Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1976 [PAGE 344]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1975]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

333

Statutes to relieve Roger P. Link of his duties and title as Head of die Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at die Urbana campus. Professor Link was continued as a full-time member of the faculty in the College. The University, Jack W. Peltason, Chancellor at the Urbana campus, and L. Meyer Jones, Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, have now been named as defendants in a proceeding filed in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Champaign County, Illinois (Case No. 75 C 511), by Professor Link challenging die July 17, 1974, Board action. The complaint alleges that Dean Jones' recommendation that Professor Link be relieved as department head was in retaliation and reprisal for criticism against Dean Jones which had been expressed by die College's executive committee of which Professor Link was a member. It is alleged that Chancellor Peltason was aware of Dean Jones' alleged motivation when Chancellor Peltason also recommended that Professor Link be relieved as department head. It is further alleged that both Dean Jones and Chancellor Peltason were acting maliciously and in bad faith and that their actions violated Professor Link's right to freedom of speech under the United States Constitution. Another count in the complaint alleges that Professor Link's civil rights were violated and that he is entitled to recovery under a federal statute (Title 42, Section 1983). A third count in the complaint is based on the section of the University Statutes (Article IV, Section 3a) relating to the manner in which a department head may be relieved of his duties and title as head of the department by the Board of Trustees, the statutory provision on which the July 17, 1974, action of the Board was based. It is alleged that Professor Link had a "property" interest in retaining his headship by virtue of a custom and practice within the University that department heads retain their appointments indefinitely as long as they are performing their duties and responsibilities in a competent and efficient manner. It is alleged that the Board's action in relieving Professor Link as department head under Article IV, Section 3a, of the University Statutes without notice of charges and hearing violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. A fourth count in the complaint combines the claim of violation of civil rights under the federal statute as expressed in the second count and the violation of due process expressed in the third count. T h e fifth count in the complaint asserts that under the University Statutes relating to dismissal of administrative officers (Article IX, Section 9) Professor Link was entitled to a statement of reasons for what is alleged to be his "dismissal" and an opportunity for hearing, but was wrongfully denied the same. T h e relief requested by the complaint on the first four counts consists of (1) a declaratory judgment declaring that Professor Link's "dismissal" as department head contravenes the United States Constitution; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctions restoring him to his former status as head of the department; (3) compensatory damages of $50,000 on each count against the three defendants, together with costs, expenses, and attorney's fees; and (4) punitive damages against Chancellor Peltason and Dean Jones on each of the counts in the amount of $250,000. Count V seeks a determination that Professor Link's "dismissal" as department head is illegal and improper under the University Statutes, seeks restoration to his former status as department head and asks compensatory damages in the sum of $50,000 together with costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees. It is anticipated that Chancellor Peltason and Dean Jones will request the University to provide representation for them in their defense of the suit, on the ground that all actions taken by them in the matter were taken in their respective capacities as University employees and were not motivated as charged in the complaint.