Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1946 [PAGE 495]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

492

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[May 26

of Trustees. W h e t h e r or not the University wishes to give him a hearing is a question for the Board to determine. T h e Board can refuse to give a hearing; or, should it wish to grant a hearing, it can state the conditions under which the hearing would be granted. T h e individual requesting the hearing is in no position to demand the hearing as a matter of right, nor, should the Board decide to give him a hearing, is he in a position to state the conditions under which he is to be heard. The Board of Trustees meets in open session and also in executive session. It might decide to grant a hearing in executive session. Further, it can prescribe the circumstances under which the individual making the request can appear. He might ask, for example, that he be permitted to appear before the Board and to bring other people with him to support him. Also, he might ask to bring an attorney with him. T h e Board can answer, should it so determine, "We will hear you if you want to come, but you will have to come by yourself and state what you want to say to us in executive session." Further, it is quite proper for the Board to state in advance the time it is willing to devote to hearing him. Sincerely yours,

ALBERT J. HARNO

The President of the University presented also a letter from Judge Johnson on this matter. This matter was fully discussed. On motion of Mr. Williamson, the Secretary was instructed to notify Dean Benner, by letter, of the present status of this matter as shown in the records of the Board.

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM FOR TAXES AGAINST ARCADE BUILDING (16) By authority of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and the Directors of the University of Illinois Foundation, the University instituted litigation to remove assessments of general property taxes for 1943 assessed and levied against various properties of the Foundation, including the Arcade Building. T h e original proceedings were objections filed by leave of Court in 1944 and related to titles and assessments as of April 1, 1943, at which. time title to these properties was in the University of Illinois Foundation. This litigation eventually went to the Illinois Supreme Court which held the properties exempt from taxation. T h e State's Attorney of Champaign County has taken the position that in the appeal to the Supreme Court there was presented the question of the taxation of these properties as one entire entity and that there was no effort in the trial court to segregate the question of portions of the Arcade Building used for commercial purposes so that the Supreme Court could consider that item separately from the entire question. T h e State's Attorney is prepared to contest the University's objections in so far as they relate to portions of the Arcade Building leased to commercial enterprises and not used for educational purposes. In the summer of 1944 the Board of Review of Champaign County attempted to make such distinction and assessed the commercially used areas of the Arcade Building at $4,000. Using that assessment as a basis for calculation, the State's Attorney has indicated willingness to compromise the claim against the University on account of taxes levied and assessed in 1943 to eliminate further litigation. H e states he is willing to concede validity of the current obligations subject to a stipulation that the Arcade Building be assessed at $2,000, which at a tax rate of $5.35 would result in a total tax of $107. This compromise would have no effect on future tax questions, for prior to 1944 title to these properties, including the Arcade Building, formerly in the University of Illinois Foundation, was conveyed to the University. T h e objections which will be filed this year will be based on a claim of exemption under a different provision of law. Compromise of the claim for taxes assessed in 1943 against the Arcade Building by t h e payment of $107 eliminates further litigation and will be less expensive than to go through a hearing and another possible appeal. Under the circumstances, I have authorized settlement of the claim on this basis.