Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1956 [PAGE 1065]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1062

BOAKD OF TRUSTEES

[May 22

3. T h e execution of the necessary documents by the Comptroller and the Secretary of the Board upon approval of the same by the Legal Counsel. In the negotiations with Mrs. Ina Evans, she has agreed to give possession of her property to the University not later than August 15, 1956, free and clear of any rights of tenants or others and free and clear of any mechanics' liens, encumbrances, or claims of any kind. T h e University on its part has agreed to give her possession of the property at 1008 South Lincoln Avenue at the time of closing and exchange of titles, which should be not later than June 15, 1956, so that the property will be available to her for remodeling during the summer. Further details of these negotiations are set forth in the attached letter dated May 17, 1956, written to Mrs. Evans by the Director of the Physical Plant Department, a copy of which is hereby filed with the Secretary of the Board for record. The acquisition of these three properties will provide a suitable site for a new faculty club. Until such time as this project can be financed and construction started, I recommend that the properties at 507 and 509 East Chalmers Street be leased to private operators of student housing. The property on Sixth Street is not suitable for this purpose without extensive remodeling and repairs which would hardly be justified in view of contemplated future use. The value of this property is largely in the land.

On motion of Mr. Johnston, the recommendations of the President were approved, an assignment of $6,000 was made from the General Reserve Fund, and authority was given as requested. These actions were taken by the following vote: Aye, Mr. Bissell, Mr. Herrick, Mrs. Holt, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Megran, Mr. Swain, Mrs. Watkins, Mr. Williamson; no, none; absent, Mr. Nickell, Mr. Stratton. The purchases of the properties at 1003 South Sixth Street and at 507 East Chalmers Street, Champaign, had previously been authorized and the necessary funds for these acquisitions were appropriated by the Board on January 28, 1956, Minutes page 914.

SETTLEMENT IN CASIM1R J . PALACZ DISCHARGE PROCEEDING (17) At its February, 1956, meeting the Board of Trustees was informed that Casimir J. Palacz, formerly a clerk in the Department of Administration of the Research and Educational Hospitals, had instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County to obtain a judicial review of the action of the Merit Board of the University Civil Service System of Illinois in finding him guilty of charges of insolence and refusing to work when scheduled and authorizing his discharge from the employ of the University. As the result of certain developments in that suit and of negotiations conducted with the attorney for Palacz since then, an offer of settlement has been received from him which contemplates his unconditional resignation from the University's employ, the giving by him of a full release of all claims against the University and the Merit Board and their respective officers and employees, and the dismissal of his suit in return for expunging the discharge proceeding from his employment records and the payment to him of $750 plus one-half of the court costs to date in his suit. ( I t is estimated that one-half the court costs will not exceed $25.) The $750 would constitute approximately one-half of the wages he would have earned in the University's employ from the date of his suspension for discharge to the date of settlement. The evidence with respect to the charges upon which Palacz was found guilty by the hearing board and the Merit Board is ambiguous and conflicting in several important respects. Further litigating the proceeding in the Circuit Court would incur expense which will probably exceed the amount which Palacz has offered to accept in settlement of the suit. Substantial additional expense would be incurred as the result of an appeal taken by either party from whatever decision may be rendered by the trial court in the case. While the Legal Counsel and special counsel employed to assist him in representing the University in the suit are 01 the opinion that the University has a fair chance to sustain the action taken by the hearing board and the Merit Board, they can not be certain that Palacz will not prevail in his resort to the courts to have that action set aside and regard the