University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Senate

Academic Calendars CommitteesFaculty Policy Guide Honorary Degree Awards SEC Meeting Schedule Senate Agendas & Minutes Senate Meeting Schedule Senate Meeting Videos Senate Members Senator Guide

SC.10.04
November 9, 2009

Report of Senate Observer to
Board of Trustees Meeting
September 10, 2009

Breakfast/Luncheon Meetings: Contrary to the usual pattern, the Board did not meet with Senate or campus representatives at either breakfast or lunch, but instead, the new Board was focused on getting up to speed on University issues.

Board Meeting:
Despite the great deal of media attention to this very first meeting of an almost entirely new Board of Trustees, the large public seating area in the Union’s Illini Rooms A & B was far from full.  However, the meeting was not without drama, suspense, and even some inconclusiveness.  Given the burning lights of the media on the President and Chancellor following a summer filled with newspaper reports of investigations over improprieties in the handling of admissions on the Urbana campus, there was a palpable expectation that we might witness a repetition of post-midnight drama of July 24, 1953 when President Stoddard was asked to tender his resignation following a surprise vote of no confidence by an Executive Session of the Board of Trustees.  In the event, the 2009 Board proceeded in a more deliberative fashion, but also seemed to set a tone of close engagement with the business of the University despite their newness to the matters at hand.

Suspense pervaded from the outset because there was initially a delay in starting the meeting since Governor Pat Quinn was still en route.  When it became clear that the morning’s fog in both Springfield and Champaign was going to preclude a timely arrival by air, Trustee James Montgomery welcomed and installed the newly appointed Board members.  (Note that Trustee Lawrence Oliver participated in the meeting via speaker phone.) Then, Trustee Frances Carroll, as the most senior member of the Board’s Executive Committee remaining of after this summer’s resignations, convened the meeting, and the governor soon joined the group by a here-again, gone-again cell phone connection. 

President White then directed senior administrative staff in presenting performance reports relating to academic affairs, budget and finance, ethics, and fund-raising.  The reports contained quite interesting information regarding the size of the faculty and research accomplishments, honors, and expenditures.  Vice-President for Academic Affairs Meena Rao reported on several impediments to recruitment and retention, especially non-competitive salaries, crumbling infrastructure on all three campuses, and an increasing regulatory burden from both state and federal agencies.  In regard to finances she noted major challenges that the University faced because the Monetary Assistance Program (MAP), which supplies significant aid to many students’ families, was not funded by the state beyond the end of this December.  The MAP situation seemed of particular concern to Trustee Kennedy who asked the student Trustees to comment on their sense of what the effect of the loss of MAP would be.  (All three noted that it seemed clear that without MAP, there would be many students dropping out after midyear at each of the campuses.)

Walter Knorr, Vice-President for Business and Finance, provided an overview of the sources of University’s funds, indicating that 60.4 percent came from restricted funds, 39.6 percent from unrestricted.  State funds accounted for 16.3 percent of revenue and tuition accounted for 15.4 percent.  Many of the restricted funds are “payments on behalf” (e.g., the state’s portion of employee medical and retirement costs).  Among the major financial issues facing the University are capital projects that have been approved but not funded, the lack of stability in state funding, and an irregularity in the state’s cash flow.  On the more positive side, Knorr noted that the University had a history of clean audits and that its FY2009 investment loss of about 17 percent was less than that of many peer institutions in this time of “down.” markets.  A later presentation on fund-raising and advancement noted that at 73 percent through the timetable of the “Brilliant Futures,” we had reached 76 percent of the campaign’s fund-raising goals. 

While the grim financial news cast a cloud over the meeting, apparently the central Illinois skies had cleared enough for the Governor’s plan to make it to Champaign shortly before 10:00 a.m. After being introduced by President White, the Governor spoke of his desire to work as a team with the Board and the students (skipping any reference to the faculty).  The Board then moved to a Special Order of Business for the election of a chair to serve until January, 2010. Trustee Montgomery nominated Christopher Kennedy, and Governor Quinn seconded.  The UIS student trustee, Derek Felix, nominated Edward McMillan, and one of the other students seconded the nomination. After a tallying of the vote of ayes and nays for Kennedy, Francis Carroll declared Kennedy elected.  The Board then held an election for the  Executive Committee for which three candidates (Carroll, McMillan, and Pamela Strobel) were nominated.  Following a call for ayes and nays on each candidate Carroll withdrew after receiving at least one “nay” and McMillan and Strobel were declared elected. 

On resumption of the regular agenda, President White called for consideration of the Resolution on Admissions Reform which would implement the recommendations of the Admissions Review Commission and achieve an admissions process that would be transparent, fair, and equal to all.  Montgomery noted that while the resolution talked about diversity, he was concerned that in the University’s pursuit of excellence it was also important to provide broad access, including for those who came from public school systems that were deficient. Kennedy noted that the student body was just one of several fronts on which the University should be working to arrive at a more diverse institution, and he then asked for the President to provide a report on diversity at each Board meeting.

Ethics Officer Donna McNeeley reported that there had been 100 percent compliance with the Ethics Training mandate in 2008.  Beyond explaining the difficulty in understanding what was and was not a conflict of interest, she provided an overview of the ethics training with particular emphasis on items relevant to ethical issues that might arise with Board membership. 

Under the agenda item titled “University Governance–|Board Structure and Function,” President White noted how the Board and the administration needed to work together.  From the way he made a statement that whenever a Board member had an interest or concern, the member should go first to the President and work with the officers of the Board, this observer inferred a suggestion that the Board members should not be talking directly with faculty.  White said that Board members should also utilize the officers of the university such as the Vice-President for Business and Finance, as well as the committee structure of the Board.  At this point, he put forward a proposal (no copies were provided to observers) to revise the Board’s committee structure.  He called for a reduction in the number of Board committees from 14 to 8 by consolidation and assignments and for a process whereby committees would meet between Board meetings.  Notably he suggested that the committees should be allowed to have advisory members.

Before the President called for questions and comment on the committee restructuring proposal, Chair Kennedy recognized a motion to move into a Closed Session at approximately 10:35 a.m.

When the Board reconvened three hours later, the next item on the prepared agenda was Public Comment.  The only comment was from a Mark Thompson who offered an extended reprise of his July critique of UIC Professor Bill Ayers.  Thompson argued that Ayers was working to subvert the educational system, undermine the foundation of America’s government.  Referring to Ayers as a “political pedophile”  for using his university position to advocate for a “socialist reformation of our government,” Thompson concluded by calling for the Board to conduct an immediate investigation of Ayers for academic misconduct.

The Chancellors of UIUC, UIC, and UIS presented reports on major accomplishments and challenges on their campuses.  The presentation from UIS was quite interesting in that Chancellor Richard D. Ringeisen emphasized the fact that UIS tries to be very different from the other two campuses.  In particular, he spoke with pride that UIS was small and would always strive to be small while still obtaining national recognition such as the Sloan award for expertise in online education.  While Chancellor Herman noted the continued effect of budget cuts would require a reduction in the UIUC campus “footprint,” Ringeisen noted that UIS had seen a counter trend with growth in community college student transfers and expanding online programs.

Although the status of MAP funding was a concern voiced by administrators, student trustees, and the rest of the Board throughout the meeting, it was not the only general thread.  The need for greater diversity in admissions, faculty, and contractors was noted.  Further, there was concern about the potential impact of the H1N1 virus, with President White emphasizing the focus of planning has been to adopt a strategy to communicate, present, identify, and isolate.

The meeting was notable for what did not happen.  That is, there was no public agenda item or announcement regarding whether high-level administrators should be replaced.  Rather it emerged that during the Closed Session the Board had established a plan to conduct the evaluation of Chancellor Herman and President White before the next meeting of the Board in November.  So while the meeting might have disappointed the news hounds in not resolving the suspense over the fate of White and Herman, to this Senate observer it was reassuring to see that a brand new Board was going to take its time to handle the evaluation in a deliberative fashion while also investing time and effort in learning about the full array of University business.

Respectfully submitted,
William J. Maher
UIUC Senate Observer