forthrightness, and dignity are admonitory. As rewritten, Section 39 (b) is believed to provide further definition and assurances of the freedoms enjoyed by a faculty member in his role as a citizen, but it also authorizes the President to take "official cognizance" of such exercises of these freedoms as markedly fail to meet acceptable standards of accuracy, forthrightness, and dignity. F o r example, the President — after consultation with the Faculty Advisory Committee — might publicly deplore inaccurate, intemperate, undignified, or irresponsible utterances of a faculty member, and emphasize that such views were not to be attributed to the University of Illinois. The reference to freedom from "institutional censorship or discipline" has been eliminated and has been replaced by an assurance that failure to heed the stated admonitions will not, of itself, constitute due cause for dismissal — the only discipline defined in the remainder of the Statutes. It would be the interpretation of your Committee, however, that persistent and willful failures to observe these admonitions might become a pattern of conduct deemed to violate professional standards to an extent that would indicate the initiation of proceedings for dismissal for due cause under the new Section 38 (d). 3. Suspension Pending Dismissal T h e new Section 38 (e) (8) in the proposals received from the Senate Coordinating Council sets forth conditions for the suspension of an appointee in connection with contemplated or actual filing of charges for dismissal. The Council version included a statement that an appointee might be suspended "only . . . with pay." President H e n r y has supported this provision before your Committee, urging strongly that a faculty member's salary be continued until the Board's final disposition of a dismissal proceeding, if possible, even i£ suspension during the intervening period is considered necessary and justified because of special circumstances. H e has stated that, in his judgment, the amount of dollars paid during any suspension period would be relatively insignificant when weighed against the undesirability of requiring a faculty member to prepare his defense against unresolved charges during a time in which he is not receiving his salary. President Henry has further cautioned that, when a suspension without pay is involved, the basic issue of professional responsibility tends to become confused with the lesser issue of compensation. The Legal Counsel advises, however, that the Illinois constitutional prohibitions against payment of extra compensation and gifts of public funds, the statutory limitations on appropriations for personal services, and the various enactments concerning the suspension of other state employees (either as a disciplinary measure or while dismissal proceedings are pending), all demonstrate the public policy and law of this state to be that suspensions of state employees should be without pay, and that state appropriations for personal services may not be expended as salaries to individuals, including faculty members, who do not have employment status or who do not perform services. In expressing his opinion that, in the absence of permissive legislation, suspensions of state employees with pay would probably not be upheld by the Illinois courts, the Legal Counsel has stated there appear to be no reported Illinois cases squarely deciding the point. President Henry has suggested that, under these circumstances, it may be advisable for the University Statutes to deal with the subject of suspensions pending dismissal without specifying whether such suspensions are to be with or without pay, thereby providing flexibility of application if future court decisions or legislation provide clarification of the legal question. The Board's April 15, 1964, action, therefore, deletes the words "with pay" from the Council's version of Section 38 (e) (8). Also, under the Coordinating Council's version of Section 38 (e) (8), suspension was authorized "only under exceptional circumstances." Any instance in which a suspension is being considered can be said to be an "exceptional circumstance" and, since a subjective judgment by the President would be involved in any event, the Board of Trustees' amendments proposed at the April IS, 1964,