(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Faculty letter"

'10 



j.oI^^ 



220 :ju?rord Hall 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



I nc UDTWXf 



Trustees Approve Operating Budget for 1971-72 



No. 223, Octobe 



29, 1971 



iiNIVERSITY OF ILl. 

V- ,,r>" •»■•«. OLIO'"'-) 



IS 



The Board of Trustees, meeting on the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus October 20, approved the annual 
operating budget for the University for 1971-72 upon the 
recommendation of President John E. Corbally, Jr. This 
was his presentation to the Board : 

The budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971, is 
submitted herewith, including recommendations for: (a) aca- 
demic and administrative appointments beginning September 
1, 1971; and (b) appointments to the nonacademic personnel 
staff begiiming July 1, 1971. .Authorization to pay salaries and 
wages for nonacademic and academic personnel for the month 
of July and subsequent payrolls was granted by the Board of 
Trustees on June 1 6, 1971, and July 21, 1971. 

The funds appropriated by the Seventy-seventh General 
Assembly to the University of Illinois for all purposes for 
FY 1972 are summarized, with comparative figures for FY 
1971. 

The budget has been prepared by the Executive Vice Pres- 
ident and Provost and the Vice President and Comptroller, 
based upon recommendations of: (a) the Chancellors at the 
three campuses (after consultation with their respective deans, 
directors, and other campus administrative officers); and (b) 
general University officers concerning the budgets for Univer- 
sity-wide offices. The allocation of funds follow policies and 
assignments recommended by the University Budget Commit- 
tee* during the preparation of the University's FY 1972 budget 
request. 

Submitted herewith is the budget document containing: 
(a) a Condensed Analysis, which outlines the income antici- 
pated for fiscal year 1972 and describes the changes in the 
budget; (b) Schedules A through I, which contain summaries 
of income and appropriations for the entire University and 
budget totals by major categories for each campus; and (c) 
summaries for each college or other major administrative unit. 
Also submitted are four supplemental volumes (two for 
Urbana-Champaign and General University units, and one 

' University Budget Committee: Lyie H. Lanier, Executive Vice 
President and Provost, Chairman; William F. Sager, Professor 
of Chemistry- and Head of the Department (Chicago Circle) ; 
Joseph S. Begando, Chancellor at Medical Center Campus; E. 
Joe DeMaris, Professor of Accountancy and Head of the De- 
partment (Urbana-Champaign) ; H. O. Farber, Vice President 
and Comptroller: Morris S. Kessler, Assistant Comptroller (Staff 
Associate) ; Warren B. Cheston, Chancellor at Chicago Circle 
Campus; Jack W. Peltason, Chancellor at Urbana-Champaign 
Campus; Alexander M. Schmidt, Professor of Medicine and 
Dean of The Abraham Lincoln School of Medicine (Medical 
Center) ; Martin L. Zeigler, .Associate Provost and Director of 
Institutional Studies (StaflT Associate). 



each for the other campuses) presenting budget details for 
departments, divisions, and other operating units. 

I recommend that this budget, covering the allocation 
of the presently estimated operating income from all sources 
for the year beginning July 1, 1971, be approved by the Board, 
and that the President of the University be authorized, in 
accordance with the needs of the University and the equitable 
interests involved, and within total income: (a) to accept res- 
ignations; (b) to make such additional appointments as are 
necessary subject to the provisions of the University Statutes 
and the Policy and Rules-Nonacademic; and (c) to make 
such changes and adjustments in items included in the budget 
as are needed. All such changes are to be covered in the Vice 
President and Comptroller's quarterly financial reports, or in 
reports to the Board by its Secretary. 

Condensed Analysis of 1971-72 Annual Budget 
for Operations 

SUMMARY OF INCOME' 

General Income ($182,241,629). For the general oper- 
ations of the University of Illinois for the fiscal year 1972, the 
Seventy-seventh General Assembly of the State of Illinois ap- 
propriated a total of $195,707,642. Using the power granted by 
the 1970 Constitution, the Governor reduced the appropria- 
tions to $182,241,629. The General Assembly can restore any 
line item to the amount originally approved by it, and the 
Board of Trustees is asking the General Assembly to restore 
the Personal Services item, which would add $5,839,672 to 
the total appropriations. All figures in this budget are based 
on the appropriations as reduced by the Governor. If the 
reduction in the Personal Services item is restored, supple- 
mental recommendations will be submitted to the Board of 
Trustees for the allocation of these funds for salary-rate 
increases. 

The appropriated funds include $158,158,200 from general 
tax revenues, $22,900,000 from the University's own income 
and $1,183,429 from the Agricultural Premium Fund. These 
funds are shown as General Income in Schedules A and D, 
and they may be allocated by the Board of Trustees for such 
purposes as the Board approves. 

Restricted and Institutional Income ($126,945,300). 
There are certain other funds for operations that are handled 
through the University Treasurer and that are included in the 
University's annual budgets as Restricted and Institutional 

' Not included in this operating budget are funds appropriated 
by the General Assembly for new buildings, other capital im- 
provements, and rentals to the Illinois Building Authority. 



Income. Restricted funds, all earmarked for special purposes, 
include gifts, grants, contracts, endowment income, appropria- 
tions from the Federal Government, and income earned by 
the University from auxiliary activities (housing, union build- 
ings, bookstores) and other self-supporting operations. The 
estimated total of such restricted funds for 1971-72 is 
$117,945,300. Institutional funds amounting to $9,000,000 are 
appropriated from Contract Research Reserve (funds re- 
ceived as indirect cost reimbursement on grants and contracts) . 
These funds are budgeted primarily to meet the indirect 
costs allocable to the operations supported by these non-State 
funds — at all levels of University organization. 

Total Income ($309,186,929). The overall total of Gen- 
eral, Restricted, and Institutional Income for 1971-72 is 
$309,186,929, as compared to $311,385,456 for 1970-71. The 
difference of $2,198,527 represents a decrease of 0.7 per cent. 
The following figures show the State and non-State com- 
ponents of these totals: 

1970-71 1971-72 

Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent 
State Tax 
Funds $168,157,756 54.0 $159,341,629 51.5 

Non-State 

Funds 143,227,700 46.0 149,845,300 48.5 

Total $311,385,456 100.0 $309,186,929 100.0 



Thus, there has been a decline of $8,816,127 (5.24 per 
cent) in State tax support for the University of Illinois in 
1971-72 from $168,157,756 in FY 1971 to $159,341,629 in 
FY 1972. (This decrease has been partially offset by an esti- 
mated increase in University income, mainly from three 
sources: (1) increased enrollments; (2) continuation of the 
January, 1971, tuition increase for a full year; and (3) the 
use of prior years' income fund balances. ) 

SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECOMMENDED 

The following are the budget totals recommended for 
1971-72, with comparable figures for 1970-71 : 

Revised Proposed 

1970-71 1971-72 Change 



From General 

Income $186,275,271 $182,091,629 -$4,183,642 

From Restricted 
and Institutional 

Income 125,009,600 126,945,300 1,935,700 

Total 

Budgeted $311,284,871 $309,036,929 -$2,247,942 

Unappropriated 
Balance from 
General Income $ 100,585 $ 150,000 $ 49,415 



President's Statement on Budget Considerations Presented to Board 



In regard to the University's 1971-72 operating bud- 
get reported above, President Corbally submitted this 
statement to the Board of Trustees at its October meet- 
ing: 

Before turning to your discussion, I wish to make one 
other comment upon this budget. As I noted earlier, there 
are no funds within this budget for general salary increases. 
Following the failure of the effort to override the Governor's 
reductions in our personal services appropriation, we began 
to seek other alternatives which might provide salary increases 
with minimum further damage to our programs. There are 
no easy solutions and there are no solutions which do not 
create new problems for the 1973 budgets. But we must find 
a way to at least partially remedy the salary inequities which 
have been imposed upon our staff. 

There are now at least two new proposals before the Gen- 
eral Assembly to deal with this problem. I issued the following 



comments on October 18, and I will repeat them here today 
for they speak to a matter of the utmost urgency. 

We are highly gratified to leam of the continuing 
interest of representatives of both political parties in 
Springfield in finding funds for salary increases at the 
University of Illinois for the current year. 
It is clear that any favorable action by the General 
Assembly to provide such funds must have bipartisan 
support. It is essential to the continuing quality of 
the University of Illinois that all concerned reach 
agreement on a course of action that will make funds 
available to permit salary increases averaging at least 
5 per cent for the remainder of the year, beginning 
December 1. The administrative officers of the Uni- 
versity and the Trustees will work assiduously to 
promote such agreement. 

John E. Corbally, Jr. 
President 



Trustees Approve Reqiiest for Operating Appropriations for FT 1973 



The Board of Trustees at its October meeting, upon 
the recommendation of the President, approved the re- 
quest for operating appropriations for fiscal year 1973 
and authorized the President to submit the request to the 
Illinois Board of Higher Education and to the appropri- 
ate State offices. 

Here is the President's presentation to the Board and 
an excerpt and summary from the document : 

The attached document presents recommendations for in- 
creases in the University's appropriations for operations during 



FY 1973. These proposals have been prepared by the Execu- 
tive Vice President and Provost and the Vice President and 
Comptroller, in the light of requests submitted by the three 
Chancellors and in consultation with the University Budget 
Committee. 

The document was completed prior to the failure of the 
Senate of the General Assembly on October 14, 1971, to re- 
store the Governor's reduction in personal-services funds for 
FY 1972 to the level originally appropriated to the University 
in Senate Bill 717. As a result, one of the important premises 
on which the attached appropriation request for FY 1973 was 



based has been invalidated, namely: the assumption that the 
sum of $5,839,672 for salary increases would be added to the 
appropriations already approved for FY 1972, and that the in- 
creased total would be used as a "base budget" to which the 
proposed increases for FY 1973 could be added in arriving 
at the total request for operations next year. 

The failure to secure these additional salary-increase 
funds for use this year will require changes in the total given 
in Schedule A for FY 1972 appropriations from $188,081,301 
to $182,241,629 (the amount in Senate Bill 717 as approved 
by the Governor!. Changes will also be required in the 
amoimts included in Schedule A and in Section IV on salary 
increases. It is rcconmiended that approval be given to the 
following guidelines to the revision of these .salary-increa.se 
figures: 

1. That increases averaging 6 per cent above the rates 
for FY 1972 be requested for academic and for non- 
academic staff members. Based upon the revised ap- 
propriations total for FY 1972, it is estimated that the 
following amounts would be substituted for the cor- 
responding figures in Schedule A: 

a. Academic increases (general funds) .... $5,401,200 

b. Nonacademic increases (general funds) . 3,472,034 

c. Agricultural Premium Fund 62,815 

Total $8,936,049 

(These amounts would be adjusted to conform with 
whatever revisions in the FY 1972 salary base might 
be made.l 

2. That funds for supplemental increases in FY 1973 be 
requested for the purpose of offsetting the lack of 
salary increases in FY 1972 — up to a limit of 5 per 
cent on an annual basis and subject to the wage-price 
guidelines in effect after November 14, 1971. 

\Vith such revisions, it is recommended that the President 
be authorized to submit the attached appropriation request 
to the Board of Higher Education and to the appropriate 
offices of State Government. 

Here is an excerpt from the introduction to Request 
for Operating Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1973, com- 
menting on the relationship of appropriation requests to 
the question of the financial condition of the State: 

The financial condition of the State in FY 1973. Repre- 
sentatives of the Bureau of the Budget and staff members of 
the Board of Higher Education have issued quite pessimistic 
forecasts regarding the State's ability to provide increased 
support for higher education in FY 1973. It has been strongly 
emphasized that higher education as a whole should not ex- 
pect appropriation increases for next year significantly higher 
than those for the current year. 

The University is in no position to estimate what the tax 
revenues of the State will be in 1972-73 — a responsibility 
which the new Constitution assigns to the General Assembly 
and to the Governor — with the following limitation: "Ap- 
propriations for a given year shall not exceed funds estimated 
by the General Assembly to be available during that year" 
'from Article \'III, Section 2(b)). What the University can 
do, and believes that it should do, is to submit to the responsi- 
ble agencies of State Government its best estimates of the 
support the University would require in FY 1973 in order to 
discharge its educational obligations to the State as it sees 
them. That is what the present document attempts to do. 
The General Assembly and the Governor must determine how 



ihe total amoiuit of available State revenue should be dis- 
tributed among the agencies and institutions that are de- 
pendent upon the State for support. The University hopes 
that a relatively higher level of funding can be provided for 
higher education in FY 1973 than the Governor has approved 
for the present year — and especially that the .sharp reduction 
in State tax support for the senior public institutions can be 
rectified. (The four systems of senior institutions have thus 
far received .some $16.3 million less in general-revenue appro- 
priations for FY 1972 than they had in FY 1971 — a cut of 
4.6 per cent, for the benefit primarily of the private institutions 
and the junior colleges.) 

It should be strongly emphasized that the University's 
position in this matter in no sense implies indifference to the 
financial condition of the State or insensitivity to the claims 
of other agencies and institutions to State support. The point 
simply is that the University must limit its responsibility to 
the determination of what educational programs it thinks it 
should offer in order to meet the State's needs and to the esti- 
mation of what such programs would reasonably require in 
State appropriations. If the funds requested cannot be pro- 
vided, the University would try conscientiously to make the 
necessary adjustments in programs so as to minimize the ad- 
verse effects upon the institution and its educational services to 
the people of Illinois. 

II. Summary of the FY 1973 Appropriation 
Request for Operations 

The University's appropriation needs for FY 1973 can be 
understood better in the light of a brief review of the present 
status of FY 1972 appropriations. Hence, a comparison of the 
latter figures with the corresponding totals for FY 1971 will 
be shown first — followed by a summary of the FY 1973 
request. 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR (FY 1972) 

The following figures show (a) the University's appropria- 
tions for FY 1971 operations by source of funds and (b) cor- 
responding figures for FY 1972 as approved, respectively, by 
the Board of Higher Education, the General Assembly, and 
the Governor. 

The figures for regular operations show that the total thus 
far appropriated for FY 1972 is lower in the net amount of 
about $1.9 million than that for FY 1971. But the total ap- 
proved by the Governor should be viewed in terms of two 
components: (a) a decrease of $3.9 million (2.16 per cent) 
below the FY 1971 level for all continuing operations except 
the new or expanded programs in the health fields; (b) an 
increase of $2.0 million in funds earmarked for expansion in 
the health fields. 

Although the net reduction in appropriations for FY 1972 
is only $1.9 million, the figures in the preceding table show 
a cut of $6.7 million in general-revenue appropriations (from 
$159.6 million in FY 1971 to $152.9 million in FY 1972). 
(This is the University's share of the total reduction of $16.3 
million in .State tax support for the four senior systems of 
higher education referred to in the Introduction.) 

As already noted, the University hopes that a total of $5.8 
million in general-revenue funds can be added to the amount 
approved by the Governor, in order to provide general salary 
and wage increases averaging about 4 per cent on an annual 
basis above the FY 1971 level. This additional sum will be 
included in the base budget assumed for FY 1972, to which 



Source of Funds 
for Operations 



FY 197 1 
Appropria- 
tions 



FY 1972 Appropriations (S.B. 717) 



Recommended 
by the BHE 



Passed by the 
General 
Assembly 



Approved 

by the 
Governor 



Regular Operations 

General Revenue $159,661,233 

University Income 18,218,100 

Agricultural Premium Fund 1,021,700 

Subtotal ($178,901,033) 

Retirement Contributions 

General Revenue 7,391,323 

Agricultural Premium Fund 83,500 

Subtotal ($ 7,474,823) 

Total, Operations $186,375,856 



$172,041,877 

27,290,000 

1,166,719 

($200,498,596) 

24,307,000 

106,721 

($ 24,413721) 

$224,912,317 



$164,027,672 

22,900,000 

1,161,129 

($188,088,801) 

7,586,665 

32,176 

($ 7,618,841) 

$195,707,642 



$152,900,000 

22,900,000 

1,161,129 

($176,961,129) 



{$ 



5,258,200 

22,300 

5,280,500) 



$182,241,629 



the increases requested for FY 1973 will be added in order 
to derive the total appropriation request for the next fiscal 
year. 

SUMMARY OF THE FY 1973 REQUEST FOR OPERATIONS 

The University is requesting a total of $216,337,667 in 
State appropriations to support its operations in FY 1973. A 
summary of the appropriation request is shown in Schedule 
A below — including the budget total for F\' 1972 and a 
classification of the increases sought for FY 1973. 

As Schedule A indicates, FY 1972 appropriations at pres- 
ent total $182,241,629, but, as just noted, the University hopes 
this amount can be increased by $5,839,672 for salary in- 
creases through the restoration of a reduction made in S.B. 
717 by the Governor. It will be assumed in this document that 
these additional funds will be provided. Hence, the appropri- 
ation total for FY 1972 would become $188,081,301. 

The increases requested for FY 1973 total $28,256,366, 
which ^v•ould represent an addition of 15 per cent to the 
assumed FY 1972 base budget. This total does not include 
any increase for retirement contributions, pending clarification 
of the guidelines to be followed by the State-supported insti- 
tutions regarding such requests. 

It is interesting to compare the total amount for FY 1973 
operations shown in Schedule A with that derived by follow- 
ing the guidelines issued by the staff of the Board of Higher 
Education. The following are the relevant figures: 



University — 
Schedule A 



BHE Staff's 
Guidelines 



FY 1972 "base" (including 
retirement contributions) 

Increases for FY 1973 (omitting 
any increase in retirement 
contributions) 
Total 



$188,081,301 $187,975,892 



28,256,366 32,161,982 



$216,337,667 $220,137,874 



Thus, following the BHE staff's guidelines resulted in an esti- 
mated total for FY 1973 operations that is higher by the sum 
of $3,800,207 than the amount proposed by the University. 
It should be emphasized, as Schedule A shows, that the Uni- 
versity's FY 1972 "base budget" includes the sum of $3,839,672 
which it seeks to have added to its current appropriations; 
and, even with this addition, the University's FY 1972 base is 
approximately the same as the base derived from following 
the Board of Higher Education guidelines (which do not use 
the FY 1972 appropriations as a base). 



SCHEDULE A — SUMMARY OF FY 1973 APPROPRIATION REQUEST 
FOR OPERATIONS 

A. Appropriations for FY 1972 

General Revenue $158,158,200 

University Income 22,900,000 

Agricultural Premium Fund 1,183,429 

Subtotal (S.B. 717 as 

approved by Governor) ($182,241,629) 

Restoration sought in S.B. 717 (General 

Revenue) . . ." 5,839,672i 

Total, FY 1972 Appropriations 

Sought $188,081,301 

B. Increases for FY 1973 

1. Increased Enrollment $ 5,237,002 

2. Salary-rate Increases (6 per cent) 10,781,377 

a. Academic ($5,665,980) 

b. Nonacademic ($3,642,254) 

c. Agricultural Premium Fund ($62,815) 

d. Annualization of FY 1972 Increases 

($1,410,328) 

3. Plant Operation and Maintenance 3,011,589 

4. Price Increases (includes $7,650 from 

the Agricultural Premium Fund) 1,768,61 1 

5. Refunds 13,780 

6. New and Improved Programs 7,444,007 

7. Retirement Contributions ^ 

Total, Increases (FY 1973 Operations) $ 28,256,366 

C. Total FY 1973 Request for Operations 

1. Appropriations sought for FY 1972 $188,081,301 

2. Increases for FY 1973 28,256,366 

Total, FY 1973 Request $216,337,667 

D. Sources of FY 1973 Funds 

General Revenue $194,993,773 

University Income 20,080,000 

Agricultural Premium Fimd 1,263,894 

Total, FY 1973 Request $216,337,667 

' The sum of $5,839,672 is the amount by which the Governor 
reduced the "Personal Services" item in S.B. 717. The Univer- 
sity seeks to have this sum restored by the General Assembly, 
in order to make salary increases for staff members this year. 
The annual cost of such increases is $7,250,000, and the differ- 
ence appears as item B2d. 

° No increase for retirement contributions is being proposed at 
this time — ■ pending clarification of the guidelines to be followed 
regarding such requests. 



SCHEDULE B — SUMMARY OF FY 1973 BUDGET INCREASES 
REQUESTED FOR NEW PROGRAMS, PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT, 
AND OTHER SPECIAL PURPOSES 



Campus, Budget Category, 
and Program 



Amount 
Requested 



CHICAGO CIRCLE CAMPUS 

New Programs 

1. College of Urban Sciences $ 217,640 

2. Doctor of Arts Degree 122,026 

3. Ph.D. Degree in Engineering (Information 

Systems and Bioengineering) 39,056 

4. Urban Systems Engineering Laboratory .... 56,450 

5. "Project Small Business" (minority-group 

oriented) 24,500 

Subtotal ($ 459,672) 

Program Improvement and Expansion 

1. Program for Teachers of E.xceptional 

Children 26,940 

Subtotal ($ 26,940) 

General Campus Programs 

1. Educational Assistance for Disadvantaged 

Students (four special programs) 183,090 

2. Library Improvement 430,896 

3. Campus Security 1 19,300 

Subtotal ($ 733,286) 

Total, Chicago Circle Campus $1,219,898 

MEDIC.\L CENTER CAMPUS 

New Programs 

1. Urbana-Champaign School of Basic Med- 

ical Sciences $ 41,800 

2. Peoria School of Medicine 632,500 

3. Rockford School of Medicine 731,100 



4. Metropolitan Chicago Group of Affiliated 

Hospitals 329,400 

5. School of Public Health 379,900 

Subtotal ($2,1 14,700) 

Program Improvement and Expansion 

1. The Abraham Lincoln School of Medicine. . 641,500 

2. College of Dentistry 51 1,200 

3. Community-health Program 176,800 

4. Division of Services for Crippled Children . . 586,969 

Subtotal ($1,916,469) 

General Campus Programs 

1. Library of Health Sciences 381,000 

2. Educational Assistance for 

Disadvantaged Students 177,800 

3. Campus Security 130,400 

Subtotal ($ 689,200) 

Total, Medical Center Campus $4,720,369 

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CAMPUS 

New Programs 

1. Training for Community Service $ 31 1,630 

2. Environmental Studies Program 142,900 

3. Housing Research and Development 65,500 

Subtotal ($ 520,030) 

Program Improvement and Expansion 

1. Clinical Staff for the College of Veterinary 

Medicine 407,000 

2. Computer-based Education Research 

Laboratory (PLATO IV) 180,000 

Subtotal ($ 587,000) 

General Campus Programs 

1. Campus Security 196,710 

2. Afro-American Programs 200,000 

Subtotal ($ 396,710) 

Total, Urbana-Champaign Campus... $1,503,740 
UNIVERSITY TOTAL $7,444,007 



Board Requests Study of Student Disciplinary Processes 



In response to a request from the Board of Trustees 
for a study of the student discipline procedures at the 
University-, President Corbally sent the following letter to 
the three Chancellors : 

October 4, 1971 

Chancellor Warren Cheston 
Cha.vcellor Joseph Begando 
Cha.vcellor J. W. Peltason 

Gentlemen : 

This letter will summarize the conclusions reached in our 
discussions of an appropriate response to the request of the 
Board of Trustees that "the administration develop recom- 
mendations for a new procedure for handling student disci- 
plinary cases." 

Under current University of Illinois Statutes [Chapter II, 
Section 6 (h)], responsibility for student discipline procedures 
has been delegated to a Committee on Student Discipline on 
each campus. The Committee is elected by each Senate. The 



Board's request implies dissatisfaction with current procedures, 
but I do not believe that meeting the request requires the 
immediate removal of jurisdiction from the three Committees. 
In addition, I believe we must recognize that there are at 
least four classes of student di.scipLine problems and that each 
class may require the application of difTerent procedures. 
These classes are: 

1. Mass disruptions or demonstrations. 

2. Violations of academic rules and regulations. 

3. On-campus violation of civil laws or of "regular" Uni- 
versity rules and regulations; i.e., parking violations. 

4. University action toward those charged with or con- 
victed of the off-campus violation of laws or of ofT- 
campus rules or regulations. 

Present student disciplinary processes on our campuses 
and on many others are inadequate. A number of problems 
are cited: 

1. The processes are not timely; hearings are slow and 
action is too far removed from the event. 

2. The processes require "colleague-against-colleague" 



proceedings which have only rarely been viewed as 
effective either by the participants or by observers. 

3. The processes may be unduly expensive of time and of 
money. 

4. The processes tend to obscure the needs of the group 
(the University community) w-hile emphasizing the 
rights of the individual. 

5. The processes often lead to great attention to interpre- 
tations of rules and little attention to the application 
of rules. Judicial processes tend to overlap and often 
to interfere with the legitimate policy processes which 
they are to protect. 

Other difficulties could be cited. It would be less than 
frank to ignore the widely-held feeling that current Univer- 
sity student disciplinary procedures rarely, if ever, produce 
disciplinary action even when all those involved are fully 
aware of technical and real \iolations of University regula- 
tions. This feeling — which has some degree of truth in it — 
cannot lead to efforts to produce a system which always re- 
turns findings of "guilty." Nonetheless, it is a claim which 
requires analysis. 

I would ask, then, that each of you put this matter im- 
mediately before the Committee on Student Discipline on your 
campus and before any other formal or informal group as you 
feel appropriate. On or before November 5, 1971, I ask that 
each of you forward to me the results obtained on your cam- 



pus of a study of the responsibilities of the University toward 
discipline problems in each of the classes mentioned above, 
the effectiveness of the procedures currently used to meet these 
responsibilities, and any recommendations for changes in re- 
sponsibilities and/or procedures. I will make a progress re- 
port to our Board on November 19, 1971, and will work with 
you and others to create final recommendations for considera- 
tion at the December meeting of the Board. 

Each of you heard the discussion of this matter by Board 
members in September and recognizes the seriousness with 
which we must approach this task. I hope you will convey this 
sense of urgency to your Committees. I will await your 
reports. 

John E. Corbally, Jr. 

President 



NOTE: Acting on a request from the Urbana-Cham- 
paign Senate, the President extended the above procedure 
thirty days as follows: 

Reports due from Chancellors — December 5, 1971 
Progress report to Board of Trustees — December 

Board meeting 
Final recommendations to be presented at the Janu- 
ary meeting of the Board 



From the Presidents Report on Selected Topics of Current Interest 

PREPARED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 
AT THE URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CAMPUS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1971 



CITIZENS COMMITTEE HOLDS MEETINGS IN CHICAGO, PEORIA 

Members of the Chicago and the West Central Re- 
gions of the University of Illinois Citizens Committee met 
September 22 and October 15 in Chicago and in Peoria 
with approximately 250 involved. Trustee President Earl 
M. Hughes, Woodstock, chaired the Chicago meeting and 
Trustee Timothy W. S\vain, Peoria, presided at the West 
Central session. President John E. Corbally, Jr. spoke 
at both meetings and participated in question and answer 
sessions. Additional meetings will be held at Mattoon and 
Mt. Vernon October 28 and November 11, respectively. 

UNIVERSITY SECOND IN NATION IN ALUMNI GIFTS 
TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS 

An analysis of voluntary support of higher education 
ranks the University of Illinois second among public in- 
stitutions nationally in value of gifts received from 
alumni. The eleventh annual Council for Financial Aid 
to Education survey, covering fiscal 1969-70, reported 
the University's total for funds given by graduates and 
other former students at $3,647,369, close behind top- 
ranking University of Kansas, $3,874,871. 

In total voluntary support among state universities, 
Illinois ranked fifth with $9,824,696, headed only by the 
Texas and California systems, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 
The University was sixth among public institutions in 
contributions received from business and corporations 
with $2,207,004. Leaders were Michigan, Wisconsin, the 
Texas and California systems, and Purdue. 



The 14,000 individual contributors to the University 
of Illinois Foundation's annual fund placed the Univer- 
sity ninth among public institutions in that category'. 

The surv-ey, co-sponsored by the American Alumni 
Council and the National Association of Independent 
Schools, reported a 1.1 per cent decrease in voluntary sup- 
port to United States colleges and universities, reversing 
a growth trend that for more than a decade has averaged 
more than 9 p)er cent annually. 



UNIVERSITY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING PROGRAM 
OUTLINED AT REGIONAL MEETING 

A report on the University of Illinois statewide con- 
tinuing education program for public health nurses was 
presented at the Midwest Continuing Professional Educa- 
tion for Nurses meeting in St. Louis, October 1 . Professor 
Helen Hotchner, Department of Public Health Nursing, ^ 
University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chicago, out- fl 
lined the program which is supported by annual grants 
from the Illinois Department of Public Health. MCPEN 
membership includes eight state nurses' associations and M 

twenty-three imiversities and colleges from eight states. ^ 



MEDICAL EXPANSION MARKS MILESTONES: 
TWO SCHOOLS OPEN THIS FALL 

The extensive expansion program of the University 
of Illinois College of Medicine marked two milestones 
in September with the opening of the School of Basic 



Medical Sciences at the Urbana-Cliampaigii Campus and 
the Peoria School of Medicine. 

Dr. Daniel K. Bloomfield, dean, welcomed the first 
class of sixteen to the school at Urbana-Champaign. The 
students, who already have a college degree and premedi- 
cal training, are designated as beginning doctors and 
progress primarily at an individual rate for the year. After 
completing the one-year school, the beginning doctors will 
go to a school of clinical medicine in a three-year pro- 
gram through which the Uni\ ersit)- is cutting one or more 
vears from the training time of physicians by integrating 
medical education and internship. 

Twenty students are enrolled in the first class of the 
three-year Peoria School of Medicine. Dr. Nicholas J. 
Cotsonas, Jr. is dean. A similar clinical school \vill open 
in Rockford in the fall of 1972, where Dean Robert L. 
E\ans is now organizing a faculty. Others are proposed 
for additional population centers in the state. 

Initial reorganization of the College of Medicine had 
been to divide the traditional structure into the first 
School of Basic Medical Sciences, with Dr. Truman O. 
Anderson as dean, and the first three-year clinical school. 
The Abraham Lincoln School of Medicine, with Dr. 
Alexander M. Schmidt as dean. 

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON EDUCATIONAL PLANNING 
AT MEDICAL CENTER 

The University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chi- 
cago, hosted an international workshop, "Educational 
Planning for the Health Professions," October 4-8. Some 
fort)- teaching physicians, medical school deans, and ad- 
ministrators from fifteen states, the District of Columbia, 
and three foreign countries participated in the program 
which \vas conducted by staff from the Center for Educa- 
tional Development, headed by Dr. George E. Miller, 
director. 

FOUNDATION MEETS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN; 
J. B. LANTERMAN PRESIDENT 

The annual meeting of the University of Illinois Foun- 
dation brought nearly 150 members of the organization 
to the Urbana-Champaign Campus October 1-2. Joseph 
B. Lanterman, Mundelein, Chairman of the Board and 
Chief Executive Officer of Amsted Industries, Inc., Chi- 
cago, was elected to a one-year term as president; Lee 
L. Morgan, Peoria, Executive Vice President and Direc- 
tor of the Caterpillar Tractor Company, \vas named vice 
president. 

Elected to three-year terms on the foundation's 
eighteen-member board of directors were David F. Lino- 



wes '41, New York, national partner in the accounting 
fiiTn of Lavcnthol Krekstcin Honvath & Hoi-wath; 
Thomas A. Murphy '38, Detroit, Group Vice President 
of General Motors Corporation; and H. Gerald Nordberg 
'2.5, of the investment firm of Dean Witter & Company, 
Chicago. 

Gifts, bequests, and other foundation receipts totaled 
$3,116,888 for the fiscal year ending June 30, according 
to University Vice President and Comptroller H. O. Far- 
ber, foundation treasurer. This was a $209,500 increase 
over the preceding )ear. 

(From the President's Report for the September 
meeting of the Board of Trustees.) 

THREE CAMPUSES HOLD ORIENTATION PROGRAMS 
FOR STUDENTS, PARENTS 

Incoming students and their parents attended meet- 
ings for orientation and advance enrollment at two cam- 
puses of the University of Illinois during the summer. 
County chairmen of the Dads and Mothers associations 
presided at meetings at Urbana-Champaign, June 23- 
August 4. A panel of two students and two faculty was 
available daily at each precollege session to answer ques- 
tions. Parents' Panels were held August 24, August 26, and 
September 1 at Chicago Circle, sponsored by the Office of 
Student Affairs. Program participants included students, 
faculty, and administrators. A general orientation assem- 
bly for all incoming students at the Medical Center, Chi- 
cago, will be held September 22-24. 

UNIQUE OPHTHALMOLOGY EQUIPMENT INSTALLED 
AT MEDICAL CENTER 

An argon laser photocoagulator, a powerful laser beam 
for use in the treatment of major eye diseases, has been 
installed in the University of Illinois Eye and Ear In- 
firmary at the Medical Center, Chicago. It is the first 
such equipinent in Illinois and one of only a dozen in the 
world. The newly developed instrument, which carries 
with it the potential for preventing the blinding side 
effects of diabetes and sickle cell anemia, is used to burn 
away diseased portions of the retina. Several hundred pa- 
tients at the Medical Center will be treated annually with 
the laser, according to Dr. Morton F. Goldberg, Head of 
the Department of Ophthalmology in The Abraham Lin- 
coln School of Medicine, College of Medicine. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 







FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



President Reports to Trustees on Budget 






February 1, 1972 



President Corbally presented the following statement 
to the Board of Trustees at its meeting on January 19, 

On Januan- 4, 1972. the State Board of Higher Edu- 
cation approved Executive Director's Report No. 103 
which included recommended operating budgets for 
higher education for Fiscal Year 1972-73 and which also 
contained a series of proposed program reductions and 
estimated savings to be achieved if such reductions are 
adopted. The action of the State Board means that the 
proposed program reductions for the University of Illi- 
nois are now referred to you for your consideration. M\' 
vie\\s concerning these proposals are well known, but 
each propxjsal will be referred to the appropriate Univer- 
sity and Campus officers for revie\v' and analysis. The 
results of our re\-iew \vill be presented to you for your 
consideration at your February meeting so that you can 
resjX)nd to the advice of the State Board. 

The important part of Report No. 103 is the proposed 
appropriation figures for Fiscal Year 1972-73. While the 



amounts prof>osed for the University of Illinois fall far 
short of amounts necessary to meet our needs, we have 
concluded that the current financial situation of the State 
of Illinois makes it unlikely that any sizable increases 
will be available. I have been assured that special efforts 
will be made to assist us in resolving currently unresolved 
financial problems to enable us to continue our planned 
expansion programs in the health sciences. I have further 
been invited by Governor Ogilvie to join with him and 
with others to explore possible Federal sources of income 
to assist us in meeting some of our most pressing problems. 
We are now beginning the process of developing 
operating budgets for Fiscal Year 1972-73 within the 
framework of the total amount recommended for the 
University of Illinois by the State Board. This process will 
be a difficult one and will raise many problems. Our time 
table calls for the completion of an analysis of our prob- 
lems and possibilities during the next few weeks and I 
will make a report concerning the 1973 budget in some 
detail to you at the February meeting. 



University's 1971-72 Operating Budget and 1972-73 Appropriation Request 



LYLE H. U^NIER. EXECUTrV'E MCE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST 

This report is addressed primarily to the faculty and 
to others within and outside the University of Illinois 
who might well be perplexed by the budgetaiy develop- 
ments of the past twelve months. The appropriation 
process for 1971-72 was unusually protracted, at times 
controversial, and far from satisfactory' in outcome. 
Further, the situation has been complicated by the over- 
lap of the final stage of legislative action for Fiscal Year 
1971-72 with the initial phase of planning for 1972-73 — 
with the attendant emergence of a new fiscal ideolog)- 
from the State Board of Higher Education. One con- 
sequence of these rapidly changing events has been the 
lack of a definitive account of the interacting proceedings 
— a gap that the present review will attempt to fill, 
although as regards plans for next year it could well be 
out of date before appearing in print. 

The refxjrt is presented in two main sections. The 
first is concerned with appropriations for the current 



year, which were completed with the enactment of a 
supplemental bill last November that provided funds for 
salary increases. In the second section, the University's 
appropriation request for Fiscal Year 1972-73 will be 
discussed, with special reference to the recommendations 
approved by the Board of Higher Education at its meet- 
ing on January 4, 1972. 

I. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1971-72 

A statistical summary of the results of successive actions 
upon the University's 1971-72 request for operating funds is 
presented in Schedule A, together with comparison totals for 
Fiscal Year 1970-71. 

A breakdowTi of these funds into two categories is shown : 
"Regular Operations" and "Retirement Contributions" — 
partly because such tabulations arc sometimes presented in 
official reports and partly to facilitate the following brief 
discussion of the funding of the retirement system. 



SCHEDULE A — APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) — FISCAL YEARS 1970-71 AND 1971-72 

FY 1971-72 Appropriations 

„ ,p , FY 1970-71 iL-L 

itources oj tunds Appropria- Requested Recommended Passed by Approved by Added by Total Appro- 

for Operations ^.^^ ^^ ^f^ j^^ ,^ jg^^ g^^ Assembly Governor S. B. 1299 priations 

University FY 1971-72 (S.B.717) (S.B.717) (Nov. 1971) FY 1971-72 

Regular Operations 

General Tax Revenue $159,661 2 $189,159.0 $172,041,9 $164,027.7 $152,900.0' $2,100.0^ $155,000.0 

University Income 18,218.1 22,900.0 27,290.0 22,900.0 22,900.0 -0- 22,900.0 

Agricultural Premium Fund ... . 1,021.7 1,2528 1,166.7 1,161.1 1,161.1 -0- 1,161.1 

Subtotal ($178,901 .0) ($213,311 .8) ($200,498.6) ($188,088.8) ($176,961 . 1) ($2,100.0) ($179,061 . 1 ) 

Retirement Contributions 

General Tax Revenue $ 7,391.3 $24,307.0 $24,307.0 $ 7,586.7 $ 5,258.2 -0- $ 5,258.2 

Agricultural Premium Fund 83.5 106.7 106.7 32.1 22.3 -0- 22.3 

Subtotal ($ 7,474.8) ($ 24,413.7) ($ 24,413.7) ($ 7,618.8) ($ 5,280.5) ( -0- ) ($ 5,280.5) 

Total, Operations $186,375.8 $237,725.5 $224,912.3 $195,707.6 $182,241.6 $2,100.0 $184,341.6 

'The general-revenue (State tax) funds approved by the Governor in S. B. 717 included $2.0 million for expansion in the health 

fields, which vifas offset largely by reductions in general-revenue funds that had been approved by the General Assembly for capital 

purposes. 

'This sum of $2.1 million for FY 1971-72 salary increases was provided through a transfer of that amount (via S. B. 1299) from 

an item appropriated for equipment in S. B. 717. The appropriated sum of $2.1 million was matched by the same amount from an 

indirect-cost reserve (nonrecurring) — to provide salary increases for seven months averaging about 5 per cent. 



Retirement Contributions 

The figures under this heading in Schedule A show that 
the University requested and the Board of Higher Education 
recommended more than a threefold increase in retirement 
contributions for 1971-72 over the amount for 1970-71. This 
proposed increase from $7.47 million to $24.4 million was 
the amount required by a State statute passed in 1967, to 
provide full funding of the current service costs of the State 
Universities Retirement System plus interest on its unfunded 
accrued liability. Since passing that law, however, the Gen- 
eral Assembly has regvilarly failed to appropriate the full 
amoimt required by it and failed to do so again in Senate 
Bill 717 (as shown in the fourth column of Schedule A). 

Unfortunately, the Governor reduced the retirement fimds 
still further to $5.28 million, which was not quite sufficient to 
meet the University's current retirement obligations, although 
the total appropriations made to all institutions in the System 
were apparently sufficient to meet all of its current obligations. 

Summary of Recommended Increases for 1971-72 

The appropriation totals for the various stages of the 

budgetary process for 1971-72 are shown in the last line of 

Schedule A, and are reproduced below, together with the 

amounts and percentages of increase above the base budget 

for FY 1970-71: 

Increase over 
Dollars in py jgy^^j 

Thousands 

Amount % 

Base budget for FY 1970-71 . . . $186,375.8 

University request for FY 

1971-72 237,725.5 $51,349.7 27.6 

Approved by Board of Higher 

Education 224,912.3 38,536.5 20.7 

Passed by General Assembly... 195,707.6 9,331.8 5.0 

Approved originally by 

Governor 182,241.6 -4,134.2 -2.2 

Total after addition of $2.1 mil- 
lion for salary increases 184,341.6 -2,034.2 -1.1 



General Assembly's Amendments to Senate Bill 717 

A special study group of the Democratic majority of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee developed the amendments 
to Senate Bill 717 that were finally approved by both houses 
of the General Assembly. A total of $195.7 million was rec- 
ommended for the University of Illinois — a reduction of 
$29.2 million below the amoimt recommended by the Board 
of Higher Education. Also, the University income fund was 
reduced to eliminate the income from the higher tuition rates 
recommended by that Board. The Senate study group recom- 
mended an overall increase of some $9.2 million above the 
University's 1970-71 total, including $6.3 million for salary 
increases averaging about 4.6 per cent. The remainder of the 
increase ^^■as considerably below the amoimt needed for the 
projected expansion in the health fields alone, but it looked 
good in retrospect after the Governor had finished with 
t^he bill. 

The Governor's Reductions 

Apart from retirement contributions, the Governor origi- 
nally stipulated that the University's appropriations for op- 
erations in Senate Bill 717 be reduced so as to bring the 
University's total for 1971-72 to the same level as that for 
1970-71, with the added proviso that the reduced total include 
the additional income from the higher tuition rates recom- 
mended by the Board of Higher Education. The latter condi- 
tion amounted to a cut of approximately $3.9 million below 
the total appropriated for operations in 1970-71, since the 
General Assembly had refused to appropriate the additional 
income that the higher rates would have produced. 

The Governor later agreed to an increase of $2.0 million 
in state-tax funds for use specifically to expand programs in 
the health fields. In order to secure this addition, the Univer- 
sity agreed to reductions in capital items totaling $1,235 mil- 
lion. Further, even with this increase in state-ta.x funds, the 
University's total in general-revenue funds ($155.0 million) 
\vas some $4.66 million below the level of 1970-71 (a reduc- 
tion of 2.9 per cent). 



Efforts lo Secure Salgry Increase Funds for 1971-72 

The Board of Trustees at its meeting on July 21, 1971, 
voted: (a) to urge the General Assembly to rescind the Ciov- 
emor's net reduction of $5.84 million for "Personal Services" 
in Senate Bill 717, to provide funds for salar>' increases; (b) 
to defer the decision on a tuition increase until after the 
General Assembly had decided whether or not it would sup- 
port the Governor's recommendation for such an increase; 
and (c) to urge the General Assembly to restore the reduc- 
tion in the item for retirement contributions. 

The University's efforts to persuade the General Assembly 
to override the Governor's reduction of the "Personal Ser- 
vices" item met strong opposition from the Board of Higher 
Education. .-Vt its meeting on September 8, 1971, the Board 
voted "to recommend to the governing systems that with the 
exception of the tuition question, they accept the figures 
currently in effect, that they make no further attempts to 
restore budget reduction. . . ." Despite the Board's opposition, 
the University continued its effort to secure salary-increase 
funds through the restoration of the personal-services item of 
$5.84 million in Senate Bill 717. Unfortunately, the effort 
failed in the Senate during the session of the General As- 
sembly last fall — the vote being strictly along party lines 
except that Senator \\'eaver joined the Democrats in voting 
to override the Governor's reduction. Prior to that vote, a 
bill introduced by Senator Hynes proposed a new appropria- 
tion for salary increases, but that bill also failed to pass in 
the Senate. 

Following these two reversals, a successful effort was ini- 
tiated by Representative Clabaugh and Senator Weaver to 
secure salary-increase funds for the University — an effort in 
which they were joined by legislators interested in other senior 
imiversity systems. For the University of Illinois, the legisla- 
tion consisted in amendments to Senate Bill 717 transferring 
the sum of $2.1 million from an equipment item to personal 
services. The University agreed to match that sum by assign- 
ing $2.1 million from an indirect-cost reserve — to yield a 
total sufficient to fund salary increases averaging 5 per cent 
for a seven-month period (December 1, 1971, through June 
30, 1972). 

The wisdom of funding salary increases on such a basis 
may well be questioned. An average increase of 5 per cent 
would require approximately $7.2 million on an annual basis. 
With only $2.1 million available in recurring state appropria- 
tions for the 1971-72 increases, an additional sum of $5.1 
million must be provided in 1972-73 to maintain salaries at 
current levels. This will obviously be difficult to do in 1972- 
73 in the face of the continuation of a condition of financial 
stringency for higher education in Illinois. The decision to 
proceed with the increases was made only because the alterna- 
tive of no general salary increases this year seemed even more 
undesirable to the administrative officers chiefly concerned, 
at both campus and general-University levels. Whether or 
not this judgment turns out to have been sound will perhaps 
depend upon the outcome of current efforts to develop a 
viable budget for 1972-73. Difficult as this task will be, how- 
ever, the funds to maintain the present salary levels will be 
found; and every reasonable possibility will be explored to 
provide additional increases next year. 

II. PROPOSED APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS — 
FISCAL YEAR 1972-73 

The present report will be limited to the overall financial 
aspects of Executive Director's Kcpon No. 103 which was 
approved in its entirety by the Board of Higher Education on 



January 4, 1972. That endorsement covered scores of sug- 
gested reductions in "low-priority" programs and increases for 
"high-priority" programs, in addition to the appropriation 
totals recommended for the various institutions and agencies 
concerned with higher education. The program changes and 
associated financial estimates were proposed as the means 
whereby the several senior systems of public imiversities could 
live within essentially "status quo" budgets and yet manage 
to accommodate increased enrollment, meet other cost in- 
creases, and conduct new programs of high priority. 

The University of Illinois is making a careful study of 
the policy and program recommendations affecting it in Re- 
port No. 103 — as well as the related budgetary assumptions 
and implications — and a systematic commentary upon these 
recommendations will be submitted to the Board of Higher 
Education as soon as the study has been completed. That 
report will advise the Board as to the acceptability of the 
recommendations and as to the manner and schedule of im- 
plementation for the proposals judged to be acceptable. Mean- 
time, it might be useful to clarify the nature of the Board's 
statutory responsibilities for the review of the educational 
programs of the pulilic universities of the State. 

Board of Higher Education's Authority over Existing Programs 

Widespread misunderstanding has been evident in the 
discussion in the news media of the Board's legal authority 
over existing programs of the public universities. Certain 
commentators have assumed that the Board has the legal 
authority to direct the governing boards to implement its pro- 
gram recommendations. The Board has no such authority 
under State statutes, a fact clearly recognized in Executive 
Director's Report No. 103 (p. 3). The controlling section of 
the statutes reads as follows: 

"The Board of Higher Education is authorized to review 
periodically all existing programs of instruction, research 
and public service at the state universities and colleges 
and to advise the appropriate board of control if the 
contribution of each program is not educationally and 
economically justified." {Emphasis added.) (From Sec- 
tion 187 of the Act creating a Board of Higher Education, 
as amended by an Act approved June 30, 1967, Senate 
Bill 1184.) 

It might be added that another section of the statutes does 
indeed give the Board of Higher Education mandatory con- 
trol over the initiation of new programs of instruction, re- 
search, and public service. 

If the Board of Higher Education wished to force the 
Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois to accept 
changes in its existing programs that the University did not 
favor, the Board of Higher Education could accomplish that 
purpose only through persuading the General Assembly to 
enact a bill containing such a provision and securing the 
Governor's approval of it. 

The remainder of this report will be concerned mainly 
with the following topics: (a) the total appropriations recom- 
mended for the University in 1972-73 by the Board of Higher 
Education; (b) the failure of Executive Director's Report No. 
103 to recognize certain mandatory cost increases facing the 
University in 1972-73; (c) the invalid premises and data ap- 
parently underlying the Board staff's contention that the Uni- 
versity of Illinois is excessively funded in comparison with 
other similar institutions and that the University could hence 
finance very substantial cost increases next year for "high- 
priority" purposes through internal economies and reallocation 
of resources. 



Total FY 1972-73 Appropriations Recommended for University by IBHE 

A comparison of the funds available for University opera- 
tions in 1971-72 with the amounts recommended by the Board 
of Higher Education for 1972-73 is presented in Schedule B. 
Both state appropriations and supplemental funds from fed- 
eral sources are shown, and the two sources are combined in 
a third section of the table. The following is a brief summary 
of the essential facts shown in Schedule B: 

1. An increase of about $1.74 million in regular state 
appropriations is recommended — from $184,341,600 
in FY 1971-72 to $186,079,200 in 1972-73. 

2. But if the 1971-72 base be increased sufficiently to an- 
nualize the salary increases made this year for seven 
months (i.e., to provide funds to pay the increases for 
twelve months instead of seven), the appropriation 
level would be $3.36 million below the current budge- 
tary level. 

3. The inclusion of the supplemental federal funds for 
health-manpower and indirect-cost purposes as "state 
appropriations" would not add $9,646 million to the 
resources of the University next year, which Executive 
Director's Report No. 103 would lead one to think by 
omitting any reference to the current levels of support. 
These sources might provide a net increase of $1,342 
million over the University's current level for such 
funds. (The University will strongly oppose the rec- 
ommendation that federal grants under the health- 
manpower act be subject to Illinois legislative appro- 
priation.) 



With respect to state appropriations only, the University 
administration has reluctantly concluded that it probably 
would not be possible to secure an increase in the recom- 
mended total of $186.1 million for 1972-73 — even though 
this \\ould represent an increase of only $1.74 million above 
actual appropriations for the current year and would be 
$3.36 million short of the amount needed for salary annual- 
ization next year. There are several reasons for this decision. 
The first is based on the belief that the failure to secure an 
override of the Governor's FY 1971-72 reductions last fall 
means that another such effort this year would likewise be 
unsuccessful, even if favorable action by the General As- 
sembly could be secured (which is an unlikely prospect). 

A second reason arises from the complete reversal of 
the position of the Board of Higher Education during the 
past year relative to the needs of higher education. Whereas 
a year ago the Board recommended substantial increases be- 
yond 1970-71 appropriations — including some $21.5 million 
for the University of Illinois — its recent recommendations 
relative to a substantially higher set of program projections 
for 1972-73 inconsistently argue that the universities can meet 
these expanded needs with budgets that overall are below the 
1970-71 level. Whatever one might think about the influence 
of that Board in Springfield, its outright opposition would 
certainly not help a University effort to secure higher appro- 
priations from the General Assembly than the Governor had 
included in his budget. 

A third reason for accepting the total in regular state 
appropriations approved by the Board of Higher Education 



SCHEDULE B — COMPARISON OF FY 1971-72 APPROPRIATIONS WITH FY 1972-73 IBHE RECOMMENDATIONS 

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) 

FY 1971-72 FY 1971-72 p,. „,, _., Increases Recommended for 

Sources of Funds Appropriations Base with ^^'9/.-/ J py igj2.73 over FY 1971-72 

, ^ ■ W, n , . , < ;• J Kecommenda- 

for Operations Plus Supple- Annualized tions of IBHE --ictual Appro- Annualized 

mental Funds Salaries^ ■' priations Base 

I. STATE APPROPRIATIONS 

Regular Operations 

General Revenue 5155,000.0 $160,100.0 $155,010.0 S 10.0 -$5,090.0 

University Income 22,900.0 22,900.0 24,580.0 1,680.0 1,680.0 

Agricultural Premium Fund 1,161.1 1,161.1 1,208.7 47.6 47.6 

Subtotal ($179,061.1) ($184,161.1) ($180,798.7) ($1,737.6) (-$3,362.4) 

Retirement Contributions 

General Revenue $ 5,258.2 $ 5,258.2 $ 5,258.2 -0- -0- 

Agricultural Premium Fund 22.3 22.3 22.3 -0- -0- 

Subtotal ($ 5,280.5) ($ 5,280.5) ($ 5,280.5) ( -0- ) ( -0- ) 

Total (State Appropriations) $184,341.6 $189,441.6 $186,079.2 $1,737.6 -$3,362.4 

//. SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS 

Federal Health Manpower Funds^ $ 1,554.0 $ 1,554.0 $ 3,683.0 $2,1290 $2,129.0 

Indirect-Cost Income (75%) 6,750.0 6,750.0 5,962,5 -787.5 -787.5 

Total (Supplemental Funds) $ 8,304.0 $ 8,304.0 $ 9,645.5 $1,341.5 $1,341.5 

///. ALL FUNDS 

State Appropriations $184,341.6 $189,441.6 $186,079.2 $1,737.6 -$3,362.4 

Supplemental Funds 8,304.0 8,304.0 9,645.5 1,341.5 1,341.5 

GrandTotal $192,645.6 $197,745.6 $195,724.7 $3,079.1 -$2,020.9 

' Salary increases of 5 per cent were in effect for only the last seven months of FY 1971-72, and were paid partly from nonrecurring 
funds. The figures in this column would be the appropriation base for FY 1971-72 in "annualized" recurring funds. 
'The figures for FY 1971-72 are the University's estimates of grants currently available for health-education-improvement pro- 
grams. The FY 1972-73 figures are estimates of the Board of Higher Education. The new health-manpower legislation would super- 
sede existing support programs. 



and the Governor is that definitive planning for next year's 
budget should begin as soon as possible, in order to allow 
time for the intensi\c studies and wide consultation that will 
be necessar)' if wise decisions are to be reached on the critical 
issues now before us. 

Funds Needed to Annualize FY 1971-72 Salary Increases 

Executive Director's Report No. 103 ignores entirely the 
need for annualizing next year the salary increases made for 
a seven-month period this year. This means that Executive 
Director Holderman did not inform his Hoard of the highest- 
priority obligation of the Uni\ersity of Illinois for FY 1972-73 
— which presumably is that of the other public universities 
as well. The addition of the required sum of $5.1 million to 
the increases totaling $12.64 million "recommended" for the 
University in Report Xo. 103 would inflate the total of the 
"high-priority" increases to $17,376 million, which is approxi- 
mately 40 per cent abo\e the amount he reported to the Board 
of Higher Education. 

For the funding of these increases, the only new income 
would be the estimated total of $3.08 million — as shov\Ti in 
Schedule B. Deducting this amount from the total of $17,376 
million would leave an unfunded residue of "high-priority" 
needs that would require funding through internal savings and 
reallocation of resources in the amount of $14,657 million. 

What this means is that the present budget of the Univer- 
sity of Illinois would have to be cut by $14,657 million {8.2 
per cent) in order to fimd the "high-priority" recommenda- 
tions in Executive Director's Report No. 103, together with 
the annualization of 1971-72 .salary' increases. 

Dr. Holderman cannot claim that he did not know, or 
had forgotten, about the salar>'-annualization problem, since 
he wrote two letters to President Corbally on that subject 
during December 1971. The second was \vritten on December 
29 — only six days before the meeting of the Board of Higher 
Education on Januan' 4, 1972 — requesting detailed informa- 
tion on the fimds required to annualize salaries. 

Dr. Holderman's failure to call this obligation — and the 
similar commitments of other public universities — to the 
attention of his Board is an appalling omission by a public 
official charged with professional responsibility for coordi- 
nating and reflecting the needs of higher education in Illinois. 
Equally astounding is the fact that when his $5.1 million 
"error" was called to the attention of the Board of Higher 
Education on January 4, 1972, by the present writer — by 
means of a documented analysis of the problem — the Board 
even did not see fit to ask Dr. Holderman for an explanation. 
Showing understandable restraint, he did not volunteer to 
give one. 

Misrepresentation of Comparative Status 
of University's Financial Resources 

Three main premises appear to underlie the recommenda- 
tions in Executive Directors Report No. 103 concerning the 
University of Illinois: (a i that the University has an excess 
of financial resources in comparison with similar public insti- 
tutions, and hence can support new undertakings through 
economizing and reallocation of resources; (b) that certain 
types of University expenditures are disproportionately high, 
especially those for administration and physical-plant opera- 
tions (an assumption said to apply also to the other Illinois 
public universities); (c; that the University has a substantial 
number of "lowest-priority" programs which can be readily 
reduced or phased out to produce immediate savings for 
1972-73. The last two assumptions will not be discussed in 



this report but will be examined in considerable depth in the 
forthcoming connuentary on Executive Director's Report No. 
103, which probably will be completed early in March. 

The only evidence thus far disclosed relative to the claim 
that the University has an excess of financial resources is 
ostensibly found in a set of tables distributed by the staff of 
the Board of Higher Education, which show comparisons of 
.state-tax appropriations for the nine public universities of the 
Big Ten group. The following figures illu.strate the type of 
comparisons that are made: 

State Tax Amount Ap- 

Appropria- Headiount propriated 
Institution tions FY Enrollment per 

1970-71 (Fall 1970) Headcount 
( Thousands) Student 

University of Illinois $169,100 58,022 $2,914 

Michigan State University . . $ 70,100 44,092 

University of Michigan 73,500 39,661 

Total (Michigan) $143,600 83,753 $1,715 

The inferences that have been encouraged from these isolated 
figures are: (a) that the University of Illinois has a far higher 
level of financial support for its educational programs than 
the two Michigan universities; and (b) that the University of 
Illinois has a sufficient excess in state-tax income that it could 
afford to reduce expenditures for its current programs in order 
to reallocate the savings to "higher-priority" programs. 

These conclusions are entirely unjustified from the evi- 
dence presented. The figures cited do indeed identify a marked 
difference between the University of Illinois and the other 
two institutions, but its nature has not been correctly inter- 
preted. It is necessary to consider all of the resources available 
to these institutions before valid conclusions may be drawn as 
to their relative levels of financial support. A more adequate 
picture of the comparative resources of the University of Illi- 
nois and the two Michigan in.stitutions is presented by the 
following income figures for the fiscal year 1970-71, taken 
from their official financial reports: 



Income per Headcount Student 



Source of 
Income 



University University 
of Illinois oj Michigan 



Michigan 

State 
University 



General Funds 

State-tax Funds $2,899 $2,003 $1,629 

University Income 292 933 71 7 

Subtotal, General 

Funds ($3,191) ($2,936) (S2,346) 

Other Funds 2,389 3,924 1,721 

.Ml Funds $5,580 $6,860 $4,067 

These figures show clearly that the University of Michi- 
gan — which is more nearly comparable overall to the Univer- 
sity of Illinois than is Michigan State University — has a 
considerably higher total income level than the University 
of Illinois: $6,860 versus $5,580 per headcount student. 

The University of Illinois shows a somewhat higher aver- 
age for the category "General Funds" than the University of 
Michigan (state-tax funds and appropriated university in- 
come) : $3,191 versus $2,936 per headcount student. However, 
the University of Illinois' figure includes approximately $21.0 
million for research and extension in its College of Agricul- 



ture and for the University of Illinois Hospital, whereas the 
University of Michigan expends no "General Funds" for 
agriculture and only $6.8 million in such income for its hos- 
pital. The net difference of $14.2 million between the two 
institutions relative to these differential requirements for "Gen- 
eral Funds" amounts to some $245 per student for the 1970 
fall-term-headcount enrollment of the University of Illinois. 
Removing this amount from the University's overall "General- 
Fund.s" average of $3,191 would reduce its figure to $2,946, 
which is only $10 more than the University of Michigan's 
average of $2,936. 

The tabulation also shows that the University of Michigan 
collects a markedly higher average amount of tuition and fees 
than the University of Illinois: $887 per headcount student 
for Michigan and $268 for Illinois. The reasons for this dif- 
ference are threefold: (a) the lower tuition rates at the 
University of Illinois; (b) the far higher proportion of non- 
resident students at the University of Michigan, who pay 
much higher tuition than residents of the state; (c) the larger 
number of tuition waivers for both undergraduate and gradu- 
ate students at the University of Illinois. Concerning waivers, 
for example, the University is required by State statute this 
year to waive tuition for 7,323 students (mostly veterans and 
teacher-education trainees^, with a loss of income amoimting 
to some $2.9 million. 

The low level of tuition income for the University of 
Illinois — and that for other Illinois institutions of higher 
education — reflects a longstanding public policy designed to 
make educational opportunity widely available at low cost 
to the youth of the State. If it is believed that this historic 
commitment should now be changed because of the financial 
condition of the State, it is legitimate to advocate measures 
towards that end. But the nature and implications of that 
position should be clearly understood and the means to its 
implementation should be forthrightly proposed. Perhaps the 
Board of Higher Education's Commission on Financing Higher 
Education will make constructive proposals directed towards 
improving the income situation of the public universities, but 
without depriving worthy students of educational opportunity 
simply because they cannot afford to pay the higher tuition 
rates and meet other costs. 

With respect to the comparative "study" of Big Ten 
universities, it is deplorable that such seriously misleading 
information should have been so widely disseminated by the 
staff of the Board of Higher Education among advisory com- 
mittees of the Board, legislators, newspaper editors, and others 
— as evidently has been done from reports reaching University 
staff members. It is perhaps significantly symbolic of the cal- 
ibre of the material and its use that officers of the University 
of Illinois were not even infomied by Dr. Holderman of its 



existence — much less afforded the professional courtesy of 
an opportunity to comment on it or to have the University's 
interpretation reach the recipients. 

Concluding Comment 

President Corbally has fittingly characterized in the fol- 
lowing words the most objectionable aspect of the budget 
recommendations submitted by the Executive Director to the 
Board of Higher Education on January 4, 1972: 

"In short, the certainty with which the Executive Direc- 
tor and his staff have outlined millions of dollars worth 
of 'savings' which can be applied to salary increases and 
to new programs is a cruel fiction." 

This judgment is fully supported by the evidence and inter- 
pretation in the present report, as well as by other studies in 
process that will be published later. 

Apart from analytical studies, however, the credibility of 
the Executive Director's professional advice might well be 
questioned on the basis of a comparison between his budget 
recommendations on January 5, 1971, in Executive Director's 
Report No. 93 and those submitted on January 4, 1972, in 
Report No. 103. A year ago he recommended an increase of 
$21.6 million for the University in 1971-72 (not including 
retirement contributions), which did not materialize; this year, 
he finds so much "fat" in the University's budget that he 
proposes cuts of $9.5 million to provide funds for further 
salary increases and program expansion. (As already noted, 
this figure becomes $14.6 million if the omitted sum of $5.1 
million for annualizing 1971-72 salary increases is included.) 

All three campuses and the general-administrative offices 
of the University of Illinois are working intensively to evaluate 
the consequences of the ceiling of $186.1 million in regular 
state appropriations recommended for FY 1972-73 by the 
Board of Higher Education. A report will be made to the 
Board of Trustees at its meeting on February 15, 1972, con- 
cerning the results of these studies to that date; and a rea- 
sonably definitive picture should be available by the time the 
General Assembly reconvenes in March. But if that total 
amount, together with an increase of $2.0 million in federal 
health-manpower funds, is all that is available ne.xt year, it 
seems inevitable that plans for further salary increases and 
for expansion in the health fields will have to be sharply 
curtailed. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



'^Ca^-^J^ 



.i-cD Mumiora iiall 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



General Rules Relating to Academic, Administrative Staffs 
Disability Leave Alodijied 



No. 227, Febrvary 24, 1972 



liiaiJ 



UTAWERS'JJ.^:- 



The Board of Trustees, meeting on the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus Februaiy 16, appro\'ed modification 
of General Rules relating to disability leave of members 
of the academic and administrative staffs. 

The following presentation was made to the Board : 

Section 29, (c), (2) of The General Rules Concerning 
University Organization and Procedures provides that unused 
disability leave (sick leave) may be accumulated by members 
of the academic and administrative staffs up to a maximum 
of si.\ty days, .'\dditionally, and subject to the approval of the 
President, such staff members who have completed at least 
three years of ser\'ice may be granted disability leave with 
full pay for a period not to exceed one-half of his appoint- 
ment year. However, the additional leave is not cumulative. 

A recent change in the retirement law allows the use of 
unused disability leave in the calculation of service credit at 
retirement. Accordingly, it is proposed to change the amount 
of such leave which may be accumulated in any year from 
sixty days to six months. 

The President, with the concurrence of the three Chan- 
cellors (who have had the advice of the Senate Committees 
on Faculty Benefits at their campuses), recommends that the 
rules relating to disability leave for academic or administra- 
tive personnel be modified to read as follows: (new text is un- 
derlined, deletions are shown by lines through text) 



"Academic or Administrative Staff. Noncumulative leave 
is granted with full pay for disability in each year of 
service, including the first, of fifteen calendar days. In 
addition, a staff member is eligible for extended disability 
leave of ten calendar days with full pay for each year of 
service, the unused portion of which is cumulative in any 
year to a maximum of sixty days six months. 

"Subject to the approval of the President, or Chancel- 
lor as appropriate,* a member who has completed at least 
three full years of .service may be granted a disability 
leave with full pay for a period (including the annual 
and extended leaves described above) not to exceed one- 
half of his appointment year. 

"No deduction of time from the annual leave or the 
extended leave is made if the member is ill or disabled 
at a time when he is not expected to furnish regular ser- 
vice to the University. 

"After the disability benefits described above have 
been exhausted, a member may be granted a disability 
leave without pay from the University. If such a member 
is a participant in the University Retirement System of 
Illinois, he may apply for the benefits to which he is en- 
titled under that .system." 



* In the case of staff members of General University offices the 
President will act. 



Revision of Statutes Relating to University Employment 



At its February 16 meeting, the Board of Trustees 
gave final approval of re\'isions of the University Statutes 
relating to University employment for which it had given 
provisional approval on September 15. 

Here are the agenda item and revisions: 

At the September 15, 1971, meeting, the Board of Trus- 
tees provisionally approved revisions of Sections 33 and 34 
of the University Statutes dealing with employment of rela- 
tives and with other criteria for employment. The proposed 
revisions were referred to the Senates and to the University 
Senates Conference for their information and advice. 

The University Senates Conference and the Medical Cen- 
ter and Chicago Circle campus Senates now have approved 
the revisions as proposed. The Urbana-Champaign Senate 
adopted a slightly modified version. 



In view of the fact that two of the Senates and the Uni- 
versity Senates Conference are in agreement on the specific 
language and all arc in agreement with the substance of the 
proposed revisions, I recommend that final approval be given 
to Sections 33 and 34 in the form provisionally adopted on 
September 15, 1971. 

TEXT, AS PROVISIONALLY APPROVED, SEPTEMBER 15, 1971 

CRITERIA FOR EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTION 

Sec. 33. The basic criteria for employment and promotion 
of all University Staff, whether or not subject to the act creat- 
ing the University Civil Service System of Illinois, shall be 
appropriate qualifications for and performance of the specified 
duties. The principles of equal employment opportunity are a 
part of the general policy of the University. Unless otherwise 



provided by law, employees are to be selected and treated 
during employment without regard to political affiliation, re- 
lationship by blood or marriage, age, sex, race, creed or na- 
tional origin. 

EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES 

Sec. 34. No individual shall initiate or participate in insti- 
tutional decisions involving a direct benefit (initial employ- 
ment, retention, promotion, salary, leave of absence, etc.) to 
a member of his immediate family. "Immediate family" in- 



cludes an individual's spouse, ancestors and descendants, all 
descendants of the individual's grandparents, and the spouse 
of any of the foregoing. Each Chancellor shall develop, for 
the approval of the President, campus procedures to insure 
against such conflict of interest. 

MODIFICATIONS, URBANA SENATE 

1. Sec. 33. Transposition, first and second sentences. 

2. Sec. 34. Deletion, "initiate or," line one. 



Student Rides of Conduct Revised 

Another revision approved by the Board of Trustees 
Februar) 16 pertained to the "Rules of Conduct Ap- 
plicable to All Students Concerning Disruptive or Coer- 
cive Action." Text of President Corbally's recommenda- 
tion reads as follows: 

Among the administrative recommendations on Univer- 
sity judicial processes approved by the Board on January 19, 
1972, was one indicating the need for development of a wider 
range of fitting sanctions and penalties. Specifically, it was 
recommended that there be a broadening of sanctions ap- 
plicable to the variety of acts covered by the Board's state- 
ment (adopted August 12, 1970; amended September 16, 
1970) of "Rules of Conduct Applicable to All Students Con- 
cerning Disruptive or Coercive Action." 

To implement the Board action of January 19, 1972, I 



recommend the following amendment to the final paragraph 
of the Rules of Conduct (new language is imderlined) : 

". . . When, through the disciplinary process, a student is 
found to have knowingly engaged in a disruptive or coer- 
cive action, as above defined, the penalty will be dismissal 
or, upon a finding that substantial mitigating circum- 
stances exist, suspended dismissal or other sanctions 
deemed just and appropriate. The Chancellors, in con- 
sultation with the President, are expected to institute and 
implement the necessary procedures for referral of ap- 
propriate cases to the disciplinary processes." 

The change is consistent with recommendations made to 
the administration and to the Board of Trustees by the Senate 
Committees on Student Discipline at the Chicago Circle and 
Urbana-Champaign Campuses. 



Survey Research Laboratory's Social Science Data Archive 



The Social Science Data Archive (SSDA) of the 
University's Survey Research Laboratory has been com- 
pletely reorganized and is available as a major source 
of behavioral and social-science data needed for research, 
teaching, and policy decision-making. In addition to 
serving the University of Illinois, the SSDA will supply 
data from its machine-readable files to other universities 
and colleges throughout the State, governmental agencies 
(both state and municipal), and various organizations in 
the private sector. 

The present holdings of the Archive are being up- 
graded and made part of a comprehensive user-oriented 
information system for the behavioral and social sciences. 
The Archive has a wealth of data from several fields, in- 
cluding sociology, political science, economics, and his- 
tors'. Data from studies of major survey research organi- 
zations and the Survey Research Laboraton,- ha\e been 
achieved and can be retrieved for various forms of sec- 
ondary processing. 

CENSUS DATA PROCESSING CENTER 

A major part of the Archive's reorganization has been 
designed to develop the capability for processing all of the 
data from the 1970 Census of Housing and Population. 
At a minimum, the full set of machine-readable summary- 
tape census data for the State of Illinois will be acquired, 
and the SSDA staff will be capable of servicing requests 



for these data. The census tapes for additional states will 
also be acquired as user demand warrants and as re- 
sources allow. Under consideration is the possibility of 
acquiring the tapes for the entire Midwest, and arrange- 
ments might ultimately be made to acquire the census 
tapes for the entire United States. 

The full set of census data for each state is divided 
into six partitions known as "counts." The primary dif- 
ference among these counts lies in the geographic areas 
and the number of census items that each covers. The 
First Count summary tapes of 1970 census data are in 
hand now, and requests for data are being met as they 
are received. It is expected that the Second and Third 
Counts will be available in Februar)'. The Fourth Count 
will probably be available in April or May. No indications 
have been received from the Census Bureau concerning 
the availability of the Fifth or Sixth Covmts. 

DATA PROCESSING CAPABILITIES 

The SSDA is implementing a package of computer 
programs to perform various t)'pes of data-file manipula- 
tion and management, and to provide "easy-to-read" and 
"easy-to-work-with" output for users. The package con- 
sists of six computer programs: four are presently opera- 
tional and well-documented, and the remaining two are 
under development. The package permits the extraction 
of tabulations and cross-tabulations of census items for 



any geographic area \vithin the State, or tables caii be 
generated to summarize across se\eral geographic areas. 
The package also allow's the user to take a "quick look" 
at interesting data without spending valuable time and 
mone\ on program de\elopment. 

The SSDA programming staff also has the ability to 
write and implement special-purpose computer programs 
for sjjecial tabulation requests that cannot be serviced 
using any of these six programs. 

DEVELOPMENT OF STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM 

The reorganization of die Archi\e has taken place 
with the intention of de\eloping a comprehensive infor- 
mation s\-stem for the State of Illinois, ^vhich will inte- 
grate se\eral components to pro\ide a full range of social, 
political, demograpluc, and economic data. The system 
\vill be composed of se\eral computer-based data files 
wliich can be machine-manipulated to provide optimal 
service to svstem users. 

A systematic approach to information storage and 
retrieval allo\vs a great deal of flexibility, while preserving 
optimal capability for meeting data requests. The SSDA 
staff \sill work indi\idualh- \vith users to assist them in 
taking full ad\antage of the Archi\e's services. 

The Management Infomiation Di\ision of the Illinois 
Department of Finance has agreed to use the Survey Re- 
search Laboratory as a referral facility for requests from 
state agencies for census data and other t)-pes of social- 
science information. 

WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING PROGRAMS 

The SSDA is offering ^\•orkshops at the University for 



interested students, faculty, and administrators to ex- 
plain the structure and content of the census data files, 
their availability and accessibility, and their uses. In addi- 
tion, special training programs with tlie same intent will 
be offered to users from governmental and nonprofit 
agencies. 

CHARGES FOR SERVICES 

The SSDA will charge for its sei-vices basetl upon 
retrieving its own costs for processing requests and to 
cover its operating expenses. Prospective users are urged 
to discuss their data requirements with SSDA's staff mem- 
bers. Such discussions can help to clarify what types of 
data will best fit the user's needs — as well as establish 
a finn basis for developing estimates of cost. 

Inquiries regarding the senices provided by the SSDA 
should be directed to: 

Dr. Daniel James Amick 
Survey Research Laboratory 
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle 
P.O. Box 6905 
Chicago, Illinois 60680 
Phone— (312) 663-5304 

Mr. Noel Uri 

Survey Research Laboratory 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Room 1 1, David Kinley Hall 

Urbana, Illinois 61801 

Phone— (217) 333-6572 



From the President's Report on Selected Topics of Current Interest 

PREPARED FOR THE UNWERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 
AT THE LRB.\NA-CHAMPAIGN CAMPUS, ^VEDNESDAV, FEBRUARY 16, 1972 



WINTER ENROLLMENTS UP AT CHICAGO CAMPUSES; 
DECREASE AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Final winter quarter statistics at Chicago Circle and 
the Medical Center, Chicago, indicate student enroll- 
ments of 18,290 and 3,183, respectively. Numerical in- 
crease at Chicago Circle is 729 or 4.15 per cent. Medical 
Center reports an increase of 221 students, 7 per cent. 
.\t the close of the regular registration period, pre- 
liminary figures at Urbana-Champaign indicate a spring 
semester enrollment of 30,020, a decrease of 1,130 stu- 
dents, or 3.63 per cent, from 1971. Late registration is 
expected to bring final enrollment at Urbana-Champaign 
to 30,900. 

ALLERTON TRUST FARMS HAVE RECORD CORN YIELDS IN 1971 

Com yields on the seven University of Illinois Aller- 
ton Trust Farms near Monticello averaged a record 145 
bushels f>er acre on 1,284 acres in 1971, according to Pro- 
fessor Donald G. Smith, of the Department of Agricul- 



tural Economics and manager of the farms. The previous 
record was 136.6 bushels per acre established in 1965. 

UNIVERSITY REAPPOINTED TO PRESIDENT'S COMMIUEE 
ON THE HANDICAPPED 

The University of Illinois has been reappointed to 
the President's Committee on Employment of the Handi- 
capped for the three-year term 1972-74. The reappoint- 
ment was announced in Washington by committee chair- 
man Harold Russell at the same time he extended the 
committee's appreciation for the University's "valued 
support and continued interest" in the program. Presi- 
dent John E. Corbally, Jr. will represent the University 
on the committee. 

STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS INCOME IS $2,440,840 IN 1970-71 

The annual financial report of 835 student organiza- 
tions at the three campuses of the University of Illinois 
indicates a total income of $2,440,840 in 1970-71. In- 



come to the student organizations fund at each campus 
included $147,595 for 199 organizations at Chicago Cir- 
cle, $189,830 for 112 organizations at the Medical Center. 
Chicago, and $1,490,674 for 524 organizations at Urbana- 
Champaign. Although the repwrt does not include ath- 
letics, social groups, or student government, it does re- 
port three organizations closely related to the University 
and managed by separate boards consisting of staff mem- 
bers and students. The 1970-71 combined income of the 
Concert and Entertainment Board, Illini Publishing Com- 
pany, and Universit>' Theatre, at Urbana-Champaign, 
was $612,741. 

Fiscal 1971 expenditures by student organizations to- 
taled $2,447,895. Included was $157,149 at Chicago Cir- 
cle, $202,031 at the Medical Center, Chicago, $1,470,453 
at Urbana-Champaign and $618,262 by the three related 
groups. 

The report is issued by Vice-President and Comptrol- 
ler H. O. Farber. 

260 AT COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY SYMPOSIUM ON TEACHING AIDS 

Two hundred and sixty dental educators from the 
United States and Canada attended a program on dental 
teaching aids and curriculum design, co-sponsored Febru- 
ary 9 by the College of Dentistry, University of Illinois 
at the Medical Center, Chicago, and the American 
Equilibration Society. The fourth annual symposium con- 
sidered methods to improve the teaching of the principles 
of occlusion, proper bite, and tooth stnicture. to under- 
graduate dental students. University chairman was Dr. 
Robert B. Underwood, Head of the Prosthodontics De- 
partment, College of Dentistry. 

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION MAJORS IN ENGLAND 
FOR EXCHANGE PROGRAM 

Thirty juniors majoring in elementary education at 
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are in 
England for the spring semester, receiving sixteen to 
eighteen hours credit for study in teachers' colleges af- 
filiated with the University of Bristol. In conjunction \\dth 
the three-year-old program, fifteen British students are for 
the first time studying during the same period at the Ur- 
bana-Champaign Campus. Students at both locations 
will teach in local public schools and attend fornial uni- 
versity classes. Supervisor is Professor Theodore Mano- 
lakes, Department of Elementary Education. 

TWO WORKSHOPS HELD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES 
FROM TWENTY-SIX AGENCIES 

Two one-day workshops, "Death and Dying," were 
held at the University of Illinois at the Medical Center, 
Chicago, on January 25 and Februan- 3 for public health 
nurses representing twenty-six Illinois agencies. The work- 
shops, concerned with the emotional crises of dying pa- 
tients and their families, were coordinated by Professor 
Helen Hotchner, Public Health Nursing Department, 
College of Nursing, and director of a five-year plan for 
public health nursing education in Illinois. 



LATIN AMERICAN STUDENTS BEGIN INTENSIVE ENGLISH STUDY 
AT UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

Thirty students from nine Latin American countries 
have begun an intensi\'e stud)- of English at the Univer- 
sit\- of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They are among 
200 students who are studying English at United States 
universities on scholarships airanged by the Latin Amer- 
ican Scholarship Program of American Universities. The 
program, which concludes July 31, is preparation for 
graduate study the students will begin at American insti- 
tutions in the fall. The project is supervised by Professor 
Katharine O. Aston, Director of the Division of English 
as a Second Language, and Professor Norman W. John- 
son, Director of Short Courses and Conferences in the 
Division of University Extension. The students do not re- 
ceive academic credit. 

8,000 ATTEND ANNUAL UNIVERSITY AGRONOMY DAYS 

More than 8,000 Illinois farmers and businessmen in 
agriculture participated in University of Illinois Agron- 
omy Days in Januan,' and Februar)', annual programs 
sponsored throughout the state by the Cooperative Ex- 
tension Service of the College of Agriculture at Urbana- 
Champaign. Faculty from the Departments of Agricul- 
tural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Agronomy, 
Entomology and Plant Pathology- cooperated in the 
eighty-three sessions held at sixty-seven sites. Professor 
W. R. Oschwald and agronomist Lester V. Boone, both of 
the Department of Agronomy, were directors. 

MEDICAL CENTER HOSTS OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CONFERENCE 

Problems of occupational health and proposed im- 
provement programs among Illinois industries were the 
focus of a two-day conference, "Health in the Work- 
place," at the University of Illinois at the Medical Center. 
Chicago, in January. More than 125 representatives of 
trade unions and health care professions participated in 
the meeting, which was coordinated by Dr. Edward A. 
Lichter. Head of the Preventive Medicine and Com- 
munity Health Department, The Abraham Lincoln 
School of Medicine, College of Medicine. 

FARM INCOME TAX SCHOOLS REPORT HIGHEST ENROLLMENT 
IN THIRTY-TWO YEARS 

A 1971 enrollment of 2,587 was the highest in the 
histon' of Farm Income Tax Training Schools held an- 
nually for diirty-two consecutive years by the University 
of Illinois College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension 
Sen-ice at Urbana-Champaign. Registrants from all Illi- 
nois counties plus Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, 
and ^Visconsin participated in the thirty-two schools 
scheduled at twenty-three locations during November and 
December. Coordinators were Professor F. M. Sims and 
Professor C. A. Bock, both of the Department of Agri- 
cultui-al Economics. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building. 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



.i6-. 



C<y 



If^. 



Ja-iiei 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 228, March 13, 1972 



Th£ President's Annual Message 

JOHN E. CORBALLY JR., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
INTRODUCTION 

About a year ago, I was selected to become the thir- 
teenth president of the University of Illinois. I spent those 
early months following that e\ent vigorously studying the 
University- — its past, present, and potential for the fu- 
ture. In September, 1971, I officially assumed the duties of 
the presidency. The months since September ha\e pro- 
\ided all of us with the opportunity to learn something 
about one another's interests, concerns, and philosophies 
regarding public higher education. 

In these past six months, I have tried to convey 
tlirough my public statements and through the forty-five 
formal addresses I ha\e made to civic and educational 
organizations in the State, my views on current educa- 
tional issues and the philosophy that undergirds those 
views. In turn, the many conversations and written com- 
munications I have had with student groups, members of 
the facult)' and of the staff, board members, alumni. State 
Government officials, other university presidents, and with 
citizens, have given me some clear impressions of others' 
hopes and aspirations for the future of public higher edu- 
cation in this State. 

I hear a majority of people voicing three hopes for 
public higher education in Illinois. First, and simply 
stated, the people want higher education facilities avail- 
able for the oncoming generations of Illinois youth. Sec- 
ondly, they want educational opportunities to be available 
equally to all who are capable of pursuing advanced study. 
.\nd finally, they want the highest quality education avail- 
able at the Icrwest possible cost. 

THE UNIVERSITY 

One means to the realization of those hopes for the 
future lies in one of the present strengths of public higher 
education in Illinois — the purposeful distribution of go\- 
eming authority among five distinct boards of trustees. 
Each go\eming board either presides over one multi- 
campus institution, or over several single-campus institu- 
tions. The advantages of this governing arrangement to 
the State's total program of higher education are twofold. 
First, each board's area of responsibility is large enough 
and contains sufficient diversity to provide a base for 



APR 19)872 



decision making and for planning which is much more 
adaptable and flexible than is found on any single campus. 
Yet, no board's responsibilities are so vast and so diverse 
as to confound wise decision making or to impair progress. 
Secondly, the five governing boards have a range of con- 
cerns which can and does lead to comprehensive planning 
and policy making rather than to the more limited range 
of possibilities that are found in less comprehensive insti- 
tutions. The task of coordinating higher education in Illi- 
nois is enhanced by such a governance structure, provided 
that the strengths of that structure are both recognized 
and honored by those responsible for coordination. 

We at the University of Illinois are convinced that the 
quality of the total public and private system of higher 
education can and must be improved through cooperative 
efforts between systems and between institutions. Toward 
that end, we have initiated a variety of discussions with 
institution presidents from both the public and the private 
sector. In Chicago, for example, Chancellors Joseph Be- 
gando and Warren Cheston and I are dexeloping what 
we are certain will be meaningful relationships with the 
heads of the many fine private colleges and universities in 
that metropolitan area. One of Vice President NoiTnan 
Parker's main tasks in his new duties in the area of public 
service is to strengthen existing patterns and to discover 
new relationships in interinstitutional activities in exten- 
sion and public service fields. Dr. Earl Porter, Secretary 
of the University, devotes a great deal of his time to 
interinstitutional cooperation and communication. This 
effort is not a new nor a novel undertaking for the Uni- 
versity of Illinois ■ — it is a part of our history and will 
continue to be a part of our future. 

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS 

One hears constantly that the University of Illinois is 
a complex institution of international stature. The Uni- 
versity is unique in Illinois and is one of only a small 
number of similar institutions in the world. I have noted 
that we are expected to exert leadership in the State and 
in the Nation. Because of my position as President of the 
University of Illinois, I have already been asked to serve 
in leadership roles in State, regional, and national educa- 



tional groups. As much as I might like to claim that these 
assignments come to me because of my personal chann 
and my professional expertise, I must recognize that the 
stature of the University of Illinois lends stature to all of 
us who are associated with the University. The strength 
of the University of Illinois is a precious State asset which 
lends strength to our entire system of education and 
which, indeed, adds to the stature of our State. 

Part of the Uni\ersity's strength is found in its diver- 
sity. We have within our Univereity a campus in Urbana- 
Champaign o\'er one hundred years of age — a mature 
and honored campus \vith resources gathered over that 
hundred years of histon- that are unmatched in Illinois 
and matched on only a ver)' few campuses amvvhere. At 
Chicago Circle, ^ve ha\e a strong, developing institution 
which has both the problems and the advantages of youth- 
ful enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the successes achieved by 
the faculty, staff, and students of our Chicago Circle 
Campus ha\'e been so great over such a short space of 
time that many forget that the Circle is young, is still 
de\eloping, and is deserving of the special care and atten- 
tion given to other developing institutions in our State. 
At the Medical Center we have a specialized, professional 
campus which is recognized and heralded throughout the 
world. While all universities meet social needs in all of 
their activities, current social concerns about the quality 
and quantity of health care deliver)- systems place special 
burdens upon the faculty' and staff of the Medical Center. 
These special burdens must not be met at the e.xpense of 
other programs on other campuses either within our sys- 
tem or in other systems and yet they must be met. This 
problem is one which State officials, including University 
officials, are working together to solve and is but one ex- 
tremely visible indicator of the dependence of a society- 
upon its universities. 

Add to these three major campuses the developing 
medical programs at Peoria and Rockford and the activi- 
ties of our University Extension and our Cooperative Ex- 
tension staff members in every village, town, and city of 
Illinois, and one is made aware of the strength which 
comes to the University through its diversity. Adminis- 
tered faithfully and well throughout its history and staffed 
at every level by dedicated professional, semi-professional, 
and skilled men and women, the University of Illinois has 
prospered because it has been charged with managing its 
affairs for the benefit of the people of Illinois and it has 
responded to this charge with vigor and with effectiveness. 
Those who would impose upon the University of Illinois 
and upon its Board of Ti-ustees a whole series of external 
controls have yet to demonstrate in any factual way the 
ways in wliich the University has failed to exercise its 
stewardship; has failed to respond to the needs of the 
people of Illinois for teaching, research, and public ser- 
vice; or has failed to maintain a superior level of quality. 
To the contrar)-, the record of the University of Illinois 
is a record of achievement which is deserving of continued 
support. 

As a newcomer to the State and to the University of 
Illinois, I have been particularly impressed with the Uni- 



versity's stewardship of tax monies allocated to it. For 
me, the primary measurement of effective stewardship is 
the quality of the work which those expenditures have 
supported. 

Using quality as my measure, I hold some clear first 
impressions of the University of Illinois. I would like to 
use this occasion to share some of those impressions with 
you — to show you your University as I have come to 
know it. 

As my predecessor, David Henr)', noted in 1963, sheer 
size in numbers of students, buildings, and campuses was 
a byproduct and not an objective in the University's 
progress through the years. The University's guiding ob- 
jective throughout its long history as a public, land-grant 
institution was and continues to be the satisfaction of 
contemporary social needs through the vehicles of teach- 
ing, research, and public serv'ice. 

The University's ongoing work in the areas of health, 
urban and rural community needs, educational assistance, 
and environment, illustrates its continuing response to 
contemporary problems. 

Synthetic replacements for human "parts"' have been 
developed through the coordinated efforts of people at 
the Circle Campus, the Medical Center, and Presbyterian- 
St. Luke's Hospital. These replacements make possible the 
repair of hip and knee joints, the synthetic fusion of spinal 
vertebrae, and the use of crack-resistant dental amalgams. 

A laser beam device at the Medical Center's Eye and 
Ear Infirmary offers new hope to patients suffering the 
blinding side effects of diabetes and sickle cell anemia. 
The instioiment, one of only a dozen in the world, is used 
to bum away diseased portions of the retina. 

As yet, much of the fundamental knowledge basic to 
the complete solution of problems related to the common 
cold, cancer, upper respiratoiy diseases, and blood diseases 
in children does not exist. Many of the University's 
health-related research projects, some of which have been 
under way for more than two decades, are searching for 
answers to these pressing problems. For example, our 
studies in microbiology of the effects of viruses on cells, 
and the response of cells — in tissue culture — to virus 
infection, may teach us how to treat virus infections and 
to approach the problem of controlling cancer. 

Among families with severely limited income, health 
problems can result from the inadequate diet forced upon 
them by their economic circumstances. In evei-y major 
metropolitan area of Illinois, the Expanded Food and 
Nutrition Program, developed by the University's Coop- 
erative Extension Service, helps low-income families buy 
more foods and more-nourishing foods with their limited 
purchasing power. Two unique features of the Program 
are the Program Assistants themselves, and the one-to-one 
basis of their work with nearly 10,000 low-income families. 
The Program Assistants — who are themselves residents of 
these communities — are employed by the University, and 
work under the supenision of Extension personnel who 
have taught them basic foods, nutrition, consumer mar- 
keting, and budget principles. 

The economic plight of minority group small business- 



men in the inncr-iit\ antl that of independent farmers 
has not escaf>ed tlic L'ni\ersity"s attention. Such efforts as 
the Cooperative Extension's Farm Income Tax Training 
Schools and the small-business management programs 
sponsored by our Colleges of Business Administration and 
the Division of Univereity Extension provide sought-after 

^ infonnation and assistance. 

" As we all know, our State economy depends in no 

small measure upon its hea\y corn crop production. Re- 
search done over a period of fifteen years in our College 

^ of Agriculture lay behind the recent success in coping with 

W southern corn blight. To Professors Arthur Hooker and 
Malcolm Shurtleff of the Urbana-Champaign Campus 
goes the credit for first identifying the ne\v, virulent strain 
of blight (known as Race T), for publishing full informa- 
tion regarding its nature, and for identifying the kinds of 
com (Inbreds C and S) that are resistant to it. 

Throughout the years. College of Agriculture research 
teams have searched for sources of plant material that 
would pro\ ide resistance to many crop diseases — not just 
southern corn leaf blight, but also the stalk rots, other 
leaf blights, rust, and a host of bacterial and virus dis- 
eases. Those successes went unnoticed since serious disease 
problems were either a\oided or stopped short before they 
reached a critical stage. But as com breeders throughout 
the Com Belt will attest, the benefits of the Illinois re- 
search program have been passed along in sack after sack 
of seed corn to Midwest com producers. 

Now under w^ay at the Urbana-Champaign Campus is 
a Civil Engineering project funded by the National Sci- 
ence Foundation. Using an earthquake-simulating ma- 
chine, investigators hope to leam the potential structural 
damage effected on a city's buildings by such natural 
hazards as last year's California earthquake. Tliose who 
remember or experienced the Illinois earthquake of No- 
vember 9, 1968, the tremors of which reached into twenty- 
three states, will recognize the benefits this research may 
hold for the Midwest as well as for other parts of the 
Nation and the world. 

Programs within the University's Colleges of Educa- 
tion also reflect a keen awareness of the unique needs of 
special segments of our Statewide community. A new 
Native American Program, designed to help meet the 
educational needs of American Indians, began this year 
at Circle Campus through funds obtained from federal 
and private grants. Chicago, incidentally, with an Indian 
{Xjpulation of 18,000, has the third largest urban concen- 

^ tration of native Americans in the United States. The 

^ College is also preparing bilingual teachers to work in 
schools serving predominantly Puerto Rican populations. 
Most of these teaching candidates are from the commu- 

m nities to which they will be returning as teachers. 

^ The Urbana-Champaign College of Education and 

Illinois Public School Districts 214, 25, and 59 are suc- 
cessfully working at making a reality of what many edu- 
cators and parents thought could be only a dream at best. 
Through their Cooperative Teacher Education Program, 
college professors, teachers of grades kindergarten through 
t^velvCj and imdergraduate teacher candidates are jointly 



exploring ways for strengthening curriculum, teaching, 
and the preparation of persons for teaching at all levels 
of formal schooling. The program seeks to identify po- 
tential teachers at an early age among public school 
students, and to give them capsulated experiences as 
teachers; it provides undergraduate teaching candidates 
with teaching exposure at e\ery school level from kinder- 
garten through high school; and it promotes continuity 
of the learning experience by stressing the sharing and 
exchange of public school and college resources and 
jaersonnel. 

Also at Urbana-Champaign, the Institute for Research 
on Exceptional Children ofTers the only program in Illi- 
nois for training personnel in the preschool education of 
multi-handicapped children. Mandatory law requires that 
by 1973, evei7 Illinois community provide preschool edu- 
cation for its multi-handicapped three- to five-year-old 
children. Based on its twenty-five years of ongoing re- 
search, the Institute no%v stands as every Illinois commu- 
nity's one source for obtaining immediate answers to such 
problems as the kinds of special equipment needed, blue- 
prints for playgrounds, estimates of cost factors, and 
models for effectively working with these children's spe- 
cial motor-skill problems. 

Other research and teaching efforts within the Univer- 
sity are focusing on the quality of our environment, espe- 
cially the present and potential hazards of air, water, and 
noise pollution. In an efTort to reduce the air pollution 
created by its own power plant operation, the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus is converting its power base from 
coal-fired boilers to gas-oil boilers. Our Environmental 
Engineering research is one of only thirteen such univer- 
sity projects throughout the United States selected for 
funding by the Federal Government. From the research- 
ers' studies of viruses that attack bacterial life in water 
may come a better understanding of the results of similar 
viral attacks on human cells. 

The University's Colleges of Engineering and Agri- 
culture are seeking ways of recovering energy from human 
and animal solid wastes. Closely aligned with waste dis- 
posal studies are Agriculture's investigations of the sources 
of nitrate pollution in our water sources. Tlie interrelated- 
ness of waste disposal, farm fertilizers, and nitrate pollu- 
tion of water culminates in the potential problem of 
consumed high-nitrate water leading to increased infant 
mortality among female babies and among some farm 
animals. 

The nature of pure, basic research lends itself better 
to a review of its past successes than to a discussion of 
the highly theoretical investigations of the moment. For 
example, to those of us whose knowledge does not en- 
compass sophisticated levels of chemistry, to hear that one 
of our Chemistry Department's current research projects 
involves the discovery and identification of cytokinins 
means nothing. We can, however, comprehend the con- 
tributions of nylon, synthetic rubber, and antibiotic drugs 
to our lives. Each of these contributions came to fruition, 
in large part, as a result of the research efforts of the 
Chemistry Department on the Urbana Campus. 



Literature, as we know, reflects the aspirations, strug- 
gles, and concerns of society. Through the teaching of 
creative writing, our English faculty introduce potential 
authors to problems of the imagination when it confronts 
its world and finds meaning there, and to the place of the 
writer in our time. 

Teaching innovations provide another exciting and 
vital side to the life of the Univeisity, as illustrated by 
such innovations as PLATO, the Law College's Trial 
Advocacy Course, and Basic Medical Science's approach 
to training physicians. 

First designed in 1960, PLATO is a teaching system 
based on a computer. From an instructional carrel, the 
student uses a key set to communicate with the computer. 
The computer then selects information from lessons it 
stores electronically and presents that information on a 
television display. By 1974, one PLATO unit located on 
our campus will have the potential to simultaneously offer 
didactic instruction to 4,000 instructional carrels at junior 
colleges and elementary and secondary schools within a 
150-m:le radius. 

Rated the best Trial Advocacy course in the United 
States, the Law College course brings Illinois lawyers and 
judges to the campus each week to give law students first- 
hand assistance in experiencing trial lawyers' roles in sim- 
ulated court proceedings. 

New in Urbana-Champaigii this year is our School of 
Basic Medical Sciences. Its students, who already hold a 
college degree, work in a one-to-one relationship with 
local physicians. The program has two unique features. 
The study curriculum is organized for independent study 
rather than for foiTnal classes in traditional medical 
subjects. At the same time, the student sees firsthand, 
through his apprentice role in the office of his physi- 
cian-adviser, those problems common to the practicing 
physician. 

Many of our students, while they are still students, 
combine fonnal learning experiences with activities which 
benefit Illinois communities. Each of the University's 
pharmacy students must devote 2,000 hours in community 
service as an apprentice to either a phaiTnacist in private 
practice or to a hospital pharmacist. Student nurse interns 
are diffused among some thirty separate community agen- 
cies. Each of the Medical Center's two-hundred resident 
physicians rotates among several Chicago hospitals, gain- 
ing a variety of experiences and providing a variety of 
services. Graduate students in political science combine 
learning and service through internship-working experi- 
ences in such city and suburban government offices as 
those of councilmen and city managers. Architecture stu- 
dents develop their professional skills through classroom 
projects dealing with real and current problems. Included 
among such projects done in Chicago recently are designs 
for utilizing vacant land in Logan Square — designs 
which accommodate both revenue-producing ideas and 
the social relevance of the acreage to the community — ; 
the Garfield Environmental Center which was designed in 
1970 by fifth-year architecture students at the Circle and 
which was one of ten such designs earning recognition by 



the American Institute of Architects; and a class project 
in the mid-north area of Chicago which developed the 
first historical architectural survey ever made of any 
neighborhood in Chicago. In Champaign, architecture 
students recently designed and built a new playground for 
the handicapped preschool children attending the Colonel 
Wolfe School. 

Through their Community Involvement Program, our 
second and third-year law students work in such com- 
munity offices as those of the Legal Services, County 
Public Defenders, and the State's Attorney, to help clients, 
especially lower income citizens, with their legal problems. 
Beginning in 1968, the students' activities have ranged 
from work with mental patients and with prisoners to 
assisting low-income citizens with their income tax returns. 

Students' contributions to surrounding communities 
are not limited to those activities directly related to their 
formal learning ex-jjeriences. Their volunteer services run 
the gamut from helping elementary school children master 
reading skills, to teaching high school students the use of 
computing machinery. Physical education majors in Ur- 
bana work cooperatively with the Champaign Park Dis- 
trict in sponsoring a basketball program for fifth and 
sixth graders from Champaign schools. Among its many 
services. Volunteer Illini Projects regularly sponsors local 
bloodmobile drives; and at the Medical Center, students 
of the College of Pharmacy offer church and civic groups 
one-hour student presentations on drug abuse. 

As our students graduate, many of them continue 
their professional lives in Illinois. There are approximately 
180,000 living graduates of the University, and it is esti- 
mated that one-half of them reside in the State of Illinois. 
Thus, as graduates, our students will continue to spread 
the benefits of their learning to those communities where 
they choose to live. 

These illustrations barely scratch the surface of your 
University's activities. There is literally not a single ele- 
ment of life in Illinois, from cultural activities to sewage 
disposal, from crime prevention to transportation, which 
is not touched in some way by the work of your Univer- 
sity of Illinois. 

I commented earlier about sheer size being a by- 
product and not an objective of our University. However, 
the unprecedented growth of the University and, indeed, 
of all higher education nationwide over the past twenty- 
five years, does reflect our and other institutions' response 
to the public's demand for more education for more 
people. In 1950, approximately 25 per cent of college- 
age young people actually were in attendance in some 
form of formal, jrost-secondary school program. Today, 
almost 47 per cent of all college-age youth are in such 
programs. The growth of the University of Illinois during 
this period is nothing short of phenomenal. The increas- 
ing number of students and faculty and staff members, 
the increasing amount of physical plant facilities to be 
operated and maintained, the increasing sophistication of 
laboratory and other learning equipment, the increasing 
scope of activities undertaken by universities particularly 
in increasing educational opportunities for culturally and 



educationally disadvantaged young people, and the in- 
exorable pressures of continuing inflation have combined 
to generate what appear to be great increases in the cost 
of higher education. The number of dollare spent in sup- 
poTt of public higher education has indeed increased 
many times over the twenty-five year period. However, 
the actual cost in real and constant dollars per student 
has not escalated to the extent that most people imagine. 
For example: when economic inflation is removed, we 
find that the total expenditures for all activities at the 
Urbana-Champaign Campus in 1970 cost Illinois tax- 
payers fewer real dollars than was true in 1 959. By exam- 
ining per-student expenditxires in 1958 dollars, we dis- 
cover that the cost to the State actually declined from 
$1,750 in 1959 to s^l,679 in 1970. 

One illustration of the Uni\ersity's efficiency and care- 
ful stewardship of State funds is the little known fact that 
the University of Illinois maintains the lowest adminis- 
trative overhead costs of all Illinois public universities. 
Furthermore, the University has developed its o\vn ver- 
sion of "revenue sharing."' For each State-appropriated 
dollar from general revenue, the University attracts al- 
most an equivalent amount of self-generated money from 
non-State sources. When coupled with this significant flow 
of other-source dollars, the University's declining per- 
student cost of education to the State clearly reflects the 
efficiency which has accompanied its rapid growth in 
enrollment and in serA-ices. 

LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE 

As we look toward the future, the most pressing prob- 
lem facing the University and the public that supports it 
is how to maintain the high quality teaching, research, 
and public service now being oflfered. If we — the Uni- 
\ersit\- and the public — continue to subscribe to the be- 
lief that public higher education must provide educational 
opportunities for all segments of society, while at the 
same time economic inflation continues to spiral upward, 
one fact is clear. Public universities will not be able to 
meet existing needs and the services demanded of them 
unless new income is found. 

One current argument urges the use of much higher 
tuition payments to support public higher education. 
Some change in tuition charges seems essential. But the 
long-term needs of public higher education cannot be 
met by making students' tuition payments a major source 
of University income. The financial crises facing this Na- 
I tion's private colleges and universities should make that 
• obvious. In spite of the fact that private institutions only 
! concentrate upon selected special areas of study, their 
I high student tuitions are not covering their total costs. 
t It takes an impossible leap of logic, then, to assume that 
student tuitions can pay the price for public higher edu- 
cation's broader mission of meeting the full range of 
society's needs. 

Now, some argue that low tuition should be aban- 
doned as a principle in Illinois because low tuition "sub- 
sidizes" the well-to-do. To the extent that the Illinois tax 
structure is regressive or non-progressive, it is true that 



the burden of tax support of higher education falls un- 
evenly upon income groups. If such is the case, the 
remedy is in the tax structure; not in the abandonment 
of the principle of low tuition. 

The Illinois General Assembly and the Bureau of the 
Budget face a massive problem in trying judiciously to 
mete out apjiropriations among the many agencies de- 
pendent upon State support. Tliey are faced with rising 
costs in all State agencies. E\ en the basic costs of operat- 
ing the executive and legislative branches of government 
have experienced marked increases in recent years. The 
Legislature's appropriations tasks are not lightened by 
our continuing and conflicting demands as taxpayers for 
more and better governmental services, but for no further 
increases in taxes. Every person with whom I talk about 
taxes would have all those governmental services con- 
tinued which he sees as benefiting himself. Of course, 
persons not on public aid would reduce the costs of that 
program ; those without young children would reduce the 
costs of elementary education; those who do not drive 
would reduce highway expenditures. But the plain and 
simple truth is that the stability and well-being of each 
one of us is increasingly dependent upon the stability 
and well-being of each of our fellow men. The emphasis 
must be placed upon the real problem : our tax structure, 
and the ordering of our priorities. 

The University's task is to be as educationally efficient 
as is humanly possible, and to point out clearly, directly, 
openly, and honestly the levels of support we need to 
accomplish what is asked of us. Having done that, we 
continue to be confident that a knowledgeable public will 
not abandon its commitment to high quality, higher edu- 
cation and will not permit others to abandon that com- 
mitment for them. 

CONCLUSION 

Often, something can be so much a part of our sur- 
roundings for so long that we take it for granted. So it 
is, at times, with members of our family, or with such 
conveniences as our private automobile or the nearby 
shopping center; and so it can be with such outstanding 
State educational facilities as the University of Illinois. 
As a newcomer to the State and to the University, I have 
not yet succumbed to the comfort of taking for granted 
the University's presence, its achievements, or its con- 
tributions to the State. 

I have been deeply impressed by the quality of the 
people of the University of Illinois. We are a proud and 
a capable community. There are a number of times when 
our individual responsibilities cause us to have different 
perspectives as we consider alternative solutions to prob- 
lems. There are times when our differences will loom 
large. But I feel in this University an overriding loyalty 
to the totality of the University of Illinois among all seg- 
ments of our community and I sense a desire on the part 
of all to meet and to solve problems. I have never believed 
in the theory that any person or any group of persons was 
doomed to play constantly either the good or the evil 
role. I see no villains nor any superheroes in our commu- 



nity ; only able, striving human beings — each attempting 
within his abilities and his assignment to make the pro- 
grams of the University of Illinois superior programs. Our 
predecessors have succeeded in meeting this challenge; 
and working together, we shall continue to meet that 
challenge. From my vantage point, it seems clear that we 
have the people who can face such a\vesome responsibility 
directly, cheerfully, confidently, and successfully. 

Thus, my active, vocal support of the University dur- 
ing these first six months has not been a mere exuberant 
utterance of one experiencing the first blush of a new 
position. Nor has it been the foolhard)- stance of defend- 
ing this University, right or wrong. Tlie Uni\ersity of 



Illinois has maintained a stature of excellence, both in its 
past and present life. The University's pursuit of excel- 
lence is an honorable tradition; and I am committed to 
maintaining that tradition. 



The President's Annual Message has been heard by lis- 
teners of thirty-six radio stations and viewed by the audi- 
ences of twenty-five television channels in Illinois, Indiana, 
Missouri, and Kentucky. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Tiuigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



I 



Ll6 



JJ^ 



¥ 



^ly 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 231, July 10, 1972 



The Scope and Missicm of the University and the 
Basic Planning Assufnptions of Its Campuses 

A POLICY DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TO THE STAFF 
OF THE ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, JUNF, 15, 1972 






INTRODUCTION 

By the spring of 1972, both the staff of the Illinois Board 
of Higher Education and the staff of the University of Illinois 
had agreed that the principles and the procedures introduced 
by the IBHE staff to prepare the operating appropriations re- 
quests for FY 1972-73 left much to be desired. Executive 
Director's Report No. 104 recognized that all sectors of Illi- 
nois higher education "are mutually anxious to avoid the 
problems and the constricted timetable which hampered 
FY 1972-73 deliberations." More specifically, it stated: 

"The systems have been asked to provide their separate 
plans for approaching FY 1973-74 budget decisions. We 
will work to coordinate their responses to effect uniform 
de\elopment and review procedures. We are determined 
that the next several months be dedicated to institutional 
system and statewide planning, encouraging the priority 
and program evaluation activity to be done at the cam- 
pus and system level." 

In response to the IBHE staff's request, the University 
suggested that several general issues be considered before the 
guidelines for the planning of succeeding appropriation re- 
quests were formulated, including the establishment of a basic 
fiscal frame of reference for institutional and IBHE-staff 
planning, the assessment by each institution (and by the IBHE 
staff) of the impact of the budget limitations for the biennium 
1971-73 upon the individual institutions and upon the entire 
system of higher education, the updating and further refine- 
ment of statewide enrollment projections for each campus, 
and the examination of the basic planning assumptions regard- 
ing scope and mission for the various institutions. It is 
toward the last of these issues that this policy document is 
addressed. 

In its commentary upon the recommendations in Report 
Xo. 103 for the elimination or sharp curtailment of some of 
its educational programs, the University indicated that its 
imuillingness or inability to accept most of those recommen- 
dations stemmed in large measure from fundamental dis- 
agreements with what appeared to be the assumptions under- 
lying them. fSee Faculty Letter No. 225, January 14, 1972.) 
It seemed clear then, and the IBHE staff subsequently agreed, 
that the apparent conflict between Report No. 103 assump- 
tions and the Master Plan - Phase III and other IBHE policy 



statements concerning the University's scope and mission had 
to be resolved as a prerequisite to effective communication 
and cooperation between the Board of Higher Education and 
the University of Illinois in future planning. 

The first item in Report No. 104 addressed this point di- 
rectly in acknowledging that "Campus master plans at senior, 
junior, and private institutions need sy.stematic revision to 
bring these plans into full concurrence with MP - III, espe- 
cially as it relates to scope and mission and interinstitutional 
planning." The University commented in response to that ob- 
servation that: 

"... in the light of the discussion above concerning the 
relationship of MP - III to the University of Illinois, that 
there is considerable ambiguity or indeterminacy in MP - 
HI regarding that document's 'basic planning assump- 
tions' for the various institutions. Many aspects of Master 
Plan - Phase HI have not been defined operationally, and 
frequent disagreements have arisen between the IBHE 
staff and institutional representatives regarding the inter- 
pretation of MP - HI." 

(University of Illinois Commentary on Executive 
Director's Report No. 103, p. 57) 

During later discus.sions between the IBHE staff and the 
staff of each public higher education system, it was agreed 
that the initial step toward accomplishing an operational defi- 
nition of MP -HI would be the preparation by each institu- 
tion of a statement of its conception of the scope and mission 
assigned to it and of the corollary basic planning assumptions. 
As these institutional statements were being developed, con- 
ferences were held by the IBHE staff at each campus in May 
to explore the critical issues that might have emerged prior 
to the adoption of MP -III and since then, for the purpose 
of achieving better mutual understanding of apparent diver- 
gencies of interpretation and in the hope of resolving such 
differences to the fullest extent possible. This document has 
been prepared in the light of those discussions and partly on 
the basis of the statements submitted by each of the Univer- 
sity's three campuses following the meetings with IBHE staff 
members. 

The first chapter considers the scope and mission of the 
University of Illinois as a whole, together with its major plan- 
ning emphases. The following three chapters are focused upon 



the distinctive contributions made by each campus to the Uni- 
versity's educational mission and responsibilities, and upon 
the basic assumptions underlying their respective sets of pri- 
orities in educational planning and in the allocation of re- 
sources. Considerable attention is given to several specific 
problems that were identified during the May "Scope and 
Mission Conferences." 

While the basic purposes of a university such as the Uni- 
versity of Illinois remain constant, the specific activities and 
programs undertaken to meet those purposes will var>' with 
time. The state of knowledge, current social conditions and 
needs, and the nature of the student body are among the fac- 
tors which create specific changes in approach while having 
basic purposes unchanged. The task of defining the scope and 
mission of an educational institution should not be limited 
by an "atomistic" method. If the objective is to derive from 
this cooperative effort between the IBHE and the institutional 
staffs a planning frame of reference that helps avoid confusing 
debate over mission whenever a specific program is proposed, 
then the proper level of discourse at which to begin is that 
concerned with the general educational nature of the Univer- 
sity and its role within the total system of higher education. 
The following chapter, beginning with a definition of the Uni- 
versity's mission in the State, and concluding with an outline 
of how it evaluates continuing and new educational programs, 
is designed to meet those specifications. 

CHAPTER I. Scope and Mission of the University of Illinois 

The University of Illinois is a imique institution within 
the spectrum of public higher education in the State. In the 
words of its faculty senates: 

"The people of the State of Illinois have demanded first 
quality opportimities in higher education. The University 
of Illinois has a unique role in meeting that demand be- 
cause it is the most comprehensive of the state's institu- 
tions of higher learning. Gathering its students from both 
the geographic and populations center of Illinois, it is the 
only institution in the public system proved capable of 
delivering at the highest level a broad range of instruc- 
tional, research, and public services. 

"The three campuses of the University of Illinois, strongly 
interdependent and mutually sustaining, comprise one of 
the outstanding state imiversity systems in the country." 
(Joint Faculty Senate Resolution, November 16-24, 1970) 
As the land-grant institution of Illinois, this compre- 
hensive University has constituencies throughout the entire 
State, with principal components in different settings exliibit- 
ing varying emphases and resources. Although its mission and 
educational responsibilities encompass all levels of instruction, 
research, and service, the University places particular em- 
phasis upon its graduate and professional programs. The Uni- 
versity of Illinois is the State's foremost graduate and pro- 
fessional public institution, and it is the one public university 
in Illinois with the established capabihty for generating the 
Federal and private resources that are necessary to support 
instruction and research of high quality at the advanced grad- 
uate level. 

Planning Assumptions 

Five general assumptions were included in the Uni\ersity's 
Provisional Development Plan that was presented to the IBHE 
in September, 1970. 

1. That the University of Illinois now has a imique role in 
the State system of higher education and that this status 



should be reflected in Master Plan - Phase III. More spe- 
cifically, it is assumed that the University will have pri- 
ority in responsibility for the future expansion of advanced 
graduate and professional education among the public imi- 
versities of Illinois, together with associated research and 
public service. 

2. That the University's claim to priority among the public 
universities of Illinois in advanced graduate studies and ^M 
research should be particularly recognized for programs ^B 
involving multidisciplinary study and investigation. 

3. That the Chicago Circle Campus be expanded as rapidly 

as possible into a comprehensive urban university. ^^ 

4. That the University not propose the establishment of new ^0 
campuses during the next decade, on the assumption that 

the enrollment projections for the State over the next 
twenty years do not justify such expansion. 

5. That the University's enrollment growth henceforth em- 
phasize upper-division, graduate and professional education 
— with little increase beyond 1970 in lower-division 
enrollment. 

While the last two assumptions require no further com- 
ment at this time, and the third will be discussed in a later 
chapter, the overall economic, educational, and social condi- 
tions that have evolved since the submission of those proposals 
almost two years ago argue even more convincingly, as the 
University stressed in its commentary on Report No. 103, that 
such an assignment of responsibility is in the best interest of 
the .State of Illinois. The mission of the University of Illinois 
as a whole in the State system of higher education was am- 
plified as follows in the Provisional Development Plan, and 
has been cnnsistently presented since that document was 
issued: 

"It is firmly believed that the best interests of the State 
will be served if the University not only is encouraged to 
maintain the high quality of its present programs but is 
granted priority in responsibility for whatever expansion 
of advanced graduate and professional education might be 
projected under Master Plan - Phase III. This does not 
mean that the University seeks a monopoly upon all pro- 
grams at this level in all fields; but it is believed that in 
a period of some uncertainty as to how much expansion 
of these fimctions might be needed during the next two 
decades — especially during the 1980's — considerations 
of economy and the assurance of quality argue convinc- 
ingly for concentration of them at the University of Illi- 
nois. A comprehensi\e university such as the University 
of Illinois provides the most economical and most effec- 
tive institutional means whereby the State can be assured 
of maintaining the broad range of specialized faculties, 
facilities, and programs that will be required to keep it 
abreast of the rapidly changing technical and professional 
needs of modem society. This is true not only because of ^m 
the disproportionate cost to the State of trying to duplicate ^M 
such resources in other institutions — without assurance 
that the expected quality and productivity would be forth- 
coming; but there is the further consideration that no m 
other public institution could begin to match the Univer- ■ 
sity of Illinois in securing the outside support from Fed- 
eral and foundation sources that will be essential to sup- 
plement the State's contributions." 

Recognized repeatedly across the country and around the 
world as one of the nation's foremost centers of learning, the 
University of Illinois is the only public institution with the 
range and quality of expertise, supporting resources, and 



differentiated strengths to undertake the high-quality profes- 
sional and doctoral inultidisciplinar)' programs that nuist be 
built upon tirst-ratc disciplinary foundations. Again, in the 
language of the Proiisionat Dtiilopmint I'tan: 

"The University recognizes the existence of a great di- 
versity of human needs and social problems, with cor- 
respondingly varied requirements of expertise and otlicr 

V resources for relevant response by educational institutions. 

' Hence, it does not assert a monopolistic claim to all types 

of instructional or public-service programs of problem- 
solving nature. Instead, it is urged that the University be 

^ given priority in responsibility for those instructional, re- 

P search, and public-service programs of this type that re- 

quire doctoral-level education (or the equivalent), to- 
gether with highly technical multidisciplinary resources 
and a broad base of supporting disciplinary programs of 
high quality. E\en with an unnecessary expenditure of 
State funds in the effort to duplicate such disciplinary 
resources in other State institutions, the probability of se- 
curing comparable quality is not high. Furthermore, as 
noted above, the University of Illinois is able to attract 
a far higher level of outside support for multidisciplinary 
programs than other State supported universities." 

Program Emphases 

Flowing from these basic planning assumptions are a num- 
ber of program areas that will be emphasized by the Univer- 
sity during this decade : 

— expansion and inno\ation in the training of health profes- 
sionals and the deliver)' of health care for the State; 

— interdisciplinary instruction, research, and public service 
related to the critical challenges confronting urban society 
and metropolitan areas; 

— improving the quality of graduate and undergraduate edu- 
cation in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency 
of society's utilization of its hiunan resources; 

— responding to social needs by cultivating programs for a 
%-ariety of "public-ser\ice professions," such as public 
health, social welfare, continuing education, public admin- 
istration, education, etc.; 

— cooperative interaction amongst a wide range of depart- 
ments focused upon preventing and solving problems re- 
lated to the environment. 

Additional developments of great importance to the Uni- 
versity and to the State ^vill be undertaken, and significant 
shifts of emphasis within existing units and programs will oc- 
cur. However, the University will concentrate upon the ac- 
complishment of those objectives outlined above, as well as 
the maintenance of the strength and excellence represented 
by the requirements of its internal constituencies. Much of the 
quality of other governmental agencies in Illinois — includ- 
^ ing school systems and higher education institutions — will 
B depend upon the ability of the University of Illinois to con- 
:inue to provide professional personnel to staff those agencies 
and to provide research findings to support programs of those 
agencies. The University will need the understanding and the 
I supfxjrt of the IBHE regarding the nature, the organization, 

and the quality of its instructional and research programs, 
and the value of the services they provide to the State and 
the nation. 

An Organic University 

The University of Illinois is not a loose federation of uni- 
versities, nor is it a system of totally independent units. Its 



role in the State as the standard of excellence and service in 
public graduate and professional education rests upon its 
organic wholeness. The general statement of the mission to 
which the University is committed, and upon which its devel- 
opment thus far has been based, starts with an emphasis on 
the fundamental responsibility of the University as a whole. 
The specific contributions that each campus makes to the 
University's mission are diverse, since they reflect the needs, 
thrusts, and methodologies appropriate to different settings; 
but the campuses are alike in the broad nature of their public 
responsibilities, in their basic educational policies, and in their 
institutional quality; and they are integrated by a university- 
wide organization designed to maximize their educational 
effectiveness and the efficient use of their academic resources. 
All of the campuses of the University of Illinois share 
common goals, even though each of them makes a highly 
differentiated contribution to the University's mission. All of 
the campuses are assisted and strengthened from intercampus 
cooperation and from university-wide services, even though 
each of them carries out the vast majority of its functions as 
an administratively autonomous unit. All of the campuses are 
urged to achieve intercampus complementarity, to avoid un- 
necessary duplication, and to develop thrusts responsive to 
their particular orientation and setting, even though each of 
them is permitted to build upon and to foster faculty strengths 
and initiatives. All of the campuses are encouraged to operate 
at qualitatively equivalent levels, even though each of them 
provides different services for varied clientele. 

Particularly significant for the University's primary re- 
sponsibility for state-supported graduate and professional edu- 
cation is the fact that at advanced levels all of the campuses 
share in its capability for securing Federal and private sup- 
port. As the University explained to Committee N in a state- 
ment submitted on October 28, 1970: 

"It is important to stress the subject of supplementary 
Federal and private resources as necessities for the effec- 
tive realization of many educational goals and priorities 
which are now clearly seen as being imperatives for the 
1970's and beyond. State funds simply won't be available 
in sufficient quantity and distribution to meet all of these 
needs; indeed, the State alone should not be expected to 
provide such support. The burden of providing a substan- 
tial portion of the 'matching' funds required should and 
could be shouldered by an institution such as the Univer- 
sity of Illinois system." 

In order to comprehend the University's assertion that it 
operates as an "integrated university system" (because the 
isolation of its components into discrete campuses does con- 
siderable violence to the realities and values of both its pro- 
grams and its governance), it is necessary to know the specific 
functions carried out by the central administration of the 
University. They were outlined recently by the President of 
the University as follows. (See Faculty Letter No. 230, May 
10, 1972.) 

1. The enunciation of the mission of the University of Illi- 
nois; the development of long-range, comprehensive plans 
for the attainment of that mission; and the development of 
a plan of evaluation on a regular basis of the success of the 
University in meeting that mission. 

2. The attainment of the resources necessary to permit the 
support of plans and the development of facilities to meet 
the mission of the University. 

3. The allocation of resources, as available, to the campuses 
and to other imits of the University within the require- 



ments and the priorities of the long-range comprehensive 
plan for the attainment of the mission of the University. 

4. The development of relationships both within Illinois and 
in the nation and world to insure that the University of 
Illinois plays its appropriate role as a member of the 
larger education community. 

5. The coordination of the operation of the various com- 
ponents of the University to insure that the University 
functions as an organic university rather than as an aggre- 
gation of unrelated campuses and capitalizes upon the ad- 
vantages of its resources as a system. 

6. The administration of University-wide educational pro- 
grams. Examples include the Institute of Government and 
Public Affairs, the Survey Research Laboratory, and the 
Division of University Extension. 

7. The operation of various specific tasks which should func- 
tion at a University level either for efficiency or to insure 
the consistency necessary to permit the University and its 
Governing Boards to meet their responsibilities. 

8. The de\-elopment of information programs to attempt to 
secure full understanding of and support for the mission 
and activities of the University of Illinois. 

The relationship between function number five and the 
special benefits derived from the Univ-ersity of Illinois' opera- 
tion as a unified educational system constitutes a basic premise 
of this "Scope and Mission" paper, and is developed through- 
out each of the chapters. Function number si.x, however, re- 
quires explication at this point — for the organization and 
administration of university-wide programs is designed to 
eliminate undesirable duplication of effort and to mobilize 
the full resources of the University as a whole, in support of 
important instructional, research, and public-service programs. 

In addition to assisting in the coordination of intercampus 
programs, the University of Illinois has several agencies and 
programs that operate on a university-wide basis — both in 
terms of intrauniversity ser\'ices and with reference to services 
to the public. The Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 
the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Survey 
Research Laboratory, and the Division of University Extension 
are well-kno\Mt examples of agencies with university-wide re- 
sponsibilities for public services in their respecti\-e areas. It is 
possible within the University system to coordinate the in- 
terests and activities in these various areas so as to provide 
more effective services and to control costly duplication. Con- 
sidering the great demand for specialized professional services 
in these various areas, there undoubtedly would be a pro- 
liferation of competing units, programs, and ser\'ices among 
the three campuses if they were not a part of the administra- 
tive responsibility of the University of Illinois as a unified 
multicampus system. 

Establishment of New Programs 

The relationship between institutional mission and new 
program proposals has become most critical at the doctoral 
level. The rigorous and consistent application of evaluative 
criteria is a major responsibility of the University's central 
administration (and is related directly to function number 
five in the preceding section). It is also a crucial role of the 
Board of Higher Education's program staff. Since the Univer- 
sity of Illinois alone among the public institutions in the State 
has demonstrated the ability to conduct high-quality advanced 
graduate and research programs, and to generate the nonstate 
resources required to support them, it should be allowed to 
develop, transmit, preserve, and apply knowledge in response 



to new conditions and to the social requirements created by 
them. This academic development must occur whether or not 
programs with similar titles exist potentially or in fact at other 
universities in the State. It must be recognized, if these dis- 
cussions of scope and mission are to serve any purpose for 
the IBHE, that an investment in graduate and professional 
programs at the doctoral level must be concentrated at the 
University of Illinois where the calibre of faculty, disciplinary 
strength, established expertise, and system resources promise 
the greatest probability of return to the State. Mission and 
quality must be the decisive factors, and at the advanced 
graduate and professional level if there is a surplus of pro- 
grams, that surplus is elsewhere than at the University of 
Illinois. 

Such a position by no means implies blanket authorization 
for expansion by the institution or any of its campuses. A new- 
program proposal at the doctoral level from any university 
should stipulate a set of criteria for assessing the progress and 
performance of that program, and delineate its basic disci- 
plinary thrusts and boundaries. The proposal should include 
a clear indication of its relationship to the university's mis- 
sion and long-range planning assumptions (and at least in the 
University of Illinois' case to the specific differential contri- 
bution a particular campus provides in meeting the Univer- 
sity's educational responsibilities). In addition, the submitter 
should be prepared to discuss the general long-term resource 
implications. 

When the University examines the potential of a new 
program at the doctoral level, questions are asked regarding 
the requisite foundations, including: 

— the need for a critical mass in the specific field and in the 
broad disciplinary area; 

— the strengths and weaknesses of the existing faculty in that 
discipline; 

— the evidence of responsible actions toward building a qual- 
ity program; 

— the capacity to generate nonstate resources; 

— the potential for the achievement and maintenance of high 
academic stature; 

— the advantages of a unique setting or combination of 
resources; 

— the distinctiveness of the program (or its potential) in 
relation to the natiu-e and quality of existing programs that 
appear to be in the same field at other public or private 
institutions; 

— the clientele and the social need for the program; 

— the complementary use of the University's (e.g., our sys- 
tem's) academic resources. 

These criteria for the evaluation of new programs gen- 
erally are applicable to existing programs as well, and it is 
appropriate to review the process for assessing the quality of 
present programs as a conclusion to the discussion of the 
University's mission. 

The Evaluation of Existing Programs 

The Executive Director of the IBHE emphasized, in his 
closing remarks to the Collegiate Common Market planning 
conference in Carbondale on June 2, 1972, the importance of 
involv^ing faculty at both the initiatory and the evaluation 
phases of cooperative academic programs. It long has been 
the University of Illinois' position that the serious review of 
any educational program should not be conducted without 
the intensive participation of those faculty members re- 



sponsible for considering matters of educational policy. The 
competition for scarce resources at any reputable institution of 
higher education assures in some degree a process of continu- 
ing comparative evaluation, and the delineation of institutional 
objecti\es should provide a more consistent and conipre- 
hensi\e frame for the longer range task of program rc\iew. 
One must always keep in mind, however, that "the unique 
k system of academic decision-making in universities rests es- 

sentially upon the historically validated recognition that the 
development of sound educational policies requires the pri- 
mary involvement of the faculty members who are best in- 
^ fonned about the educational substance and \'alues at issue." 
^ i'niiersity of Illinois Commentary on Report A'o. 103) 

At all three of the University's campuses, faculty groups 
are concluding work on long-range studies of their respective 
academic programs and priorities. The report of the Urbana- 
Champaign Study Committee on Program Evaluation 
(SCOPES has been recommended by the Chairman of the 
Board of Higher Education to even,' institution of higher edu- 
cation in Illinois. Such .studies will provide the guidance re- 
quired for sound decisions at the campus and the university 
level in the academic planning and resource allocation pro- 
cesses. These decisions will be based upon an understanding 
of the overriding purposes of the University of Illinois and 
will take into account the basic planning assumptions of the 
campuses, their respective contributions to the mission of the 
University within the state system of higher education, state 
and national needs, and the prospects of financial support 
from State, Federal and other sources. 



CHAPTER II. Chicogo Circle Campus 

No issue related to the mission of the University of Illi- 
nois and its basic planning assumptions has been so mired 
in uncertainty and controversy as the future of the Chicago 
Circle Campus. Designated in Master Plan - Phase III as one 
of seven "public graduate universities for expanded and new 
graduate programs at the Ph.D. level," and supported in that 
document as "a comprehensive urban university," it is still not 
clear whether the general planning assumptions outlined for 
the University in the preceding chapter are accepted by the 
IBHE as applicable to Chicago Circle. 

The Chicago Circle Campus derives its conception of its 
nature and its fundamental academic objectives from the role 
of the University of Illinois in the total structure of higher 
education in the State. It is a basic imit of the State's land- 
grant, premier graduate and professional university, and the 
campus has built its contribution to the University's mission 
upon specific strengths and resources in a particular setting. 
It is assumed that the State's major public university has 
unique responsibilities for advanced graduate and professional 
I'ducation in the Chicago metropolitan area. Hence, the real 
^ issue confronting Chicago Circle should be how it meets those 
W responsibilities as an integral part of the University of Illinois 
for example, Chicago Circle would default in its obligation to 
the Chicago area if it did not generate substantial non-state 
. resources to direct toward the solution of urban problems). 

Basic Planning Assumptions 

The reference shelves of the University and of the TPJIE 
are filled with policy statements and commentaries concerning 
the role of the Chicago Circle Campus. The IBHE's Report 
of the Special Committee on Nezv Institutions, the Report on 
Governing Structure, and Master Plan - Phase III all agree 
upon the desirability of graduate and professional programs 



at Chicago Circle; in turn, the University's Provisional Devel- 
opment Plan, commentaries on the initial draft of MP -III 
and on Report No. 103, statements to Committee N, and the 
recent assessment of 1971-73 budgetary impacts all present 
the University's attempts to articulate a conception of the 
campus' role and to secure implementation of that conception. 
The University repeatedly has expressed the strong belief that 
its urban campus should be dedicated to the basic educational 
values of the land-grant movement, with the determination 
to find creative expression for them in the complex and turbu- 
lent urban environment of the 1970's. This does not imply that 
Chicago Circle is to be a mere replica of the campus at Ur- 
bana-Champaign, since it has been recognized that there 
should be considerably greater emphasis at Chicago Circle 
upon the fundamental disciplines, professional education, and 
applied research that are related to the major problems of 
urban society. The University has always a.ssumed, however, 
that its campus at Chicago Circle should and would achieve 
a level of quality in its unique spectrum of educational func- 
tions that would be essentially equivalent in general to that 
existing at the Urbana-Champaign Campus. There are three 
general reasons that seem clearly to justify this assumption: 

1. The people of the .State of Illinois need and deserve to 
have a public university of high quality that will provide a 
broad spectrum of educational opportunities to a great 
variety of urban students who wish to attend such an insti- 
tution of higher education in an urban setting. 

2. Only a public university of the kind conceived for the 
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle would enable an 
urban society to make the kinds of investment in its human 
resources that are necessary to its viability and to its 
capability for self-improvement. 

3. Only this kind of uni\ersity would have the public commit- 
ment and the varied scholarly and technical resources re- 
quired to assist large metropolitan communities in their 
efforts to solve critical problems. 

The University remains determined to meet these com- 
mitments to the State of Illinois through its Chicago Circle 
Campus. Conditions have changed since the earlier statement 
that discussed Chicago Circle, but the present situation only 
reinforces the conviction that the campus must continue to 
develop the instruction, research, and service programs that 
are commensurate with this conception of its responsibilities 
as part of the State's comprehensive public university in an 
urban metropolitan setting. 

When the first doctoral programs for Chicago Circle were 
brought to the Board of Higher Education on January 10, 
1968, the staff recommended approval of them with the 
comment that "there was never any question concerning the 
need for doctoral programs to be provided by a public insti- 
tution in the Chicago area," and that it assumed that Chicago 
Circle would be developed as a "fully developed, complex, 
multipurpose university." Although there are other public 
institutions of higher education in metropolitan Chicago, their 
mission does not include the development of educational pro- 
grams of the advanced graduate and professional nature that 
are the hallmarks of the University of Illinois. In addition to 
satisfying the educational needs of its potential student clien- 
tele, Chicago Circle has a special responsibility to address 
itself to the problems of the urban environment through ad- 
vanced research and public ser\ice. Responsive to its par- 
ticular setting, the Chicago Circle Campus plans to draw 
upon the academic resources and expertise of the University 
as a whole to develop and strengthen the educational thrusts 



representing its contribution to the University's mission in the 
State of Illinois and in the nation. 

Major Program Areas 

One of the historic qualities of the University of Illinois is 
its ability to integrate the research and public service activities 
of its faculty, staff, and student body with its educational pro- 
grams. The nature of its commitment to research and public 
ser\-ice therefore influences in large measure the nature and 
scope of such a uni\'ersity's instructional programs. A strong 
public urban university must de\elop programs in those pro- 
fessional fields and disciplines that have a high potential for 
making a measurable impact upon urban communities. There- 
fore, such professional fields as engineering, architecture, 
urban planning, social work, and urban education etc., — 
coupled with a broad concentration in the applied social 
sciences, and building upon the unique resources and organi- 
zation of the College of Urban Sciences — will be distinguish- 
ing characteristics of the long-term development of the Chi- 
cago Circle Campus. 

Ho-ivever, these applied fields must be supported by strong 
programs in the related basic disciplines which provide an 
underlying body of investigative methodology and systematic 
knowledge. There are no examples in American higher educa- 
tion of institutions that are strong in the applied areas but 
weak in those basic fields of learning which must directly 
support them. Doctoral programs both in the fundamental 
and in the applied areas at the Chicago Circle Campus have 
been and will continue to be designed so that they respond 
to the criteria set forth in the "new program" section of the 
preceding chapter. 

The diverse ethnic, racial, and religious composition of 
the population of metropolitan Chicago provides an oppor- 
tunity for Chicago Circle to serve the community and to draw 
strength from it in those areas and disciplines related to its 
intellectual and cultural life. The quality of life in the com- 
munity depends not only upon the physical, economic, and 
social environments but also upon those areas that enrich 
the experience of its inhabitants. The major public university 
in a metropolitan area has a special responsibility to con- 
tribute to this enrichment process through its unique capa- 
bilities. Thus, the special nature of the metropolitan Chicago 
community provides guidance for the development of instruc- 
tional and research programs at Chicago Circle in the arts and 
humanities. 

Chicago Circle has a strong commitment to develop pro- 
grams that directly complement and provide support to the 
programs of the University of Illinois at the Medical Center. 
Such a cooperative relationship is already under way in the 
areas of bioengineering, public health, and the basic medical 
sciences. Since these areas are of an advanced professional and 
scientific nature, Chicago Circle's contributing programs must 
be developed through the advanced graduate level to make 
cooperation both possible and effective. The relationship be- 
tween Chicago Circle's special capabilities in such areas as 
social work, education, and administrative sciences and the 
capabilities of the Medical Center in the health sciences and 
allied fields are presently being examined ^vith the goal of 
identifying additional opportunities for the imiversity-wide 
use of academic resources. 

As the campus of a comprehensive public university in 
metropolitan Chicago, Chicago Circle has a special mission 
to provide leadership and support for cooperative educational 
ventures among the various public and private institutions of 
higher education in that region. Many such cooperati\'e ven- 



tures are now already in existence or in the planning stages, 
involving institutions of higher education of practically every 
size and type. If the campus is to fulfill its assignment under 
Master Plan - Phase III "to be a focus for numerous Col- 
legiate Common Market activities," it is essential that Chicago 
Circle be able to contribute that which characterizes the 
University of Illinois, a broad range of high-quality educa- 
tional programs with concentration at the advanced graduate 
and professional levels. 

Finally, Chicago Circle has a special role in providing 
educational opportunities to the various ethnic and racial 
groups in Chicago which historically have had restricted 
access to a major public university. Through special programs 
such as the Educational Assistance Program and the Native 
American Program, the campus will continue to seek out and 
provide supportive services for these groups. This it nnist do 
in consort with the other publicly supported institutions in 
Chicago, particularly the Chicago City Colleges. The pilot 
program of joint registration and programming with Mal- 
colm X College is characteristic of the emphasis which Chi- 
cago Circle will increasingly place upon cooperative methods 
for achieving equal educational opportunity for the inhabitants 
of Chicago. AVhile these acti\'ities in and for the Chicago 
metropolitan area are important for that area, they also repre- 
sent the commitment of a land-grant, comprehensive univer- 
sity to the solution of state-wide and nation-w-ide problems. 
Chicago Circle programs, for example, will speak to urban 
needs be they found in Chicago, Peoria, in East St. Louis, or, 
for that matter, in New York or Philadelphia. This broad con- 
cept of the land-grant, comprehensive mission is crucial to 
the success of Chicago Circle as a campus and to the success 
of its contribution to the people of Chicago and of Illinois. 

The Fundamental Policy Issue 

In its commentary on the initial draft of Master Plan - 
Phase III, the University of Illinois expanded upon its under- 
standing of the Master Plan's commitment that "the Univer- 
sity of Illinois at Chicago Circle is supported as a compre- 
hensi\e urban university, the mission for which it was 
designed" : 

"In addition, one of the critical demands upon an urban- 
oriented public university is to pro%'ide the highest quality 
and broadest range of educational programs for students 
in its geographical area. If the Chicago Circle Campus is 
expected to expand first-rate, low-cost educational oppor- 
tunities in the Chicago area, if it is expected to prepare 
undergraduates and graduates for a vast spectrum of 
urban-related employment and service requirements, and 
if it is expected to develop or undergird innovative and 
multidisciplinary graduate and professional programs that 
respond to the needs of the Chicago area — then 'the mis- 
sion for which it was designed' must be supported without 
qualification, reser\-ation, or limitation. 
"Existing strengths, demonstrable need, efficient use of 
resources, potential cooperation — these are all important 
criteria for assessing the merit of any proposed graduate 
or professional program. However, the Chicago Circle 
Campus is at a unique stage of growth. A generalized and 
restrictive interpretation of its mission and range of pro- 
grams should not be allowed to impede the establishment 
of a public university that will train graduates who can 
compete effectively in the local or the national employ- 
ment market with the graduates of nationally prestigious 
universities, and that will provide the kinds and quality 



of research (basic and applied) required to assist a 
large urban community in its eflorts to solve its critical 
problems." 

While discussing the basic planning assumptions of the 
Chicago Circle Campus, and the major program emphases 
that flow from those assumptions, the fundamental public- 
policy issue in regard to Chicago Circle nnist remain in 

f focus: Are the responsible agencies of State Government 

willing to support the University of Illinois' eflorts to give the 
Chicago metropolitan area the kind of public uni\ersity it 
needs and which its contribution to the State's welfare would 

m clearly justify? 

CHAPTER III. Medical Center Campus 

The reference to the Medical Center Campus in the 
"Scope and Mission" chapter of Master Plan - Phase III is 
short and somewhat circular. "The aspirations, histories, and 
locale of Illinois' several systems yield seven campuses that 
offer graduate programs that are comprehensive or modified 
comprehensive in scope, including the Medical Center campus 
of the University of Illinois, a distinguished institution whose 
scope and mission clearly are a product of its objectives." 

The Medical Center Campus offers such a wide range of 
educational programs in the health field that it fulfills com- 
pletely the definition of "a comprehensive health education 
institution." The educational objectives of this modified com- 
prehensive campus are to prepare high-quality professionals 
to meet the manpower needs of the health fields, to develop 
new knowledge through a wide range of research programs, 
and to provide innovative health care ser\ices through the 
operation of hospitals and clinics which represent the setting 
for much of the patient-centered educational experiences for 
students of this campus. The scope of the educational offerings 
includes medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, allied health 
sciences, public health, and the graduate programs at master's 
and doctoral levels. However important these offerings for 
"in house" students may be, the basic responsibilities of the 
campus include two additional important components: con- 
tinuing education for practicing professionals, and house staff 
programs leading to certification in the various specialty areas 
(including "family practice"). 

Slate Policy 

Unlike the other campuses of the University of Illinois, 
the basic planning assumptions at the Medical Center are 
mandated by and directly responsive to present state policy. 
The report Education in the Health Fields for State of Illinois, 
endorsed by the IBHE in 1968, reflects in the responsibilities 
assigned to the University of Illinois the assumptions that 
girded the University's original series of proposals submitted 
one year earlier. Since these principles essentially still serve as 
M the blueprints for the campus' contribution to the University's 

W role in the State, they bear repeating. 

"The University's program rests on several assumptions 
as to the needs in the health fields which seem to be jus- 
I tified by the results of numerous studies of professional 

manpower in relation to the rising demand for better 
health care. These needs may be stated as follows: 

1. Greater opportunity for Illinois youths to secure profes- 
sional education in the health fields. Admission to most of 
these professions, especially medicine and dentistry, has 
been limited by the shortage of educational facilities. 

2. Increase in the number of graduates of professional train- 



ing programs of the State — as one step toward overcoming 
the shortage of its professional manpower. 

3. Greater efficiency and effectiveness in the educational pro- 
grams of the various health fields. 

4. Increased retention within Illinois of the graduates of its 
health professions schools. 

3. Better methods of organizing and disseminating information 
about advances in science and technology to practitioners. 

6. Improved utilization of professional manpower and other 
resources in the delivery of health care services. 

7. Expanded research on the hazards to health due to unfav- 
orable environmental conditions and development of the 
means of preventing or ameliorating such conditions." 

Experience in the intervening years has suggested that an 
eighth general objective should be added. 

8. Identify new functional areas where increasing specializa- 
tion in the health fields suggests or demands entirely new 
classifications of professional, technical, and/or vocational 
manpower be developed. For these, if appropriate at the 
University level, educational programs must be created. 

The assumptions upon which the planning by all units of 
the Medical Center Campus and the campus as a whole have 
been predicated are based upon the recommendations in Edu- 
cation in the Health Fields for State of Illinois. That report, 
which suggests a .strategy for overcoming manpower defi- 
ciencies in the health fields, ascribes major responsibilities to 
the University of Illinois and particularly to the Medical 
Center Campus. In fact, of the total sixty-six recommenda- 
tions in the report, twenty-five are concerned with programs 
at the University of Illinois. These recommendations include 
the call for an increase of at least 200 medical student grad- 
uates over the 205 who were graduated the year the report 
was published (1968). Toward this objective the University 
has embarked upon a comprehensive program of innovation 
and expansion in medical education that is unparalleled in 
this country. Further specific recommendations urge the Uni- 
versity to help accomplish these increases by building upon 
the faculty expertise at the Medical Center and the Urbana- 
Champaign campuses, and by bringing into the University's 
educational orbit (by afliliation) a substantial number of high- 
quality community hospitals. 

Other recommendations propose significant enrollment 
and program expansion in dentistry, nursing, allied health 
sciences, and pharmacy. In the field of nursing, especially, the 
need for graduate education was stressed, because of the 
dearth of teachers and administrators who are needed to staff 
the expanding professional programs in this area. 

Public Health 

An entirely new program representing a field in which 
there has been a conspicuous gap in Illinois higher education 
was recommended by the IBHE for initiation by the Univer- 
sity at its Medical Center Campus. In Recommendation 33 
the statement is made: "Graduate programs of public health 
be established by the University of Illinois capable of enrolling 
100 master's degree candidates and 40 doctoral degree can- 
didates." In suggesting the scope of this program, the special 
areas of expertise residing at the other two campuses of the 
University were recognized. The graduate programs in public 
health will be heavily interdisciplinary, relying particularly 
upon faculty members at the other two campuses for instruc- 
tional and research support in the behavioral and social sci- 
ences. The biological and engineering fields at the other 



campuses — especially the Chicago Circle Campus — will 
also support special aspects of the public-health program. In 
addition, in the program planning for this new school, faculty 
at the Center for Heahh Care Studies at the University of 
Chicago Graduate School of Business, and at a similar center 
recently started by Northwestern University in conjunction 
with the American Hospital Association, were identified as 
potential resources for strengthening and expanding the scope 
of the school. 

The Public Health program at the University of Illinois is 
being planned as a model for the intercampus and interinsti- 
tutional blending of academic resources — an internal and an 
external "common market." 

Basic Sciences 

Recommendation 51 in Education in the Health Fields 
for State of Illinois reads: "The teaching of the basic sciences 
and general education components of curricula offered by the 
University of Illinois College of Pharmacy be discontinued on 
the Medical Center Campus and offered on the Chicago 
Circle Campus or the Urbana-Champaign Campus. . . ." Those 
general education offerings that were available on the Medical 
Center Campus were introduced years ago before there was a 
Chicago Circle Campus, and when the distance to Na\y Pier 
was too great to permit student commuting for limited course 
offerings. One of the basic planning assumptions of the Med- 
ical Center Campus, however, is that as tenured faculty in the 
few areas offering general-education courses in the curriculum 
in pharmacy are retired or resign, replacements will not be 
hired and arrangements will be made for these educational 
requirements to be accomplished in conjunction with the Chi- 
cago Circle Campus or other higher-educational institutions. 

Of greater concern to the University, however, has been 
the allegation that chemistry offerings at Chicago Circle, Col- 
lege of Pharmacy, and the School of Ba<:ic Medical Sciences 
of the College of Medicine are duplicative and the recom- 
mendation that such work be consolidated on the Chicago 
Circle Campus. A joint committee to study the basic medical 
science programs at the two Chicago campuses has been estab- 
lished, and the preliminary reports prepared for its chairman 
indicate strong complementarity and rare duplication of re- 
sources. Analysis of course contents reveals that the offerings 
in the general discipline of chemistry at the Medical Center 
Campus are highly specific to the curricula of which they are 
a part. The biochemistry offerings in the School of Basic Med- 
ical Sciences focus on the chemistry of human biology, a field 
not offered by the chemistry department at Chicago Circle 
(graduate students at Chicago Circle who need human bio- 
logical chemistry within their graduate course studies enroll 
in these courses at the Medical Center Campus). In the Col- 
lege of Pharmacy, the Department of Medicinal Pharmacy 
offers specially tailored organic chemistry which is totally 
oriented toward the chemistry of drugs and biologicals, a 
highly essential and integral component of the education of 
the pharmacist in the contemporary setting. A basic planning 
assumption, therefore, is that course offerings which are highly 
specific to professional curricula, and are almost without 
exception required as a prerequisite to continued accredita- 
tion of the academic unit, will continue to be offered to stu- 
dents in the various curricula and colleges on the Medical 
Center Campus. 

At the graduate level \ery few new doctoral programs are 
anticipated. Intercampus programs in biomedical engineering 
are in the development phase, and in human genetics there 
is a growing requirement and demand for a program at the 



master's and eventually at the doctoral level. There is also a 
need to develop combined professional and graduate degrees, 
i.e. M.S.-M.D., Ph.D.-M.D., D.D.S.-M.S., and perhaps others. 
Many professional students want advanced training in specific 
areas available in the graduate college and progress is being 
made in the development of such programs. Both the College 
of Medicine and the Graduate College have approved the 
development of combined degree programs. Those students 
interested in teaching and research as well as professional 
practice will be tomorrow's well-qualified faculty. 

The intercampus committee for the basic medical .sci- 
ences has been charged with reviewing existing programs in 
this area, and with developing further mechanisms for the 
coordination of intercampus efforts. That committee, and 
hopefully the IBHE staff, will take into account the historical 
patterns, the comparative cost involved in alternative methods 
of meeting the specific educational objectives and student 
needs. Less attention should be paid to such factors as depart- 
ment titles and administrative arrangements. Meantime, the 
University wishes to reiterate the warning expressed in its 
commentary on Report No. 103: 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly how damaging it 
would be to the University of Illinois at the Medical Cen- 
ter to eliminate or sharply curtail graduate education in 
the basic medical sciences at that campus. Without any 
question, the leading faculty members in these depart- 
ments would seek to go elsewhere and with them would go 
research grants that run to several million dollars each 
year. The School of Basic Medical Sciences in the College 
of Medicine, in particular, would be critically damaged 
by the loss of its graduate and associated research pro- 
grams. In comparison with the basic medical-science de- 
partments in other medical schools, the University's 
departments would rapidly lose ground in terms of faculty, 
contribution to human health, and attraction of financial 
support from outside agencies." 

University of Illinois Hospital 

A basic planning assumption which does not flow from 
Education in the Health Fields for State of Ulinois relates 
to the University of Illinois Hospital. The author of the IBHE 
report recommended the reduction of the University of Illi- 
nois (then Research and Educational) Hospital to a highly 
specialized research and advanced training facility, with no 
more than two to three hundred beds, and modeled after the 
Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health. This 
highly restrictive mission was questioned by the staff of the 
Board of Higher Education and these recommendations were 
not included in the final version of the report adopted by the 
Board. Instead, the staff suggested that the Health Education 
Commission take this issue under study and make further 
recommendations. 

The Medical Advisory Committee of the Health Educa- 
tion Commission has annually reviewed the request for plan- 
ning funds for replacing the obsolete portions of the University 
of Illinois Hospital and has agreed that its continued existence 
as a comprehensive, multi-mission institution is important in 
undergirding the health professions education programs. 
Further, they have recognized that with its patient population 
drawn more and more from the west and south sides of Chi- 
cago where there is a serious gap in the availability of health 
care services, the University of Illinois Hospital has assumed 
a major role supplementing Cook County Hospital's ser\'ices 
and offering a variety of high-quality, sophisticated diagnostic 
and therapeutic capabilities for patients in need of these spe- 



8 



cial senices. The contribution whicli the University of Illinois 
Hospital makes in the preparation of highly qualified spe- 
cialists is of equal importance. This hospital has traditionally 
been among the leaders, not only in the Chicago metro- 
politan area but in the country, in its attraction of quality 
candidates for its house staff positions and the rate at which 
it fills its positions through the various matching plans (the 
highest in Chicago in the 1972 intern and resident matching 
program). 

Planning for the Medical Center Campus has, as one of 
its basic assumptions, the need for a highly effective, com- 
prehensive, high quality hospital facility to serve as the edu- 
cational and research hub for the multiple clinical school 
educational programs of the College of Medicine, and further 
to serve as the clinical setting for innovative educational pro- 
grams in nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and the allied health 
sciences. 

Planning and Commitment 

The University of Illinois consistently has stated in every 
major policy document since its Provisional Development 
Plan that the main problems regarding the programs at the 
Medical Center Campus relate to the availability of resources 
and not to uncertainty as to planning goals and policies. The 
Medical Center Campus is the focus for one of the most far- 
reaching developmental programs in the health fields ever 
imdertaken in this country. Virtually all aspects of the 
campus' operations provide professional, administrative, and 
logistical support for nev\' and expanding programs located 
both on the campus and in several regional centers outside 
the Chicago area. The recent study of the impact of the 
n' 1971-72 and F\' 1972-73 budgets submitted by the Uni- 
versity to the IBHE staff emphasizes that with the investment 
in planning, employment of faculty, creation of facilities, 
commitments to students, and the inclusion of vast new and 
eager constituencies fRockford, Peoria, and the Metro Six 
Hospitals), any significant retreat from the programmatic ob- 
jectives would ha\e repercussions of extremely serious dimen- 
sions. Yet these programs cannot be carried forward unless 
the essential additional resources are provided for FY 1973-74. 
That year is the "go-or-no-go" one as regards the implemen- 
tation of the University's participation in the State's program 
of expansion in the health fields — as it will be for all other 
institutions involved, public and private. If these additional 
resources are not provided to support that program, it will 
have to be acknowledged explicitly that the State's plan has 
been curtailed. There is very little time left. 



CHAPTER tV. Urbano-Chompaign Campus 

The reference to the Urbana-Champaign Campus in the 
Master Plan - Phase III "Scope and Mission" chapter ac- 
knowledges the outstanding worldwide reputation that it 
enjoys, and affirms that no arguments can be ofTered against 
its continued leadership as a full scale comprehensive insti- 
tution. However, the last paragraph of that section raises a 
potential problem that cannot go unchallenged. Indeed, such 
a challenge was issued in the University's commentary on the 
initial draft of MP - III, and must be reiterated here, for the 
campus cannot proceed with its planning responsibilities until 
a clearer resolution is achieved. 

The Master Plan sentence reads : 

"The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's cur- 
rent comprehensive roster of graduate programs should be 



expanded only in areas not to lie developed at other Uni- 
versity Centers." 

The University maintains that innovative programs of grad- 
uate and professional education proposed for development at 
the Urbana-Champaign Campus to meet the changing needs 
of society should not be stifled by the application of this 
somewhat nebulous precept. The Urbana-Champaign Campus 
cannot possibly meet its educational responsibilities to the 
University or to the State if its current roster of programs is 
viewed as the last word in completeness and comprehensive- 
ness. The greatest universities are those which are most alive 
to new fields of knowledge, changing disciplinary patterns, 
and expanded social needs. 

Basic Planning Assumptions 

Intelligent state-wide planning would appear to require 
that the University of Illinois have a virtual monopoly upon 
doctoral programs in the public sector as long as resources 
remain scarce and manpower demands at the doctoral level 
continue to be constrained. Within that context, the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus' basic planning assumptions should be 
stated positively in the following terms (from the University's 
Provisional Development Plan — 1971-72 Through 1980-81, 
p. 65): 

"The educational programs of the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus at all levels will undergo marked changes during 
the next ten years — in response to new conditions and 
to the needs generated by them. In the spirit of the Uni- 
versity's hundred years as a land-grant institution, the 
development plan for this campus calls for full utilization 
of its wealth of resources towards finding better ways to 
meet human needs and to help society solve its critical 
problems. These eflorts will involve the search for new 
fundamental knowledge in difficult fields of inquiry, 
problem-centered research and developinent, and unique 
modes of public service that only a comprehensive univer- 
sity of high quality can provide." 

The campus must plan to broaden and enrich its pro- 
grams, especially through increased emphasis upon multidis- 
ciplinary studies related to the major problems of modern 
society. The planning assumptions evolving from the Univer- 
sity's mission as stated in Chapter I depend significantly upon 
the development of new doctoral level program proposals by 
the strong faculty at Urbana-Champaign. The major program 
areas a,scribed in the previous two chapters reflect the specific 
strengths and settings of the two Chicago campuses and are 
envisioned as being complementary to, and coordinated with, 
the existing programs and the new developments at Urbana- 
Champaign. Although the greater portion of the support re- 
quired for Urbana-Champaign's new programs will probably 
come from Federal and foundation sources, the State should 
plan to increase its own contribution to the campus' educa- 
tional effort. If that is done, the history of over a hundred 
years of highly productive instruction, research, and public 
service gives strong assurance that the return on the invest- 
ment will be great. 

The Urbana-Champaign Campus also will continue to 
be heavily involved in undergraduate education. Historically, 
there has been and there will continue to be a strong interest 
in undergraduate teaching on that campus. It is particularly 
crucial to maintain strength in undergraduate education when 
many of the campus' graduate and professional programs are 
extending downward into and influencing undergraduate cur- 
ricula. For example, undergraduate education in the allied 



health fields will accompany new developments in medical 
education; undergraduate programs in mental health care, 
day care, and community psychology are by-products of ad- 
vances at the graduate level and represent areas of great so- 
cietal demand; and undergraduate engineering will continue 
to be the major professional program for engineering (the 
Urbana-Champaign curriculum is considered particularly 
strong by virtue of the College's nationwide reputation as a 
research center). 

Major New Program Areas 

Health fields. Expansion of education in the health fields 
is of top priority to the Urbana-Champaign Campus. How- 
ever, as at the Medical Center Campus, if this expansion is to 
occur, major new resources, both operating and capital, will 
have to be provided. The campus plans to develop a clinical 
program in the medical area, with attendant development of 
certain allied health fields (nursing, hospital management, 
medical technology, physician's aides, etc.), and expansion 
of the program in Veterinary Medicine. 

Applied social sciences. The Urbana-Champaign Campus 
plans to upgrade and expand the social sciences, with par- 
ticular emphasis upon the applied social .sciences in an inter- 
disciplinary context. In a planning process analogous to that 
described for certain program areas at Chicago Circle, the 
Urbana-Champaign Campus will take advantage of its par- 
ticular resources and setting to reinforce its component of the 
University's graduate and professional educational respon- 
sibilities. In complementary and sometimes cooperative rela- 
tionships with programs at other campuses, Urbana-Cham- 
paign plans to apply specific faculty strength and initiative 
toward responses to problems in areas such as housing, com- 
munity and economic development, human resources, day 
care, and mental health. The significant innovation repre- 
sented by the "applied" Doctor of Psychology degree will be 
introduced in other disciplines that could benefit from such 
a program. 

Continuing education and public service. A major devel- 
opmental emphasis will be placed upon the areas of con- 



tinuing education and public service. The current plan is to 
focus upon a particular geographic location and establish a 
center there, which would work in concert with local com- 
munity and senior educational institutions (public and private) 
to supplement their educational and public service efforts 
with unique University resources. There is no intention to 
compete xvith existing junior and senior-level college programs 
in the area. Instead, through cooperation, the resources of the 
Urbana-Champaign Campus will be made available to 
strengthen and supplement their programs. The continuing 
professional-education programs would concentrate on areas 
where particular experience and expertise is established at 
Urbana, and many of the center's activities would rely upon 
technology developed at that campus (e.g., PLATO). Through 
such a center the campus could, for example, provide re- 
search and scholarship opportunities for faculty members at 
the area institutions, and also serve as a "broker" for educa- 
tional and public service programs — providing information 
and possible entree into not only our own programs but into 
those of other institutions throughout the State. 

Unique Resources 

Any discussion of the role of the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus must recognize that its continuing and developing 
programs always will be afltected by certain unique features. 
It has the only College of Agriculture, the only College of 
\'eterinary Medicine, and the only College of Law in the 
public sector of Illinois' institutions of higher education. It is 
internationally knov\Ti for its work in the computer field, with 
the most progressive campus programs being located in the 
Computer-based Education Research Laboratory (PLATO), 
the Center for Advanced Computation, the Department of 
Computer Science, and the Coordinated Science Laboratory. 
The campus has one of the finest libraries in the United States. 
Most important of all, the campus has a faculty that is one of 
the greatest educational resources in the State of Illinois and 
in the country — a fact of paramount relevance and impor- 
tance in defining the nature and scope of the University of 
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 



President's Statement on the University 

President John E. Corbally Jr. issued the following 
statement July 5 in view of actions of the General Assem- 
bly on the University's appropriation bill : 

There has been some confusion in the reports of the final 
actions of the Illinois General Assembly with regard to House 
Bill 4215 (the appropriation bill for the University of Illinois 
for 1972-73). The General Assembly approved increases in 
House Bill 4215 totaling $7,163,788. The original total for 
operations was increased from $189,411,681 to $196,575,469. 
The following is an analysis of the increase : 

1. Retirement contributions $3,000,000 

2. Personal services (nonacademic salary increases 
and funds for physical-plant operations and 
maintenance personnel) 3,541,126 

3. Division of Services for Crippled Children .... 587,000 

4. Natural History Survey Research Ponds (O & 

M costs) 6,376 

5. Exercise Therapy Clinic (College of Physical 
Education, Urbana-Champaign) 29,286 

$7,163,788 



Appropriation 



The addition for retirement contributions represents, in 
effect, a technical assignment of funds to the University of 
Illinois to provide sufficient funds to meet the expected obliga- 
tions of the State Universities Retirement System to staff 
members of the University who will be retiring during the 
present fiscal year. 

The increase in the personal-services item of House Bill 
4215 totaling $3,541,126 would be used for the following 
purposes, in accordance with agreements reached among 
members of the General Assembly concerning this increase: 

1. The level of employment of physical-plant operations and 
maintenance personnel existing on June 30, 1972, would be 
maintained throughout the fiscal year 1972-73, except in 
areas subject to seasonal layoffs or in situations where such 
retention of employees would be contrary to State law or 
otherwise in conflict with soimd public policy. 

2. All employees presently paid under prevailing-wage agree- 
ments would receive increases in accordance with the 
terms specified in the renewal of such agreements. This 
procedure would conform to past practice, and the rates 
would be in accordance with State statutes and regulations. 



10 



3. Additional funds would bi- allocatfd sufficicni to pio\ idc 
increases averaging 3.5 per cent to employees who are paid 
under negotiated-ratc contracts — the increases to become 
effective upon the date specified in the renewal of sucli 
contracts. 

4. Additional funds would be allocated sufficient to provide 
increases averaging 5.5 per cent for all other nonacademic 
employees, effective September 1, 1972. 

The University regrets that no funds were appropriated 
by the General Assembly for additional increases in thr 
salaries of academic stafT members. After consultation with 
the general-University officers concerned and with the cliau- 
lellors, I am prepared to recommend to the Board of Tnistees 
that sufficient funds be accumulated through further internal 
savings to permit increases in academic salaries a\eraging 5.5 
per cent for eligible staff members, effective November I. 
1972. This increase would create a condition of substantial 
parity in the increases for nonacadcmic and for academic staff 
members — in the sense that the effective dates for their 
respective rate increases would be delayed in each case two 



months beyond the dates on which salary increases tradi- 
lionallv have liecome rffeclivc. 

Ol)\iously, the implementation of the foregoing plans is 
subject to the approval of House Bill 4215 by the Governor, 
without reduction in the amounts appropriated by the 
General Assembly. 

Many members of the General Assembly and representa- 
tives of the Governor's office and of the Bureau of the Budget 
were of great assistance in reviewing the needs of the Univer- 
sity of Illinois and in responding to those needs. Representa- 
tive Charles Clabaugh and Senator Stanley Weaver provided 
the floor leadership for House Bill 4215. In his last few 
months of active service. Dr. Lyle Lanier was particularly 
effective in providing the General Assembly with information 
and in providing the University of Illinois with his fine repre- 
sentation. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



n 



I 




'JC^^y^ta^ 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 233, November 1, 1972 



University's Request for Operating Funds for FY 1973-74 



Presented here is a pwrtion of the University of Illi- 
nois' request for operating funds for FY 1973-74 which 
was submitted to and appro\ed b)- the Board of Trustees 
meeting on the Chicago Circle Campus October 18. The 
request has been transmitted to the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education. 



The operating budget of the University of Illinois has 
suffered dramatically during the period for FY 1971 through 
FY 1973. There are no resenes left, and the budget cuts to 
administrative units, physical plant and student services has 
eliminated all but academic programs for future budget ex- 
igencies. New buildings have been opened without operating 
budgets, the equipment budget has been reduced by 50 per 
cent, enrollment and price increases have been absorbed 
through the use of reserves and administrative cuts men- 
tioned above. 

The operating budget for FY 1974 submitted herewith is 
basic and fundamental. Close scrutiny of these documents will 
show that the requests have been carefully analyzed. 

INTRODUCTION 
General Comment 

The operating budget request for the University of Illinois 
for Fiscal Year 1974 is for a net increase of $27,836,988 (ex- 
clusive of retirement). Included in this document are detailed 
calculations of the nonnew program elements and detailed 
documentation of the new programs. 

There are several other items which need special coverage. 
First is a new program request for the Division of Services for 
Crippled Children in the amount of $855,87.5. The base 
budget for the DSCC and the salary increases and price in- 
creases are built into the asking budget contained herein. 
However, since the University of Illinois administers the Di- 
vision of Services for Crippled Children as an agent of the 



State, we cannot properly add this request to our priority 
list inasmuch as many programs with high priorities were 
omitted to attempt to bring the total needs into focus with 
available resources. We are therefore transmitting the request 
for consideration by the Board of Higher Education without 
including this item in our operating budget request. 

The second clarifying item involves the University of 
Illinois libraries. No special program request is contained in 
this budget, but the matter is growing critical. The matter is 
described in general terms for the purpose of alerting the 
Board that we anticipate making the libraries a high priority 
item for FY 1975. Although we currently rank third in size of 
collections, we rank tenth in size of staff. Many cuts in staff 
and services have been made to protect the acquisitions 
budget. But, the matter is critical and must be given very 
serious consideration for next year. The same type of prob- 
lem holds true for campus security. The campuses have re- 
peatedly asked for new program funds to offset the gro\ving 
needs for security from vandalism and attacks on persons. Lack 
of such programmatic funds has forced a combination of in- 
ternal reallocation and a general lack of sufficient security. 
This item, too, will probably appear in FY 1975. 

The third item for clarification is the enrollment on the 
Urbana-Champaign Campus. While the total enrollment pro- 
jections for Urbana-Champaign back in July appeared to be 
too high, they now appear to be accurate. This is also true for 
FY 1974. The enrollments projected for Urbana-Champaign 
contained herein show a total of 32,270 against a long-range 
projection of 33,750 made two years ago and used for FY 1973 
budget preparation. It is now our best estimate that 33,800 
will be achieved. Late registration, particularly graduate en- 
rollment, is very high. Based on the estimate of 32,270 as de- 
veloped in July, we were very concerned that the original 
long-range projection of 34,100 for FY 1974 would not be 
achieved. As a result of reducing this to 32,000, the funding 
projected a decline from the original (33,750-32,000) pro- 
jection of FY 1974 which produces a formula decline in sup- 
port of $1.7 million. We expect to revise all of the projections 



based on actual fall enrollment in November, but the con- 
sensus projections now call for 33,800 in 1972 and 34,000 in 
1973 — or no change in formula funding for Urbana-Chani- 
paign. This, in fact, agrees with the budget as submitted, since 
we included Urbana-Champaign at a zero increase in enroll- 
ment. In other words, the overall budget request requires no 
change and will be further supported with new enrollment 
data in November. 

One final item requiring separate explanation is a re- 
quest for an increase of $88,850 in the Agricultural Premium 
Fund. Documentation has been previously submitted on the 
matter of adverse salary equalization between the county ex- 
tension secretaries and the University secretaries and on cover- 
ing new costs of printing extension materials for 4-H. This was 
not funded in FY 1973 and is a cause of considerable prob- 
lems. We are requesting this as a separate item due to the 
separate funding source. 

History 

A great deal of concern exists about the amount of new 
funds requested during the last several years. This has been 
compounded by the combination of statewide budgetary pres- 
sures, in general, and the Medical Center Campus expansion, 
in particular, which have increased the pressures on the Uni- 
versity of Illinois. The requests for FY 1974 must be viewed 
in the light of the last several years. 

Table 1 clearly shows that the level of state tax revenue 
support has remained approximately the same for the last 
two years. If $159.7 million in FY 1971* had growTi at only 
6 per cent to FY 1972 and then 6 per cent to FY 1973, the 
state tax revenues would have been $179.4 million, an increase 
of $19.7 million (see Table 3). If this trend were continued 
to FY 1974, the state tax appropriation would be $190.2 mil- 
lion. The requested state tax support exclusive of retirement 
for FY 1974 is $189.9 million (see Table 8). In other words, 
including significant enrollment expansion, inflation, new 
buildings to operate, and major medical expansion, the three- 
year compound rate of growth for the University from state 
tax revenues would be less than 6 per cent if the FY 1974 
budget were fully funded. 

Current Year FY 1974 

There are obviously many ways to look at the percentage 
change or need in an operating budget. Some of the numerical 
outcomes of various historical strategies are insidious. For ex- 
ample, because the last several years have resulted in budget 
limitations, causing a cutback in service, maintenance, and 
equipment budgets, the projections for returning to normal 
look larger than is really the case. This, of course, is admirably 
demonstrated in the previous historical calculation. Moreover, 
in the State of Illinois, the somewhat erratic way of handling 
retirement makes base to projected base a difficult calculation. 

* Exclusive of retirement (see Table 8). 



Perhaps the most realistic calculation is shown here as 
Table 5. If we take the beginning base of $188,294,969, ex- 
clusive of retirement, and add the built-in salary annualiza- 
tion and restore the equipment ba.se to FY 1971 levels, the ad- 
justed base is $192 million. This means that past enrollment 
increase, price increases, and new programs have been ac- 
commodated through cash savings and internal reallocations. 
On this base, the request for continuation is 5.72 per cent. The 
request for everything, exclusive of the medical expansion, is 
7.88 per cent, and the total is 12.54 per cent — with medical 
programs, therefore, representing 4.66 per cent. Or, the con- 
tinuation and medical expansion only (no growth at Chicago 
Circle and no other new programs) represents 10.38 per cent. 

There are very realistic budget needs to fulfill the scope 
and mission of the University. 

TABLE 1 
Percentage of Operating Budget from State Tax Revenues 



Year 


State Tax Revenues 


% of Budget 


1972-73 


$168,662,969 


51 


1971-72 


161,441,629 


52 


1970-71 


168,157,756 


54 


1969-70 


151,672,810 


56 


1968-69 


132,816,794 


56 


1967-68 


120,110,864 


55 


1966-67 


103,084,391 


56 


1965-66 


93,394,271 


56 


1964-65 


79,880,203 


56 


1963-64 


73,817,478 


57 


1962-63 


66,346,500 


56 


1961-62 


63,646,500 


59 


1960-61 


57,956,150* 


62 


1959-60 


54,141,150* 


62 


1958-59 


47,383,940* 


62 


1957-58 


45,378,340* 


62 


1956-57 


38,894,990* 


61 


1955-56 


38,660,990* 


63 


1954-55 


34,008,279 


64 


1953-54 


34,008,280 


65 


1952-53 


32,553,746 


65 


Source: Internal 6i 


udgets for 1952-53 through 


1972-73. 



* Prior to 1961-62 it was the practice to budget one-half the 
biennial tax fund appropriation each year of the biennium. 
From 1955-56 through 1960-61, the budget increase for the 
second year was provided by reserving income from the first 
year's budget for use during the second year. The figures for 
each year of the biennium have been adjusted to reflect this 
deferral in the tax fund figures to achieve comparability with 
later years. 



TABLE 2 — Summary of Totol University Budget for Fiscal Years 1970-71 through 1972-73 

1970-71 1971-72 



Amount 

State Tax Funds $168,157,756 

University Income 18,218,100 

Restricted & Institutional 125,009,600 

Total $311,385,456 



Per 
Cent 



Amount 



Per 
Cent 



1972-73 



Amount 



Per 
Cent 



54.0 $161,441,629 51.6 
5.9 22,900,000 7.3 

40.1 128,767,300 41.1 
100.0 $313,108,929 100.0 



$168,662,969 50.6 

27,912,500 8.4 

136,540,400 41.0 

$333,115,869 100.0 



TABLE 3 — Summary of Appropriafions for the University of Illinois, FY 1970-71, FY 1971-72, FY 1972-73 



Purpose and Fund Source 



FY 1970-71 
Appropriations 



FY 1971-72 
Appropriations 



FY 1972-73 
Appropriations 



I. OPERA TIONS AND GRANTS 
Regular Operations 

General Revenue $159,661,233 

University Income 18,218,100 

Agr. Premium Fund 1 ,021 , 700 

Subtotal (SI 78,901 ,033) 

Retirement Contributions 

Genera! Revenue 7,391 ,323 

Agr. Premium Fund 83,500 

Subtotal ($ 7,474,823) 



8,990,150 
5,159,240 



Total 5186,375,856 

//. IB A RENTALS {General Revenue) 

Previously Authorized 

New Authorizations 

Total $ 14,149,390 

///. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (General Revenue) 

New Appropriations 

Reappropriations 



IV 



$ 1,761,975 

19,392,382 

Total $ 21,154,357 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (Bond Issues) 

New Authorizations 5 10,709,934 

Reauthorizations of IBA Projects -0-' 

Transfer from General-Revenue Reappropriations -0- 



Total $ 10,709,934 

V. GRAND TOTAL 

General Revenue $202,356,303 

University Income 18,218,100 

Agr. Premium Fund 1,105,200 

Bond Funds 10,709,934 



Total $232,389,537 



$155,000,000 

22,900,000 

1,161,129 

($179,061,129) 

5,258,200 

22,300 

($ 5,280,500) 

$184,341,629 



$ 14,137,915 

1,623,740 

$ 15,761,655 



$ 4,043,750 

9,561,149 

$ 13,604,899 



$ 17,969,700 
18,344,104' 
-0- 
$ 36,313,804 



$189,624,754 

22,900,000 

1,183,429 

36,313,804 

$250,021,987 



$159,173,769 

27,912,500 

1,208,700 

($188,294,969) 



($ 



8,258,200 

22,300 

8,280,500) 



$196,575,469 

$ 9,335,645 

-0- 
$ 9,335,645 

$ 4,540,600 

5,923,000 

$ 10,463,600 

$ 8,970,100 

70,304,100 

2,733,000 

$ 82,007,200= 



$187,231,214 

27,912,500 

1,231,000 

82,007,200 

$298,381,914 



' Other IBA projects were not started but did not require reauthorization. (Reauthorization is required for IBA projects if not started 
after three years or if no interim lease has been negotiated.) 

' Includes capital-developtnent-bond funds for: (a) all building projects previously authorized for funding by the Illinois Building Au- 
thority but not bonded; (b) new (FY 1972-73) building projects; (c) selected "nonbuilding" projects for which general-revenue 
funds were appropriated for FY 1971-72 but will not have been obligated by June 30, 1972; (d) selected new (FY 1972-73) "non- 
building" projects. 



TABLE 4 — Comparison of FY 1971-72 and FY 1972-73 Budgets 

Revised 

FY 1971-72 

Budget 





FY 1972-73 


Increase 


Budget 


$ 2,010,172 


$ 40,260,734 


5,627,043 


47,062,690 


4,709,299 


103,473,502 


-145,116 


5,636,687 


32,442 


141,856 


512,233,840 


$196,575,469 


% 1,330,646 


$ 23,039,172 


-333,073 


6,081,864 


20,812 


1,957,128 


488,267 


6,727,216 


-90,000 


425,000 


598,000 


1,650,000 


-4,480 


380,354 


$ 2,010,172 


S 40,260,734 


$ 2,518,256 


S 18,843,468 


-21,188 


3,346,125 


213,972 


783,368 


791,735 


6,122,311 


4,000 


18,700 


626,483 


3,920,501 


600,051 


12,023,544 


699,000 


1,865,000 


194,734 


139,673 


$ 5,627,043 


S 47,062,690 


S 3,445,185 


$ 72,430,884 


-722,300 


8,294,857 


402,177 


4,462,824 


59,894 


13,493,517 


-0- 


207,500 


1,618,000 


4,540,500 


-93,657 


43,420 


$ 4,709,299 


$103,473,502 


$ -44,892 


$ 2,610,791 


-185,224 


2,800,896 


85,000 


225,000 


$ -145,116 


S 5,636,687 



/. All-University Summary 

Chicago Circle Campus $ 38,250,562 

Medical Center Campus 41 ,435,647 

Urbana-Champaign Campus 98,764,203 

General University 5,781,803 

Unassigned Reserve 109,414 

Total, All-University $184,341,629 

//. Chicago Circle Campus 

Academic Units $ 21,708,526 

Administrative and Service Units 6,414,937 

Library 1,936,316 

Physical Plant 6,238,949 

Refunds 515,000 

Retirement 1 ,052,000 

General 384,834 

Total, Chicago Circle $ 38,250,562 

///. Medical Center Campus 

Academic Units $ 16,325,212 

Administrative and Service Units 3,367,313 

Library 569,396 

Physical Plant 5,330,576 

Refunds 14,700 

Division of Services for Crippled Children 3,294,018 

Hospital 11 ,423,493 

Retirement 1,166,000 

General -55,061 

Total, Medical Center $ 41 ,435 ,647 

IV. Urbana-Champaign Campus 

Academic Units $ 68,985,699 

Administrative and Service Units 9,017,157 

Library 4,060,647 

Physical Plant 13,433,623 

Refunds 207,500 

Retirement 2,922,500 

General 137,077 

Total, Urbana-Champaign $ 98, 764,203 

V. General University 

Academic Units $ 2,655,683 

Administrative and Service Units 2,986,120 

Retirement 140,000 

Total, General University 8 5,781 ,803 



TABLE 5 
Pertenl Increases by Category — Recast to Correct Base 

Total Base' S188, 294,9(19 

Built-in Annualization 1 ,864,566 

Restoration of Equipment 1 ,890,000 

Revised Base 5192,049,535 

Base Increases Requested 

Salaiv Increases S 8,027,285 

New Buildings 448, 738 

Price Increases 2,511 ,683 

$ 10,987,706 5.72% 

Medical Expansion (All Campuses) . . S 8,944,428 4.66% 

Enrollment Increases (Nonmedical) 2,818,778 1.47% 

Other New Programs 1 ,331 ,510 .69% 

New Base $216,131,957 12.54% 

' Exclusive of retirement. 



TABLE 7 

Summary of FY 1974 Request for Operations 

tExduding Retirement) 

Appropriations for FY 1973 $188,294,969 

(excluding retirement) 

Increases Requested for FY 1974 27,836,988 

1 Annualization of Salary 

Increases $ 1,864,566 

2 Increases in Enrollment 
(including refunds and 

matching loan funds) ... 5,851, 206 

3 Salary Increases 8,027,285 

4 Operation of New 

Buildings 448,738 

5 New Programs - 

Virtually Required 6 , 749 , 960 

6 Price Increases 2,511,683 

7 New Programs - Very 

Important 493,550 

8 Restoration of Equip- 
ment 1,890,000 

Total FY 1974 Request for Operations. . . . $216,131,957 

(excluding retirement) 

General Revenue Funds .. . $ 1 89 , 934 , 04 7 

University Income Funds. . 24,918,000 

Agricultural Premium 

Funds 1,279,910 



TABLE 6 — Summary of Increases in Appropriation Request for FY 1974 



Priority Name / 

1 Annualization of Salary Increases $ 1 , 

2 Increases in Enrollment 5 , 

a. Refunds 

b. Matching Loan Funds 

3 Salary Increases 8 , 

4 Operation of New Buildings 

5 New Programs - Virtually Required 6 , 

a. Chicago Circle S 692,960 

b. Medical Center 5,116,000 

c. Urbana-Champaign 941 ,000 

6 Price Increases 2 . 

7 New Programs - Very Important 

a. Chicago Circle $ 193,550 

b. Medical Center 200,000 

c. Urbana-Champaign 100,000 

8 Restoration of Equipment 1 ^ 

Total , Wf: 

■ Base = $196,575,469 (including retirement). 
= Base = $188,294,969. 





Per Cent 


Per Cent 


imounl 


oJBase^ 


o/Base^ 


864,566 


.9 


1.0 


,552,206 


2.8 


2.9 


244,000 


.1 


.1 


55,000 


-0- 


-0- 


,027,285 


4.1 


4.3 


448,738 


.2 


.2 


,749,960 


3.4 


3.6 



511,683 
493,550 



890,000 



836,988 



1.3 
.3 



1.3 
.3 



TABLE 8 — Summary of Appropriations for Operations 

Sources of Funds FY 1971 FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974 

Regular Operations 

General Revenue $159,661,233 $155,000,000 $159,173,769 $189,934,047 

University Income 18,218,100 22,900,000 27,912,500 24,918,000 

Agricultural Premium Funds 1,021,700 1,161,129 1,208,700 1,279,910 

Subtotal ($178,901,033) ($179,061,129) ($188,294,969) ($216,131,957) 

Retirement 

General Revenue 7,391,323 5,258,200 8,258,200 24,351,100 

Agricultural Premium Funds 83 , 500 22 , 300 22 , 300 1 1 3 , 200 

Subtotal ($ 7,474,823) ($ 5,280,500) ($ 8,280,500) ($ 24,464,300) 

Total $186,375,856 $184,341,629 $196,575,469 $240,596,257 



Amendment of Statutes Re Nonreappointment of Professional Ernployees 



The Board of Trustees at its September 20 meeting 
gave provisional approval to an amendment of Univer- 
sity Statutes providing for procedures for nonreappoint- 
ment of professional employees. 

This was the President's recommendation : 

For some years there has been concern on the part of the 
administration that the group of employees of the University 
generally characterized as "professional" be given adequate 
protection in situations of termination other than for due 
cause. Presently the Statutes of the University provide no 
such protection. These employees comprise a group for whom 
the provisions of Section 40 of the University Statutes (mainly 
relating to faculty) and the rules of the University Civil Ser- 
vice System of Illinois are inapplicable. 

In order to provide a degree of equity analogous to that 
afforded other University employees, I recommend that the 
attached addition to Section 38, "Principles Governing Em- 
ployment of Academic and Administrative Staffs," of the 
University of Illinois Statutes* be provisionally approved, with 
the stipulation that the Trustees defer final approval until the 
present action has been reported to the Senates and to 
the University Senates Conference — and because of the sub- 
ject matter of this recommendation, to the professional ad- 



* In order to provide continuity of subject matter, it is proposed 
that the new subsection be designated 38 (e) and that the ex- 
isting subsection 38 (e) be redesignated 38 (f). 



visory committee (or similar body) on each campus for their 
information and advice. 

Proposed Section 38 (el, University of Illinois Statutes 

Section 38 (e) In the non-reappointment of a full-time 
employee for \vhom procedures imder Section 40 of these 
Statutes, or under the rules of the University Civil Service 
System of Illinois, are not applicable: written notice of non- 
reappointment shall be given not later than March 1 preceding 
the end of the appointment year. The "appointment year" 
in all cases shall be construed to begin as of September 1 and 
to end on August 3 1 , requiring either nine-months or t\\elve- 
months sers'ice. 

If such notice is given later than March 1 in an appoint- 
ment year, it shall be accompanied by an offer from the Board 
of Trustees of a terminal contract for an additional one-half 
of the next appointment year. 

Notice of non-reappointment is not required for employees 
in the above categories whose current appointments are with- 
out salary or are conditional upon receipt of non-appropriated 
funds, e.g., grant or contract fimds. 

Excepted from the above provisions are the following ad- 
ministrative officers: the President of the University; the chan- 
cellors and vice-chancellors; the officers of the Board of 
Trustees who are University employees, and those others who 
are designated by the President as "general officers" of the 
University; the deans, directors, heads and chairmen of aca- 
demic imits. 



Area Health Edn cation Center Contract for Medical Center 

At its October 18 meeting, the Board of Trustees ap- The contract totals $9,724,026 payable over a fi\e-year 

proved acceptance of a $9,724,026 contract from the period and distributed as follows : 

United States Department of Health, Education, and Indirect 

Welfare to the Medical Center for the de\'elopment of . Overhead 

area health education centers. The award now is subject "^^'' ecovcry 

to further action bv the Illinois Board of Higher First year $ 789,664 $158,627 

Education ' Second year 1,014,684 204,831 

„,. ■ , , , J . Third year 2,096,109 422,631 

This vvas the text of the agenda Item: Fourth year 2,096,109 422,631 

The University of Illinois, through its College of Medi- Fifth year 2,096,109 422,631 

cine, has been awarded a contract by the Bureau of Health 

Manpower Education, National Institutes of Health, Depart- Each of the annual amounts shown above, other than for the 

ment of Health, Education, and Welfare for the development first year, are subject to the availability of funds from the 

of "area health education centers" in selected areas in Illinois. National Institutes of Health. 



The concept of the '"area health education center" was 
described and recommended by the Caniegie Commission on 
Higher Education in a special report entitled Higher Educa- 
tion and the Xation's Health (October 1970). The concept 
M-as incorporated into federal legislation aiad approved through 
enactment of the "Comprehensive Health Manpower Training 
Act of 1971." 

A major objective to be achieved under the contract is 
the gradual evolution and growth of the system of education 
for a broad spectrum of health professions and occupations in 
the regions of Illinois associated with the University's develop- 
ing medical schools. The system of education would build on 
existing resources, talents, and programs and l)c developed 
in collaboration with the clinical facilities and educational 



institutions in the regions. It will provide education for the 
health manpower required to meet regional need,s, particu- 
larly in underserved areas. 

The specific sites for "area health education centers" are 
Peoria (in conjunction with the Peoria School of Medicine), 
Rockford (in conjunction with the Rockford School of Medi- 
cine), Urbana-Champaigii (in conjunction with the School of 
Basic Medical Sciences), and in the Chicago metropolitan 
area (in conjunction with a group of six hospitals aflTiliatcd 
with the College of Medicine). 

Following the organizational period, the types of health 
education programs to be developed under the contract are 
those of several of the allied health professions, undergraduate 
nursing, graduate nursing, and family practice. 



General University and Cant pus Achninistrative Appoint7mnts 



The Board of Trustees this fall has appro\-cd three 
major appointments of General University and campus 
administrative personnel. At its Septeinber meeting. Dr. 
Arnold B. Grobman was named Vice Chancellor for Aca- 
demic Affairs at Chicago Circle Campus, beginning Jan- 
uary- 1, 1973. He also will have the title of Professor of 
Biological Sciences. 

Dr. Grobman presently is Dean of Rutgers College of 
the State University of New Jersey (Rutgers University). 
A native of Newark. New Jersey, he has a Bachelor of 
Science from the University of Michigan and a Master 
of Science and Doctor of Philosoph\- in zoology from the 
University of Rochester. He also has been on the faculties 
of Florida State Uni\ersity and the University of 
Colorado. 

At the October meeting, the Trustees approved the 
appointment of Hugh M. Satterlee as Dean of Students 
and \'ice Chancellor for Campus Affairs at the Urbana- 



Champaign Cainpus, effective November 1. He has been 
dean since April 1, 1970, and acting vice chancellor since 
February 1, 1972. Born in Coffeen, Dean Satterlee is a 
graduate of Blackburn College and Southern Illinois Uni- 
versity. Before joining the University of Illinois staff as 
Director of Student Financial Aids at Urbana in 1968, he 
was with the National Science Foundation and the 
United States Office of Education in Washington, D.C. 

Another October appointinent was that of Donald S. 
Rubenstein as University Deputy Director of Nonaca- 
demic Personnel, beginning February 1, 1973, and Uni- 
versity Director of Nonacademic Personnel, effective 
April 1, 1973. He currently is Deputy Director of Civilian 
Personnel of the United States Army in Washington, D.C. 
A native of Baltimore, Mr. Rubenstein is a graduate of 
the University of Richmond and has done graduate work 
at Johns Hopkins University. He has served with the 
Army since 1940, both in military and civilian capacities. 



J. G. Randall Distinguished Professorship in History Established at Urbana 



"The J. G. Randall Distinguished Professorship in 
History" has been established at the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus under the will of the late Ruth Painter Randall 
and with the approval of the Board of Trustees at its 
October meeting. Provisions for the bequest and guide- 
lines for the professorship were included in the presenta- 
tion made to the Board : 

Under the will of the late Ruth Painter Randall, thrce- 
^ fourths of her residuary estate was to be given to the Univer- 
B Mty of Illinois Foimdation for the establishment of "The J. G. 
Randall and Ruth Painter Randall Memorial Fund." The in- 
come from the fund was to be used to supplement the funds 
^ available from the University to pay the salary of a distin- 

I guished scholar appointed to a Chair known as "The J. G. 

Randall Distinguished Professorship in History." 

Mrs. Randall, herself an historian, stipulated that the 
appointee to the Chair was to be a scholar in the field of 
American History in \vhich her husband gave distinguished 
service, "specifically including Lincoln, Civil War, Southern, 
and Constitutional history." 

In order to implement the wishes of Mrs. Randall, a 



search committee has been appointed and guidelines for the 
administration of the Chair have been developed by the Dean 
of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Those guidelines, 
as recommended by the Chancellor at the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus, are as follows: 

1. The Chair shall be known as "The J. G. Randall Distin- 
guished Professorship in History"; and it shall be offered 
to a person whose scholarly career is associated with "that 
field of American History in which my husband [Professor 
J. G. Randall] gave distinguished service, specifically in- 
cluding Lincoln, Civil War, Southern, and Constitutional 
history." 

2. The professorship will normally be awarded on a "perma- 
nent," not a rotating, basis. 

3. The professorship may not stand vacant for more than two 
consecutive academic years. 

4. The final recommendation to the Chancellor, President, 
and Board of Trustees is to be made by the Vice Chancel- 
lor for Academic Affairs on the advice of the Dean of the 
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and of the Executive 
Officer of the Department of History. A search committee 
is to be appointed by the Dean of the College, after con- 



sultation with the principal administrative officer and Ex- 
ecutive Committee of the Department of History. 

5. The terms of Mrs. Randall's will make it clear that the 
person holding the Chair must receive from University- 
funds at least the minimum salary paid to a full professor 
of history; the income from the trust is to be paid to the 
person holding the Chair. It is, however, anticipated that 
each appointee will in practice be offered a fixed salary, to 
include both anticipated income from the trust and at least 
a sum equivalent to the minimum salary established by the 
University for full professors, such sum to be paid from 
University funds. 

6. The University of Illinois Foundation will be requested to 
imderwrite from the endowment, as expenses of admin- 
istering the trust, charges related to the identification of 



holders of the Chair. These charges would include expenses 
of a "search" as well as payment of moving expenses if a 
new appointee is brought to the campus. 
7. Policies with respect to the administration of the Chair 
may be changed, within the terms of the bequest by the 
Chancellor subject to the concurrence of the President after 
consultation with the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts 
and Sciences and the executive officer of the Department 
of History. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



i 



lie 



A^l i^ 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



The President's Annual Message 

JOHN E. CORBALLY JR., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

It is difficult for me to realize that a )ear has gone by 
since I deli\ered my first amiual message to the people 
of Illinois on behalf of the Univei-sity of Illinois. It has 
been an exciting and fulfilling year. I have been particu- 
larly appreciati\e of the opportunities which ha\e been 
afTorded me to speak with or to so many of you in pei-son 
and to hear directly from you your concerns about and 
hopes for the University. I intend to continue to travel 
about this State to talk \\-ith you and to hear from you. I 
thank you for listening to a ston' of which we can all 
be proud. 

First. I want to mention some achievements of faculty 
and stafT members and of students on our three major 
campuses, in Rockford and Peoria where medical pro- 
grams are expanding, and in extension centers through- 
out Illinois. Too often, reports about universities con- 
centrate upon financial questions or upon spectacular 
but minor problems. It is easy to forget that the most 
exciting asjjects of university life are the slow and 
steady educational triumphs of staff and faculty and 
students working together. Such triumphs are both real 
and significant, but rarely are able to crowd more im- 
mediately newsworth} items from the newspaper pages 
or from the tele\-ision screens. 

Let us first remind ourselves of the impact of the 
University^ of Illinois. During this current academic year 
57.536 students are enrolled on our three campuses — an 
increase of nearly 5 p>er cent over last year. While size 
has no necessary- relationship to quality, it is important 
to note that the widely publicized disenchantment with 
higher education does not appear to apply to those who 
desire to attend the University of Illinois. In spite of 
constant application of rigorous admission standards, en- 
rollment in the University over the past ten years has 
increased by a total of 86 per cent. This year's freshman 
class is a superior group in terms of all commonly used 
admissions criteria. 

TTie Division of University Extension ser\es thousands 
of indi\nduals who are students in ever\- sense of that 
word except that they are not regularly enrolled on a 






campus and in most cases are not degree candidates. 
During 1971-72, nearly 600 off-campus classes were con- 
ducted by faculty members in all parts of Illinois. Nearly 
15,000 individuals participated in such courses. Short 
courses and conferences involved nearly 40,000, while 
about 3,000 availed themselves of correspondence courses. 
Special progi-ams within the Division include the highly 
regarded Police Training Institute which enrolled over 
3,500 law enforcement officers in courses ranging from 
police-community relations through techniques of crimi- 
nal investigation. Also under direction of the Division 
are the Firemanship Training Program which includes 
the oldest annual Fire College in the nation and an out- 
standing program in Civil Defense Training which pre- 
pares public officials to deal with disasters. All of these 
programs are in addition to well-known offerings of the 
Cooperative Extension Division of the College of Agri- 
culture at Urbana-Champaign which reach into every 
community in Illinois. An audience head count made 
through the State Extension Management Infonnation 
System (SEMIS) shows that 3.5 million adults and youth 
participated in Extension programs during 1972. 

These examples of extension programs represent only 
a sample of the outreach activities of the University of Il- 
linois. They do not include literally hundreds of such 
activities sponsored by colleges and departments of the 
University as regular components of teaching, research, 
and service missions. 

Other public and private universities, colleges, and 
community colleges in Illinois provide similar, but less 
extensive, programs. These regular, ongoing programs of 
the system of higher education in Illinois provide an 
impressive example of what some describe as "a univer- 
sity without walls." There is some discussion of the need 
for a new stioicture in Illinois to "bring liigher education 
to the people." While there may be gaps in and undoubt- 
edly are needs not met by existing college and university 
outreach programs, it seems clear to us at the University 
of Illinois that new structures such as a separate univer- 
sity for extension programs would only compound the 



problem. To be specific, I applaud the motivation of 
those who recommend creation of a new Lincoln State 
University; however, the achievement of their goals does 
not require new structures, new administrative mech- 
anisms and costs, or new institutions. We have been 
committed to public service and to extension education 
for over one hundred years. We and our sister institutions 
in Illinois can and will meet new needs with greater 
quality, efficiency, and timeliness than could any proposed 
new structure. 

Moving back to the campuses, we note that of special 
interest to many in Illinois is the progress being made in 
expanding our medical education program which is based 
on the Medical Center Campus in Chicago. In prepara- 
tion for budget requests for fiscal year 1974, the Univer- 
sity Office of Planning and Resource Allocation and the 
administration of the Medical Center Campus have devel- 
oped a revised and detailed schedule of enrollment tar- 
gets for the expansion program through 1982. Whereas 
in the past the enrollment targets on a year-to-year basis 
were less clear than were the final goals, we now have 
a detailed year-by-year breakdown which will lead to 
the goals for 1982. This breakdown facilitates financial 
planning, makes clear the need for facilities and the 
specific times when facilities must be available, and as- 
sists in planning for staffing in the years ahead. The 1974 
budget recommendations of the Uni\ersity and of the 
Board of Higher Education include recognition of this 
new enrollment schedule. This schedule represents one 
of the first accomplishments of the efTort through the new 
Office of University Planning and Resource Allocation 
to establish long-range educational plans and long-range 
detailed financing plans in support of program needs. 
While it is clear that all State agencies must depend 
upon annual appropriations, our hope is that as the 
University develops sound, realistic and detailed long- 
range plans, successive General Assemblies will support 
the annual requirements of such plans. Effective manage- 
ment of the educational enterprise depends upon the 
ability to plan and to act upon plans. Most educational 
programs can succeed only if their support is regular and 
continuous. Both we and you — the taxpayers — can 
gain educational and economic efficiency as our legisla- 
tors support long-range plans rather than annual, "start- 
from-scratch" budgeting methods. 

I do want to provide a somewhat detailed report of 
the first year of the University of Illinois medical educa- 
tion program at Rockford. 

The Rockford School of Medicine opened to its fii-st 
class in September, the culmination of nearly a decade of 
planning. All twenty students in the initial class have 
earned bachelor's degi-ees and completed a year of basic 
medical science. Following the three-year program at 
Rockford, they will receive M.D. degrees and continue 
internship or residency training before entering practice. 
Clinical facilities in Rockford Memorial, Swedish-Ameri- 
can, and St. Anthony's Hospitals and the Singer Zone 
Center are being utilized in the teaching program. 

While they are learning, students under professional 



supervision are an integral part of the health care delivery 
team in hospitals, medical offices, and homes. Students 
also assist in the provision of care for patients in rural 
areas that have had difficulty attracting physicians. 

The Kirkland Community Health Center opened in 
September. The initial professional staff consists of two 
physicians, a nurse, and a technician. Supporting services 
are provided by some 20-25 physicians forming an aca- 
demic group practice. The Kirkland Community Health 
Center is the first of fifteen health care facilities the 
Rockford school anticipates developing in northern Illi- 
nois. A Belvidere Community Health Center began ser- 
vices in January. 

Besides health care, the Rockford School of Medicine 
will serve the community through its center for com- 
munity health research and foster greater cooperation 
among the four Rockford health care institutions. It will 
also assist local physicians in remaining aware of new 
methods of patient care. 

Community physicians have been enthusiastic sup- 
porters of the new school. Of the 275 practicing physi- 
cians in the Rockford area, 230 are working in a teach- 
ing, curriculum development, or other capacity. 

Another program of the Medical Center of special 
interest is supported by the Bureau of Health Manpower 
Education, National Institutes of Health, Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare. This program will en- 
courage development of area health education centers 
in selected areas in Illinois. 

The contract totals $9,724,026 payable over a five- 
year period. It will enable the school to train physicians, 
nurses, and other health professionals in four regions of 
the State. The school will use existing facilities in com- 
munity colleges, clinics, and hospitals. Peoria, Rockford, 
Urbana-Champaign, the Medical Center Campus in Chi- 
cago, and a consortium of four inner city hospitals in Chi- 
cago will be involved in the program along with area 
community colleges. 

The University of Illinois was one of ten schools in 
the United States to recieve such a grant. Its share was 
one of the largest because regional extension of medical 
education has already been established. 

Our newest major campus, Chicago Circle, continues 
to e.xhibit astonishing maturity for a still-developing com- 
prehensive campus. Unless one visits this commuter cam- 
pus enrolling about 20,000 students, it is difficult to 
imagine the intellectual vitality which exists there. The 
seeming confusion as thousands of young people drive, 
walk, bus, or train to the campus masks a spirit of edu- 
cational motivation on the part of students, staff, and 
faculty which is not present on many campuses today. 
Time permits recitation of only a few programs at the 
Circle Campus. 

One specialized concentration in the Jane Addams 
Graduate School of Social Work is social treatment, in- 
cluding a range of individual, small group, family, and 
other therapeutic interventions. 

The Social Work-Police Manpower Demonstration 
and Research Project is an example. Professional social 



workere and graduate students arc placed in police 
stations to work on ju\cnile and ftiniil)- problems, pro\ide 
crisis intenention, and ser\e in selected adult situations. 
The social work effort is aimed at effective inter\ention 
at the earliest point of contact with the criminal justice 
SNStem. The students in\ol\ed in this program attend 

^ classes two davs a week and ^^•ork three days in the field 

" in Niles and in ^Vheaton. A major goal of this unique 
progi-am, the first of its kind in the nation, is to develop 
strong cooperative relationships between social work 

^ professionals and law enforcement agencies and 

W individuals. 

For the Christian Action Ministry, which owns a site 
on the Near West Side, students of the College of Archi- 
tecture and Art in the summer of 1972 prepared program 
and design studies to provide a facility for full-time child 
care, adult day care, nursing services, a medical clinic, a 
participating arts center, and a center for career de\elop- 
ment in collaboration with several agencies. 

How do you build a playground that is creative, edu- 
cational, interesting to different children, safe and in- 
e.\pensi\e? 

This problem is one that freshman architecture stu- 
dents at Chicago Circle worked on as a course project 
beginning in September of 1971 and running through 
mid-summer of 1972. 

R. Thomas Jaeger, Associate Professor of Architec- 
UuT, said his twenty-five students voted to design and 
constiTict a playfield for Christopher House, a multi-ser- 
\ice agency, following a suggestion by a teacher in the 
agency's Day Care Program. 

In the first five weeks of the project, students planned 
for varied climbing structures for physical development; 
mazes allowing a child to make a decision and thus exer- 
cise his mind in a "fun" way; small playhouses and 
wooden box structures to give him privacy and to let him 
fantasize alone; and conventional equipment such as 
sandboxes, slides, and different kinds of swings. 

The Circle College of Education has received a $50,- 
000 grant from the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare to assist the College in expanding its pro- 
gram in special education. 

A child study-diagnostic and research unit, when de- 
velof)ed, will have facilities in the College of Education 
for an in-depth study of handicapped children for the 
purpose of research and training, as well as assisting 
metrofxjlitan Chicago's school systems in providing more 

^ efficient and effective special education programs. 

B The problem of crime on the CTA is among several 

new study areas added to mass transportation research 
at Chicago Circle as a result of a $81,318 supplemen- 

^ tarv grant from the Urban Mass Transportation 

P .administration. 

The three-year federal grant is added to an original 
$150,000 awarded in 1970 for faculty-student study of 
mass transportation. 

In addition to the problem of CTA crime, organized 
labor's considerations in the planning and generation of 
urban mass transit systems are being investigated. Another 



problem under study is how best to solve the transporta- 
tion problems of fast-growing unincorporated areas near 
major cities. 

0\erall project objectives are encouragement of addi- 
tional mass transportation research and the training of 
students for jobs in the transportation field. 

Our Urbana-Champaign Campus continues to dem- 
onstrate its historic leadership in higher education. While 
a highlight of this year must be the receipt by Professor 
John Bardeen of his second Nobel Prize in Phvsics, each 
month sees additions to the list of Urbana-Champaign 
faculty members and students who ha\e received national 
and international recognition for their work. Eleven fac- 
ulty members or alumni of the University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign have received Nobel Prizes; thirteen 
have received Pulitzer Prizes. But other, less heralded 
activities at Urbana-Champaign are also worthy of 
mention. Examples are some current activities conducted 
under auspices of the College of Education at Urbana- 
Champaign. 

Professors Keith Scott and Jana Lucas (Educational 
Psychology) are investigating the types of errors made 
by mentally retarded children in reading isolated words. 
These results will be comjaared with the types of errors 
made by normal elementary school children. From this 
research, beginning reading materials for the mildly re- 
tarded can be developed and implemented on the 
PLATO IV system. The area of reading is of particular 
interest because 1) it is a basic academic skill and 2) be- 
cause the PLATO IV system, with random access audio 
capabilities, can deliver "high quality programming to the 
mildly retarded on an individual basis." 

Professor Daniel Delaney is involved in several re- 
search and service projects in the Kankakee area includ- 
ing a study of "dropout prevention" strategies. The study 
focuses on students determined by their teachers to be 
potential dropouts. 

Professor Larry Goulet is initiating a culture-based 
education program at Crane High School in Chicago. 
Culture-based education is a primary focus of several ed- 
ucational psychology faculty members. 

Associate Professor Thomas Long is studying ways 
to train professors to be teachers by focusing on teacher 
training of teaching assistants. 

Or, here are two examples from the School of Chemi- 
cal Sciences. In both cases the work cited involved col- 
laboration between a faculty member and his graduate 
thesis students. 

1. Professor John Wood in the Biochemistry Depart- 
ment received the first Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturers Association Medal for Outstanding 
Achievement in Environmental Chemistiy. This was 
awarded in recognition of the work that he and his stu- 
dents have done on the mechanism by which mercury 
waste can contaminate the food chain. 

2. Professor Willis Flygare and students in the Chem- 
istry Department discovered evidence of the existence of 
a nitrogen containing molecule, fonnamide, in interstellar 



space b)- observing its microwa\e spectrum. This has im- 
plications about the existence of chemical molecules that 
might be considered life precursors. 

Or, consider a unique, student-directed program. 
This year the students of Volunteer Illini Projects are 
working with the Go\emor's Task Force on Blood to 
help Illinois convert to all-volunteer blood for transfusions 
by July 1, 1973, when blood from paid donors will no 
longer be used. 

The students have worked out a unique arrangement 
with the Peoria Regional Blood Program of the American 
Red Cross and the recently established Champaign 
County Blood Bank. Recognizing that there is a continu- 
ous need for blood, and that more donors will gi\e if 
there are more opportimities to gi\'e, the students are 
holding monthly three-day blood drives. The blood is 
collected both by the Red Cross, for regional use, and by 
the local blood bank, for local needs. Both agencies also 
ship blood elsewhere in Illinois, to help with shortages. 

The result is that donations are running several hun- 
dred per cent higher than in previous years. Better than 
that, they are coming at a pace better suited to the need 
for blood. 

The students hope that their program of monthly 
drives, bringing blood both to local and to regional banks, 
will ser\e as a model for campus in\olvement in an all- 
\olunteer blood program for the State. 

Many of these programs and others on our three cam- 
puses are made possible in part by federal funds and 
grants and contracts from private sources. Usuallv in 
keen competition with universities throughout the nation, 
the University of Illinois is one of the top institutions in 
total of federal support and a leader among state uni\er- 
sities in grants and contracts from private organizations. 
The impact of this "revenue sharing," made possible be- 
cause of the University's strength, has a major impact 
ujx)n the educational and economic progress of the State 
of Illinois. This fact is not often fully realized. 

An example is a project labeled "an interdisciplinan- 
study of environmental pollution by lead and other 
metals." For an 18-month period ending April 30, the 
University and its scientists have received $960,000 from 
the National Science Foundation, and an additional $1 
million has been requested for continuation of the study 
of this important human problem. 

Let's retrace, for a moment, how such grants come 
into being and what effects they have upon society. Four 
years ago a group of faculty members, ranging from en- 
gineers to zoologists, began discussion of lead pollution, 
lack of kno\vledge about its effects, and what ought to be 
done to help fieople. 

Lead is a poisonous element without any kno\\'n bene- 
ficial biological function. National concern is reflected in 
regulations about leaded gasoline. There has been con- 
troversy over the importance of automoti\e lead as a 
health hazard, but introduction of nearly three pounds 
per capita per \ear of the poisonous metal affecting soils, 
plants, animals, water can no longer be ignored. 

Through discussions the faculty group worked up 



twenty-three projects in departments in agriculture, en- 
gineering, life sciences, social sciences, and physical 
sciences. 

First came a planning grant from NSF in the amount 
of $259,000. This produced evidence that no compre- 
hensive systems approach had been made to the distribu- 
tion and environmental effects of lead; no study of the 
ecosystem, including both rural and urban components, 
had been made to describe the distribution of lead and 
what areas of concern were related to this distribution; 
no factual basis existed on which to predict the future. 

Faculty members developed an interdisciplinary ap- 
proach to focus University potentials on the total prob- 
lem. Instead of individual activities in specific fields, 
general goals were developed in which teams of scientists 
could attack phases of the overall problem through 
laborator\' and field studies. 

The Sanitar%' Engineering Laboratoi-y at Urbana- 
Champaign became the Environmental Research Labora- 
tory-. Remodeling and new equipment funds came pri- 
marily from overhead on outside-funded research — 
money from existing research pumping the lifeblood into 
a newly developing area not yet on its own. 

Besides scientists and facilities, the University also 
could make available its resources of Libran', other 
laboratories on the campus, and outstanding computer 
installations and experts to operate them. Three State 
Sun.eys, located on this campus, provided expertise in 
the areas of Geolog)-, Natural Histor)', and Water. 

When the plan was ready, application for funding 
was made to the National Science Foundation and the 
grant of $960,000 was made. What specifically has this 
"revenue sharing" meant? Three professional scientists 
have been employed full time, another half time, and 
se\en during a summer. Research experience has been 
provided for ten post-doctoral research associates, forty- 
seven graduate assistants \\orking on advanced degrees, 
and twenty-one undergraduate students. Thirty-five fac- 
ulty members ^vere in\olved, giving their service as part 
of their regular activity. Results in the form of reports, 
graduate theses, and other informational sources have 
begun the flow of pertinent findings to the world. Fur- 
ther, do not overlook the enricliment of knowledge made 
possible by training of graduates who have developed ex- 
pertise in a field not heretofore investigated in depth. 

As a partial outgrowth has come the University's new 
Institute for Environmental Studies whose public service 
acti\ities include assistance to government and private 
organizations. And the grant, through a portion set aside 
from o\erhead pa)Tnents to the University, in turn will 
provide support for other new research either unborn or 
struggling to life. 

No\v, to understand the totality of the Uni\ersit)'s 
"revenue sharing" multiply all of the income and bene- 
ficial results of this one instance by fifty times. You then 
begin to comprehend how this cycle of funding, of activ- 
ity, and of impact upon the progress and well-being of 
the State of Illinois are made possible because of your 
University's outstanding faculty, its facilities, resources 



and know-how, and its traditional tledication to teaching, 
research, and public sen ice. 

These examples and the countless others that could be 

. given are the ingredients which make up your University 
of Illinois. We are programs and people; we share with 
the Man of La Mancha the quest for "Impossible 

! Dreams" ; and more often than not higher education has 
succeeded in con\erting such dreams into the possible. 
Because we deal in futures, the measurement and evalua- 
tion of our success or failure is both difficult and deferred. 
And now we face both the problems and the possibilities 
of stability. The last t^venty-five years in higher education 
have been \ears of unprecedented growth in students, in 
staff, in facilities. Our current reality is that growth in 
numbers will be slowed. 

The people of the University of Illinois are hard at 
work to face this reality of a new world. We can and will 
substitute growth in quality and gi-owth in educational 
effectiveness for growth in numbers. We are a major asset 
of the people of Illinois and we must depend upon the 
continuing support of the people if we are to continue the 
appreciation of diat asset which characterizes our history. 
The dollars invested by you, the taxpayers, in your Uni- 
versity are dollars \vhich have earned handsome returns 
for our State. We shall ask you to continue that invest- 
ment program so that we can continue to ser\'e you as 
you have come to expect us to do. Unlike many other tax 
e.xpenditures, your dollars for us live on in programs and 
in people. As we have contributed ^v•ith your help to the 



solution of problems in agriculture, in engineering, in 
business management, in health, and in many other fields, 
so shall we contribute to the solution of those social prob- 
lems which loom so large before us today. We, with you, 
have faith in the power of the intellect and we, with you, 
look toward the futiue with confidence and with en- 
thusiasm. I am proud to work on your behalf as President 
of the University of Illinois; we can all be proud of the 
men and women, young and old, who continue to pro\ide 
you with one of the great programs of higher education 
in the world. 



The President's Annual Message was released Feb- 
ruary 25 and carried by twenty-eight television stations 
in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri and by sixty-two radio 
outlets, including forty-seven in Illinois and fifteen 
throughout the nation. 



Erratum 

An error in the Illinois Board of Higher Education 
E.xecutive Director's Report No. 113, which was 
presented in part in Faculty Letter No. 234, Febiii- 
axy 21, 1973, appeared on page 6 in the Faculty 
Letter. In the second line of Table 8 "(in thousands 
of dollars)" should read "(in millions of dollars)." 



Application for Retirement 

It is important that members of the faculty who con- 
template retirement file an application with the State 
Universities Retirement System. Failure to do so before 
the date the annuity is to become effective can result, 
and in some instances has resulted, in delay in payment 
and even loss of benefits. 

Since the retirement system has no way of knowing 
when faculty members plan to retire, especially those who 



retire before mandatory age, is behooves the faculty 
member to notify the retirement office sometime before 
date of retirement. Write the State Universities Retire- 
ment System, 50 Gerty Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



i 



i 



JiQuXJcL. 



Gift and Exchan: 
220a Library 
3 copl«3) 



'2 Division 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 236, April 27, 1973 
THE LIBRARY OF THE 



Impact of Proposed Federal Budget on the University of Illinois\\}W 4 1973 



The folloiving material describes the impact upon the 
University of Illinois of the federal budget for Fiscal 
Year 1974 as proposed by President Nixon. Compiled by 
the Office of the Vice President for Governmental Rela- 
tions and Public Service, the report is based on indepth 
reviews by the campuses. 

This statement has been distributed to the Illinois 
Congressional delegation, the Governor, the Illinois Di- 
rector of the Bureau of the Budget, State legislative 
leaders and chairmen of education and appropriations 
committees, legislative staff members, and national edu- 
cational associations. Federal budgetary impact also was 
the topic of discussion at President Corbally's annual 
Congressional breakfast meeting held earlier this month 
in Washington, D.C. 

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

1. The federal budget impact represents a total loss of ap- 
proximately $9,000,000 to the University of Illinois for 
1973-74. (See table following.) 

2. The loss in funds for operating purposes alone (excluding 
construction of facilities) w\l exceed $5,300,000. 

3. In view of the presumed federal priority for health-related 
education, it is surprising that the heaviest operating impact 
will be felt at the Medical Center — a loss of $2,800,000. 

4. The smallest dollar impact will be felt at the Chicago 
Circle Campus, which, as a developing institution, has a 
relatively low federal-support base at present. 

5. r.cdictabUity and fii::;:bili:y for budget plan.ning .".re pv.r 
in jeopardy by particularly heavy cuts in unrestricted, 
formula-based fimds for institutional support, as dis- 
tinguished from student support. 

6. Graduate and professional education suffers severely, not 
only in student assistance, but in all the related supportive 
serv'ices, which affect both faculty and programs. Injury is 
also done to the recruitment of minority students in the 
health professions. 

7. AVTiile the federal budget puts heav\' funding emphasis on 
general undergraduate student aid, or "etjual educational 
opportunity," the net effect cannot now be deduced. The 
intended maximum impact, with an estimated potential 
half-million-doUar gain to the University of Illinois, seems 
impossible of realization for student use in 1973-74, thus 
leaving doubt also about existing programs as a source of 
assistance. The short-run prospect is worse rather than 
better. 



) Tu 1 J . J . - U,,ivLK,jlTY OF.JLLINOl? 

i. I he budget declares war on cat'<>gci|i)^^4gid(ie«aMyic>iqbthc 

higher education portion adds some new categories while 
taking away some old ones. The net effect will derive from 
the balance between the mere possibility of some gains and 
llic clear ccilair.ty of many losses. Whatc.^r liie result 
for the University as an institution, the losses to particular 
programs will be beyond any possible federal recovery be- 
cause the new funds, like the old ones complained about, 
are restricted as to purpose. 

I. GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 
General Impact 

1. As a prime example of eliminating categorical grants 
and also programs which have allegedly "done the job," 
the fifteen-year-old, defense-related graduate fellow- 
ships under NDEA, Titles IV and VI, are eliminated 
for advanced language and area studies and phased out 
for preparing college teachers, now regarded as in over- 
supply. 

2. Training grants are dealt a heavy blow: that is, those 
grants which have long sustained advanced study toward 
national manpower goals in critical areas and have 
been used for graduate-student aid, related faculty 
salaries, and supportive services. They are terminated 
because of an "adequate supply of manpower" — "a 
general policy to eliminate most subsidies for specialized 
training in selected professional disciplines" because 
"doctoral level scientists (can) . . . bear the cost of their 
training themselves." 

3. The NSF graduate trainceships will be cut to zero from 
M.ROO^nOO currently. 

4. As a reversal of recent trends, these trainceships are 
being phased out, with no new starts : 

Training of Teacher Trainers, Education Professions 

Development Act 
National Institutes of Health 
National Institutes of Mental Health 

5. A variety of nursing-training programs, some under- 
graduate, are similarly eliminated or reduced. 

6. Disciplines particularly hard hit are psychology, social 
work, pharmacy, nursing, and public health. 

7. On the upward side, the National Science Foundation 
will support 500 new fcllo\s'ships, as distinguished from 
trainceships. 

8. The Health Professions Scholarship Program is cut by 
a third ($5,000,000 cut from $15,000,000) as the fust 
step in a phase-out operation; the related loan level 
remains the .same despite increased enrollment. 



9. To provide some offsetting relief in the health sciences, 
a National Health Service Scholarship Program is pro- 
posed ($23,000,000) for students who pledge to serve 
in the National Health Service Corps or commissioned 
corps of the Public Health Service. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. Graduate education is hard hit, with losses both in 
dollars and in presumed-established principles, the di- 
rect financial loss running to $1,603,021 in federal fel- 
lowships and traineeships. 

2. An important and valued source of graduate student 
support in the humanities and social sciences at Ur- 
bana, under NDEA auspices. Titles IV and VI, will 
drop from $326,068 to zero, compounding immediately 
the competition for alternate University student aid 
and contributing subsequently to reduced enrollment. 
(Example of impact: 35 graduate students arc now 
supported under Title VI in African, Russian, Asian, 
and Latin American fields at Urbana.) 



3. Present impoundment practice and lack of specifics 
leave doubt that all graduate fellows and trainees "in 
the pipeline" will be supported until completion of 
their objectives; if not, other University funds must be 
found or the student must choose between quitting and 
resort to further indebtedness. 

4. Traineeship cuts on the Medical Center Campus are 
computed at $484,068, on the Urbana Campus at 
$329,625, and on the Chicago Circle Campus at 
$50,300; but if, in fact, terminations come abruptly, 
there will be a 1974 loss of $1,735,602 at the Medical 
Center alone. 

5. Because some residency training stipends are supple- 
mented by certain traineeships, losses will be felt in 
the clinical areas of surgery, orthopedics, otolaryngology, 
psychiatry, and psychology. 

6. NSF aid for graduate study on the Urbana Campus is 
seriously impaired: $144,000 lost in traineeships and 
uncertainty about University of Illinois benefits from 



1974 Federal Budget Impact 

ANTICIPATED LOSSES IN FEDERAL SUPPORT* 

University of Illinois 

UICC 



UIMC 



UIUC 



TOTAL 



I. Graduate and Professional Education 

1. Fellowships 

NDEA, Title IV, college teachers 

NDEA, Title VI, language and area fellowships 

2. Traineeships 

Training of Teacher Trainers 

NSF traineeships 

Training grants 

Special nurse training (partly undergraduate) 

II. Institutional Grants 

1. Bankhead-Jones, land-grant formula 

2. School of public health support 

3. Language and area centers 

4. Capitation grants 

5. Special educational improvement grants 

6. Social and rehabilitation services 
III. Research 

1. General research support grants 

2. Regional medical program 

3. Agricultural 

4. Engineering research categories 

5. Psychological research 

IV. Public Service 

1. Cooperative Extension Ser\'ice 

2. University commimity ser\ice 

3. Bilingual education program 

4. Commimity mental health centers 

\'. Construction of Facilities 

1. Classroom Office-Student Service Building 

2. Law Building addition 

3. Speech and Hearing Clinic (interest subsidy: $480,000, 

direct grant: $330,000) 
TOTAL 
TOTAL FOR OPERATING PURPOSES ONLY 







$ 173,250 


$ 173,250 






152,818 


152,818 






84,997 


84,997 






144,000 


144,000 


$ 50,300 


$ 484,068 


329,625 


863,993 




186,953 




186,953 






268,752 


268,752 




102,000 




102,000 






185,542 


185,542 




645,200 


216,000 


861,200 




501,000 




501,000 


20,000 






20,000 




228,800 




228,800 




665,000 




665,000 






440,896 


440,896 


100,000 






100,000 


100,000 






100,000 






100,000 


100,000 






11,538 


11, .538 


100,000 






100,000 




16,500 




16,500 


1,500,000 






1,500,000 






1,300,000 


1,300,000 






810,000 


810,000 


$1,870,300 


$2,829,521 


$4,217,418 


$8,917,239 


$ 370,300 


$2,829,521 


$2,107,418 


$5,307,239 



'Exclusive of consideration of undergraduate student aid; see Part VI of discussion. 



» 



^ 



the 500 new fellov\ships, since they will l)o awarded to 
students in a national competition. 

7. The Urbana College of Education will lose $84,997 in 
the phasing-out TTT Program (Training of Teacher 
Trainers). 

8. Several specialized types of musing training grants, 
some undergraduate, \\ill add another $186,953 to the 
losses at the Medical Center. 

P. The trend in student aid for health professionals is 
downward, with heaviest impact on the most needy, 
including minority students. The Medical Center has 
what is approaching a "desperate financial aid situa- 
tion" because of added scholarship demand resulting 
from expanded enrollments in Chicago, Peoria, Rock- 
ford, and Urbana, plus the rising cost of living and of 
needed equipment. 

10. The College of Medicine ($61,000) and the College of 
Dentistry ($60,000) will have a minimum reduction of 
$121,000 in federal loan and scholarship funds for 
next year. The phasing out of the Health Professions 
Scholarship Program affects more than 200 students in 
medicine and dentistry. While current recipients will 
have continued support, funds will not be available for 
new starts or replacements in the first-year class, except 
under the postgraduate public-ser\'ice restrictions. This 
will seriously affect recruitment of minority students. 

1 1 . ^^'hile some students will seek aid from the new Na- 
tional Health Service Scholarship Program, the re- 
strictive service conditions will keep it from ameliorating 
the losses. 

II. INSTITUTIONAL AID 
General Impact 

1. The explicit policy is to eliminate or phase out general 
aid to institutions and put emphasis on student aid in- 
stead, and also to cut back where national goals are 
allegedly already attained; hence zero-budgeting is 
applied to 

a. historic land-grant aid under the Bankhead-Jones 
Act (now $1 0^,000,000 ) 

b. schools of public health and allied health fields 
(now $51,649,000) 

c. language and area centers under NDEA (now $6,- 
500,000) 

d. capitation grants (based on enrollment increases for 
health manpower development) in fields of nursing, 
pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and allied health 
fields. 

2. Special improvement grants in medicine, under the 
Health Professions Education Act, are cut 36 per cent. 

3. Special improvement grants in allied health fields are 
eliminated. 

4. Cuts are made in Social and Rehabilitation Services, 
HE\V, thus adversely affecting schools of social work. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. The negative pohcy on institutional aid will mean a 
major loss of $1,938,494 — and in that portion of fed- 
eral assistance which heretofore has been most depend- 
able for budget planning. 

2. Traditional land-grant formula funds for instruction 
will be reduced to zero (Bankhead-Jones), a loss of 
$268,752 on the Urbana Campus. 



3. The new School of Public Health, Medical Center, will 
suffer a loss of $102,000, with the federal government's 
stated expectation that state and private sources will 
make up the difference for the seventeen public health 
schools which serve the nation. The blow to this essen- 
tially "federalized" area is not greater because of the 
School's early development, but problems of alternate 
funding remain nevertheless. 

4. Long-standing federal aid, now totaling $152,818, for 
three language and area centers (Russian and Eastern 
European, Asian, and Latin American), Urbana Cam- 
pus, will be discontinued; and while this had never 
been the major source of center support, it is the 
"critical margin" which goes to library resources, travel, 
small classes in exotic languages, and flexibility beyond 
state funds. It also legitimizes the international di- 
mension for matching support from nonfederal sources. 

5. Lo.ss of capitation grants will lop off 25 per cent of the 
budget of the College of Pharmacy, Medical Center, or 
$450,000, with serious and compounded impact because 
the new and innovative programs are precisely those 
developed and sustained by this existing federal income. 

6. Other capitation-grant losses will total $195,000, in- 
cluding the College of Nursing and the College of 
Dentistry, which will be denied "bonus class" increases. 
All capitation cuts are unexpected impediments to 
plans for enrollment expansion under current federal 
priorities. 

7. The cut-back in special improvement grants means 
Medical Center losses of $411,000 in the College of 
Medicine and $90,000 in the School of Associate Medi- 
cal Sciences. 

8. Chicago Circle will suffer a $20,000 loss in faculty sup- 
port in social work — part of a two-year federal phase- 
out. 

III. RESEARCH 

General Impact * 

1. This is essentially a standstill budget for academic sci- 
ence, allowing for inflation, although the National 
Science Foundation appropriation sought is almost 
$40,000,000 below last year. A net of $58,900,000 is 
carried forward from withheld funds; hence, the budget 
claims that further shifting leaves an "effective" spend- 
ing level of $46,200,000 more than in 1973. 

2. Health research is little changed in total but quite dif- 
ferently distributed, particularly among the Health 
Institutes: cancer and heart disease funds are up but, 
for the first time, at the cost of other programs (e.g., 
every other NIH institute suffers a decrease). Also for 
the first time, general research funds for the National 
Institutes of Health show an absolute decline. Training 
of health research personnel is down. 

3. General Research Support Grants in health-related 
fields, awarded to the University by formula in rela- 
tion to total grants and contracts, are being phased out. 

4. Both the funding and the legal authority for the Re- 
gional Medical Program (currently $60,000,000) will 
come to an end in June, 1973, because the expectations 
have "not in fact been realized" in seven years of 
existence. 

5. Agricultural research suffers a major decrease of $17,- 



700,000, a 19 per cent cut for the Cooperative State 
Research Service. 

6. Funds for the National Foundation of the Arts and 
Humanities are up a record $71,486,000. 

7. The research and reform arm of the new Education 
Division of HEW, the National Institute of Education, 
will receive $43,000,000 more than in 1973; the expec- 
tations are modeled after the National Institutes of 
Health. 

8. Defense, NASA, and the Atomic Energy Commission 
budgets for research and development in universities 
have small gains and losses which essentially balance 
out. 

9. Transportation, housing, and energy research are em- 
phasized among the domestic ills to be attacked, but 
with only modest increases related to university use. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. Phasing out of General Research Support Grants in 
health means a loss of $210,800 at the Medical Center. 

2. The loss of the Regional Medical Program will total 
$665,000, but part of the loss should be ascribed to 
"service" as well as research. 

3. The University's share of the agricultural research cut 
is computed at $440,896. 

4. Cuts and phase-outs in training grants (covered else- 
where) will adversely affect research: by reducing sup- 
port of related faculty and crippling the multiplier in 
research when used as a teaching method \vith graduate 
students. 

5. The impact in most research grant categories cannot 
be predicted because of the competitive awarding of 
grants and contracts, different expiration dates, and the 
effect of a single large project as compared with many 
small ones. The impact will obviously be smallest on 
the Chicago Circle Campus, where the present low 
federal-support base reflects an early stage of develop- 
ment. 

6. From several sources, a loss of $200,000 is estimated in 
engineering and psychological research ($100,000 each) 
at the Chicago Circle Campus. 

7. Possible research gains, although problematical, are 
available through these new or expanded opportunities: 

a. humanities projects. National Endowment for the 
Humanities, particularly if related to the Bicenten- 
nial Celebration of 1976 

b. heart and cancer research 

c. sickle cell disease center aid 

d. educational initiatives awards imder the Compre- 
hensive Health Manpower Act 

e. NSF Research Applied to National Needs program 

f. National Institute of Education programs 

g. innovations imder new $15,000,000 fund administered 
by the Assistant Secretary of HEW 

h. transportation and housing research 
i. energy programs. 

IV. PUBLIC SERVICE 
General Impact 

1. While the budget justification statements look favorably 
on the practical, the applied, and the problem-oriented, 
as well as adult education, any dollar reading of the 



impact is obscured by trade-offs, re\enue sharing al- 
ternatives, and ill-defined categories. 

2. While the Cooperative Extension Service shows an in- 
crease, this is more than offset by an increase in the re- 
imbursement for penalty mail, creating a net reduction 
of $2,500,000. 

3. University community service (Title I, Higher Educa- 
tion Act), originally conceived as a general extension 4 
program to parallel that in agriculture and home eco- " 
nomics, was never fimded (last at $9,500,000) as au- 
thorized and is now eliminated because of failure to 

find a mission. M 

4. Community mental health centers are cut out (from ^ 
current $134,000,000) on the assumption of local sup- 
port instead. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. The University's share of the national reduction will 
take $100,000 from the Cooperative Extension Service. 

2. The zero for university community service means a 
$11,538 decrease from 1973; distribution, however, is 
by grant from the Board of Higher Education and has 
run as high as $80,000. The loss here is chiefly in the 
principle of federal commitment to extension of the 
non-rural type, intended as a prototype to expand 
rather than to eliminate. 

3. Cuts in the Education Professions Development Act 
(covered elsewhere) will remove the $100,000 bilingual 
education program at the Chicago Circle Campus. 

4. The College of Medicine, Medical Center, will suffer 
a $16,500 decrease in support for community mental 
health centers. 



V. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES 
General Impact 

1. Amid references to "overbuilding," direct grants for 
academic facilities are zero-budgeted. 

2. There will be no new loans for interest subsidies for 
academic facilities. The $31,425,000 in the budget is to 
serve past loans from the private market. 

3. Hill-Burton hospital construction funds are eliminated. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. There will be no hope of getting the $330,000 direct 
grant sought for the Speech and Hearing Clinic, Ur- 
bana Campus, with application pending. 

2. The negative will also apply to more than $3,280,000 of 
potential grants (computed at the rate governing the 
last grant) under pending applications for interest 
subsidies on almost $11,000,000 in three projects: 
Classroom Office-Student Service Building, fl 

Chicago Circle $5,000,000 

Law Building Addition, Urbana $4,342,000 

Speech and Hearing Clinic, Urbana $1,607,760 

3. While the Hill-Burton elimination has no effect in i 
1974, that expected source is gone for direct federal " 
matching aid in any future hospital construction. 



Part VI of this report, dealing with the impact on stu- 
dent aid, will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Fac- 
ulty Letter. 




Gift and Exchan^ 
220a Library 
3 copies) 



Division 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Pnsidcufs Statnmnt to IBHE on FY 1974 Operating Budgets 
for Higher Education 

JOHN E. CORBALLV JR., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 237, May 4, 1973 
THE LIBRARY OF THE 

J UN 4 1973 



On May 1, 1973, the Illinois Board of Higher Educa- 
tion undertook to admse the Governor concerning the 
way in which the sums for higher education proposed in 
his budget message for Fiscal Year 1974 should be allo- 
cated among institutions and programs. This advice 
included no allocations for staff or faculty salary increases 
or for funds to meet price increases caused by continuing 
inflation. My statement in opposition to this advice 
follows. 

The IBHE took two actions on May 1 related to 
FY 1974 budgets. The Board unanimously reaffirmed its 
support of its earlier budget recommendations adopted 
in December, 1972, and February, 1973. But the Board 
also unanimously approved the advice mentioned above 
concerning the allocation of the Governor's proposed 
amount for higher education. The Board did add a phrase 
to thii advice to express the view of the Board that such 
an allocation would have "concomitant adverse effects" 
upon higher education in Illinois. This amendment was 
added by a 9-4 vote. 

We shall continue to press our case for our needs and 
for our priorities with the General Assembly and with 
Governor Walker and his staff. 

Members of the Board of Higher Education : 

I rise to speak particularly to the suggestions which 
you are being asked to endorse which relate to the allo- 
cation of funds suggested by Governor Walker to repre- 
sent the new money available for the operating budgets 
for higher education for Fiscal Year 1974. While I am 
troubled by Governor Walker's suggestions for both 
of)erating and capital funds, the crucial area in which 
we must now stand and be counted is in the area of 
operating funds. 

In 1970-71, the University of Illinois received an ap- 
propriation from general revenue funds in the amount 
of $168,157,756. The recommendation before you today 
suggests that for 1973-74 the University of Illinois should 
receive $167,387,969 in general revenue funds. That 
recommendation envisions a decrease in general revenue 



funds for the University since 1970-71 of approximately 
$770,000. 

The following events have occurred since 1970-71 : 

1. We have faced an annual rate of cost increases of 
approximately 5 per cent per year. 

2. Our enrollment has increased by over 5 per cent. 

3. We have begun the ex-pansion of programs in 
medical education and the health services. 

4. We have opened and are operating new buildings 
on our three campuses. 

5. We have conformed to and must continue to meet 
new requirements of both Environmental Protec- 
tion Agency and Occupational Safety and Health 
Act at real cost to the University. 

6. We have maintained and in many cases have im- 
proved the quality of our programs and our com- 
mitment to increase enrollment from minority and 
disadvantaged groups. 

The recommendations now before )0u for revising the 
FY 1974 budgets as previously adopted by this Board 
are preposterous. They are so at odds with the real and 
pressing problems of higher education as to be actually 
counterproductive. Our three most serious problems are: 

1 . Personnel salaries. There is no major state in the 
country which does not anticipate providing a needed 
increase in compensation for public university staff 
and faculty members. We are lagging behind the coun- 
try in faculty salaries and behind the community in 
nonacademic rates. 

Yet the Board Staff recommends no salary increase! 

2. Price increase. Surely no one is unaware of the most 
pressing problems in the economy today. The price of 
fuel alone will cost several millions of dollars more 
ne.xt year for higher education. 

Yet the Board Staff recommends no increase in operating 
funds. 

3. Loss of Federal Funds. The anticipated reduction in 
the support of instructional programs by the Federal 



Government will seriously impair programs of vital 

interest to the State. 
Yet the Board Staff recommends no offset and appears 
not even to recognize the problem. 

This apparent lack of awareness of the needs of 
higher education is actually compounded by the absurdity 
of the recommendation for the allocation of c\en a re- 
duced amount of resources. What the Board Staff recom- 
mends is: 

A. A $9.8 million dollar expansion of new and expensive 
programs. 

B. An increase in ISSC funds of $2.9 million beyond the 
estimated FY 1973 expenditure when in fact ISSC 
will likely have a surplus of $2 million at the end of 
FY 1973. 

C. An increase of $2.5 million in support of private 
higher education through raising the limit of ISSC 
to $1,300. 

D. An expansion in enrollment in the junior colleges 
costing $6.1 million. 

The Board Staff might respond by claiming that we 
can meet all of the other problems through reallocation 
— that mysterious asterisk on the sheet before you. It 
is clear that we have met our needs over the past three 
years through massive reallocations and that route is 
no longer available to us. To imply that reallocation is a 
solution is to imply what is simply not true. 

I do not believe that the Board of Higher Education 
can in good conscience approve this proposal. I do not 
believe these allocations speak to the needs of higher edu- 
cation in general and most assuredly do not speak to the 
needs of the University of Illinois. They violate the pri- 
orities of the Board of Trustees of the University and also 
the previous priorities of this Board in adopting Executive 
Director's Reports 112 and 113. I believe this proposition 
is so against the best interests of the State, the people, 
and higher education that it should be categorically re- 
jected. If the Governor really seeks advice about the real 
effect of his recommendation on higher education in Illi- 
nois, this Board should provide that advice. The only 
legitimate advice is that the amount \vhich he proposes 
must be distributed to faculty and staff salary increases 
and that the amount he proposes will only barely meet 
that need on even minimum criteria of need and of 
equity. 

The only legitimate advice is that if the amount the 
Governor proposes is all that is available, there must be a 
total moratorium during Fiscal 1974 on all new or ex- 
panded efforts in higher education in Illinois. That mora- 
torium includes the cessation of growth in all health 
professions education; the cessation of enrollment in- 
creases in all of public higher education; the cessation of 



improvements in scholarship programs; the cessation of 
growth as planned in new institutions; and the cessation 
of growth in so-called new delivery systems. If that is all 
the money a\'ailable, we cannot devote our time to new- 
planning efforts; we must instead \vork against heavy 
odds to guarantee survival for 1973-74. 

The amount the Go\'ernor proposes does not repre- 
sent higher education's proportionate share of the re- 
sults of economic growth in Illinois — growth to which 
higher education contributes more than its fair share. 

That advice is honest, straightforward, and factual. 
It is not a threat, it is not a failure to respond, it is not 
a failure to face reality. It is the reality. 

Our nonacademic staff and our faculty and our stu- 
dents should not be asked to continue to bear the finan- 
cial burden of meeting the State's responsibility to sup- 
port a quality program of higher education in Illinois. 
The Governor asked for advice and I welcome his request 
to you. But your task is to respond to that request with 
honesty, with candor, and with facts. The fact is that 
what you approved last February is what is needed if we 
are to do what \ve are asked to do in higher education. 
We ask that you not seriously confuse and undennine 
that earlier advice with numbers which are artificial and 
which represent poor advice. ^Ve hope that you will 
support the needs of our people for salary equity as the 
first priority and \vill state that even that priority is barely 
met within the number suggested by the Governor. 

It is inconceivable to me that the recommendations of 
this Board could be for expansion, for new prograins, for 
more aid to private universities and for even more 
scholarships when the fundamental base of all of senior 
public higher education is rapidly eroding. If funds are 
to be restricted then we must contract not expand if we 
are to maintain the quality and validity of our system. 

We therefore ask you to: 

A. Reaffirm the needs and priorities of Executive Di- 
rector's Reports 112 and 113 so that the General 
Assembly and the Governor can consider the 
actual needs against other state priorities; or if the 
Governor's figure represents all that will be 
available, 

B. Reaffirm the need for salary increases and for 
funds to meet price increases before new pro- 
grams and expansion are considered and declare 
the need for a moratorium on all growth and ex- 
pansion in all of higher education in Illinois. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



l£C^-^j^ 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 238, July 6, 1973 



University Joins Midzvest Universities Cvnsortiiun on Air Pollution 



The Board of Trustees, meeting on the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus June 20. approved participation of 
the Uni\ersity in the Midwest Universities Consortium 
on Air Pollution and authorized Univei"sity officers to 
take such steps necessaiy to pro\ide for its representation 
in the consortium and for its formation. Recommenda- 
tion by the President for participation was supported by 
the University Council for Environmental Studies and by 
the \'ice President for Academic De\elopment and Co- 
ordination. 

This is the President's recommendation to the Board : 
The University of Illinois has been invited to join with 
the University of ^Visconsin-Madison, Purdue University, the 
University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, Illinois 
Institute of Technology, and the University of Notre Dame in 
the formation of an organization to be known as Midwest 
Universities Consortium on Air Pollution. 



The purpose of the consortium will be to facilitate and 
coordinate action by and among the member institutions in 
education and research endeavors related to air pollution. It 
is intended that the activities of the consortium will augment 
the efforts of the individual participating institutions. Each 
participating university will exercise internal review over any 
consortium proposal or request for funds involving that par- 
ticular university prior to submission to any potential funding 
agency. To assist in reviews, the existing University-wide 
Committee on Air Pollution will become a sub-committee of 
the University Council on Environmental Studies. 

Control of the consortium will be vested in a Board of 
Directors, with each member institution appointing one 
director with one vote. Each institution may be a.ssessed on an 
equal basis for administrative expenses of the consortium up 
to the sum of $1,000 for each university in any annual period, 
September 1 to August 31. Any member of the consortium 
may withdraw on written notice to the other members. 



Appointments for Division of University Extension Reorganization 



Pursuant to the '"Extension Reorganization" report 
made to the Board of Trustees at its March 21 meeting 
outlining the decentralization of certain continuing educa- 
tion functions now performed in the Division of Univer- 
sity E.xtension and the coordination of public service 
functions generally, the Board on June 20 approved the 
appointment of Dr. Stanley C. Robinson as University 
Coordinator of Continuing Education and of Dr. John 
B. Claar as Associate Vice President for Public Service. 
The \'ice President for Governmental Relations and 
Public Ser\'ice recommended the appointments. 

Dr. Robinson, Dean of the Division of University Ex- 
tension since July 1, 1960, became University Coordi- 
nator on July 1 and also holds the rank of Professor of 
Business Administration. A native of Missouri, he is a 
graduate of Southwest Missouri State College and holds 
graduate degrees from State University of Iowa and New 
York University. He has been a member of the Univer- 
sity faculty since 1948 when he joined as a visiting 
lecturer after teaching for several years at Eastern Illinois 
State College. 

Dr. Claar became Associate Vice President for Public 
Service July 1 in addition to his present responsibilities 



as Director of the Cooperative Extension Service and 
Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture. He holds 
the rank of Professor of Agricultural Economics. Dr. 
Claar has three degrees from the University and in addi- 
tion to his teaching and administrative positions at the 
University also has seiAed with the United States Depart- 
ment of Agriculture Federal Extension Service. 

Presented here is the progress report of the Division 
of University Extension reorganization as made by the 
President to the Board on March 21 : 

Progress Report, Extension Reorganization 

In the course of University reorganization, the Division of 
University Extension has remained an operating function at 
the general University level, headed by an executive officer 
still bearing the title of "dean." To bring that function into 
conformity with the evolving University organization as a 
system, and to fix responsibility for continuing education closer 
to the faculty, two objectives are now sought: 

1 . Redistribution of the Division of University Extension func- 
tions so as to (a) provide for decentralization of certain 
operations to the campuses and (b) assure system-wide 
policy setting, evaluation, and coordination. 

2. While so doing, to strengthen the total public service 
function in the University of Illinois. 



It is proposed, therefore, that 

1. Each campus provide an appropriate and clearly identifi- 
able campus-wide framework of structure and responsi- 
bilities for the discharge of the continuing education and/or 
public service functions, with 

a. Executive responsibility delegated by the Chancellor 
to an officer who will give leadership to the function 
and represent the campus in professional-technical rela- 
tions with his counterparts on the other campuses and 
with the Office of the Vice President for Governmental 
Relations and Public Ser\'ice; 

b. The designation of an officer in each appropriate college 
or administrative unit (e.g., an Assistant or Associate 
Dean) who will give leadership to that unit's counter- 
part of the function organized in "a" above; 

c. Systematic means of coordinating the activities repre- 
sented by "a" and "b" above and of facilitating faculty 
involvement in policy and planning. 

2. Effective July 1, 1973, University-wide machinery be pro- 
vided for recommending policy to the President, coordinat- 
ing all relations involving a field stafi^, and facilitating and 
evaluating all public service activities for University-wide 
purposes, as follows: 

a. Dr. Stanley C. Robinson (presently Dean of the Division 
of University Extension) be given responsibility, at the 
General University level, for 

( 1 ) Assisting the Vice President for Governmental 
Relations and Public Service in University-wide 
relationships involving continuing education; 

(2) Directing those parts of the Division of University 
Extension which are retained under University- 
wide administration (the three public safety pro- 
grams, corresponding study, and the Visual Aids 
Service ) . 

b. Dr. John B. Claar be given responsibility, at the General 
University level, for 

( 1 ) Coordinating for University-wide service the activ- 
ities of the University's field personnel involved 
in the public service function, both the Cooperative 
Extension Service field staff and other University 
field representatives; 

(2) Assisting the \'ice President for Governmental Re- 
lations and Public Service in University-wide public 
service relationships, particularly of the type involv- 
ing problem-solving and community participation. 

(He will retain responsibility for directing the Coopera- 
tive Extension Service and serving as Associate Dean.) 

c. A University Council on Public Service be established 
to facilitate inter-campus programming and relations, 
with necessary attention to questions of desirable uni- 
formity of procedures and policies. 

Implementing details will be worked out by the President 
in consultation with the Chancellors, including (a) the trans- 
fer of functions and resources, (b) field staff organization and 
relationships, and (c) methods of reporting at campus and 
University levels. 

Appropriate amendment of the University Statutes, if 
necessary, will be proposed to the Board of Trustees in due 
course, and reports of campus organizational steps to meet 
the requirements of Proposal No. 1 and the appointments 
recommended for Dr. Robinson and Dr. Claar will be sub- 
mitted to the Board as soon as possible. 



StatemenI on Extension Reorganization 

The changes here made, and others in progress, in how 
the University of Illinois performs its public service function 
are a significant additional milestone in the University's re- 
sponse to the world in which it exists. 

There are outside forces which call for new responses, in- 
cluding: 

1. the non-traditional educational needs which are giving 
rise to the "open universities" abroad and to the pro- 
posed Lincoln State University at home 

2. the new institutions in Illinois, including community 
colleges and senior institutions, with which the Univer- 
sity of Illinois must share responsibility for serving the 
public 

3. the growing centrality of urban life and the University's 
heightened commitment to serve the educational and 
problem-solving needs of Chicago, where two campuses 
are located 

4. the inadequacy of college-age education for lifetime 
careers in engineering, education, business, law, the 
health fields, and other professional areas 

5. new electronic devices which make possible the sharing 
of knowledge in revolutionary dimensions of time and 
space. 

The University of Illinois is preparing to meet these 
challenges more adequately and with greater flexibility. To 
this end, two changes are being made: (1) placing respon- 
sibility for extramural or continuing education firmly upon 
each campus, where the professional schools and expert per- 
sonnel provide what is to be "extended"; and (2) pulling 
together the exi.sting field staff of the University, both that 
which is general and that which relates to rural life, with 
sufficient coordination to focus and multiply the University's 
instructional and problem-solving impact throughout the state. 

Agricultural and general extension are in no sense merged. 
Instead, parts of them are coordinated to create a University- 
wide field network. The Cooperative Extension Service will 
remain unchanged except that the Director, Dr. John B. 
Claar, and the ten District Directors will add a University- 
wide dimension to what they now do as field representatives 
attached to a particular campus. In other words, the work of 
the general extension representatives, six of them now in the 
Division of University Extension, and of the ten District 
Directors of the Cooperative Extension Service will be co- 
ordinated under the direction of Dr. Claar in his new capacity 
as Associate Vice President for Public Service. 

Dr. Stanley C. Robinson will continue to direct the 
police training and other public safety programs, correspon- 
dence study, and the Visual Aids Service. These units have 
their independent staff's and do not have to rely heavily on 
campus-based faculty. As University Coordinator for Continu- 
ing Education, he will also serve as staff officer assisting with 
the University-wide relationships which will necessarily ac- 
company the placing of primary responsibility for all other 
continuing education at the campus level. 

In their University-wide capacities. Dr. Claar and Dr. 
Robinson will report directly to Dr. Eldon L. Johnson, Vice 
President for Governmental Relations and Public Service. 

\Ve expect this pattern to encourage the Chicago Circle 
Campus to give more service to Chicago, the Urbana Campus 
to step up the continuing education of professionals at the 
graduate level, and the Medical Center Campus to intensify 
its present services in delivery of health care and in career- 



long instruction for the health professionals. W'e also expect 
the entire University, with the help of a coordinated field 
staff, to be in a better position to determine public needs 
and to make appropriate University response. 

The public service tradition is built into the University of 
Illinois as a land-gnmt institution. It needs no reiteration in 
one sense. In another, it indeed does, because the University's 



capacities as a center of knowledge may otherwise be .seen and 
used only in the on-campus, college-age dimension. To assure 
that the broader outreach dimension does in fact derive from 
the traditional teaching and research functions, this reorgani- 
zation attempts to create appropriate channels and re- 
sponsibilities. 



Proposal for Administrative Leaves Approved 



The Board of Trustees at its June 20 meeting ap- 
proved a proposal for the granting of administrative 
leaves. Text of the President's recommendation was as 
follows : 

As the management of academic institutions has become 
increasingly complex, there has been heightened concern ex- 
pressed as to the ability of academic administrators to keep 
abreast of developments in their profession and to find time 
to design new approaches to their tasks. To provide for such 
an opportunity on a limited basis, I recommend a plan for 
administrative leaves as outlined below: 

1. After at least five years of service in the position indicated, 
the following may apply for leaves of two- to four-months' 
duration at full salary: Deans, \'ice Chancellors, Vice 
Presidents (and those holding the position of Assistant or 
Associate Dean, Vice Chancellor, or Vice President), and 
other General Officers, except for Chancellors and the 
President. 

2. Such leaves would be recommended by a Chancellor to the 
President, or by the President, based upon a review of a 
specific proposal submitted by an eligible administrator. 
The proposal would detail the activities to be undertaken 
during the leave and the manner in which those activities 



would enhance the service of the administrator in meeting 
his University or campus responsibilities. 

3. The recommendations would be reviewed by a Committee 
consisting of the President, the Vice President for Aca- 
demic Development and Coordination, and the Chancellors. 
Recommendations from the Committee for the award of 
such leaves would be made to the Board of Trustees. 

4. The duties of those on such leaves would ordinarily be 
absorbed by others at no added cost to the University. In 
cases where this is not possible, extra costs may be borne 
by use of discretionary funds available to the Chancellors 
or to the President from non-appropriated sources. 

TTie plan proposed would be reviewed at the end of a 
two-year period to appraise its success and to consider the 
question of whether there may be justification for altering the 
list of those now proposed to be eligible for such leave. 

Provision has not been made for such leaves for Chan- 
cellors or the President inasmuch as they cannot in fact be 
said to "take leave" from their responsibilities. However, 
short-term opportunities may be afforded to derive similar 
advantages in working with professional groups on professional 
problems. 



Bachelor of Social Work Approved for Chicago Circle, Urhana Campuses 



Another item on the June 20 meeting agenda of the 
Board of Trustees was the establishment of a Bachelor 
of Social Work degree program on the Chicago Circle 
and Urbana-Champaign Campuses. The Board approved 
the recommendation, subject to further action of the 
Illinois Board of Higher Education. 

Presentation at the meeting was as follows : 

The Chicago Circle and Urbana Senates have recom- 
mended the establishment of a Bachelor of Social Work degree 
program in the divisions of the Jane Addams Graduate School 
of Social AV'ork on each campus. 

This program is designed to provide for professional 
education for social work in the undergraduate years. It will 
provide one year of professional social work content in the 
student's junior and senior years, including a practicum in a 
social agency. Graduates from the programs will be prepared 
to assume beginning professional practice in direct social 
ser\-ice delivery in a variety of public and private agencies. 

The development of these programs follows a policy 
change in both the National Association of Social Workers 
and the National Council on Social Work Education. This 
change accepted, for the first time, the policy of beginning 
professional education in the undergraduate years, with con- 
tinuation of graduate study for Master of Social Work and 



Doctor of Social Work degrees. The period of study required 
for the latter degrees will be reduced by one year as a result 
of this change. 

At Urbana, it is anticipated that most of the 300 students 
presently majoring in social welfare in the College of Liberal 
Arts and Sciences will transfer to the new program. In Chi- 
cago, the expectations are that, in the first year of operation, 
fifty majors might be accepted. In the first year of operation, 
there will be no new costs involved on either campus.* 

The Chancellors at Chicago Circle and Urbana and the 
Vice President for Academic Development and Coordination 
concur in this recommendation. The University .Senates Con- 
ference has advised that no other Senate jurisdiction is 
involved. 



* The future costs will depend on growth in enrollment. How- 
ever, estimates of such costs are: 

Additional Costs 
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 



Chicago Circle $17,000 $34,000 $51,000 $68,000 $85,000 

Urbana-Champaign 16,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 80,000 
These estimates are based on the premise that growth will be 
steady throughout the period and that there will be 20-25 addi- 
tional majors on each campus each year and require the addi- 
tion of one new faculty member on each campus. 



Impact of Proposed Federal Budget 
on University of Illinois, Part VI 

Presented here is Part VI of the report, Impact of 
Proposed Federal Budget on the University of Illinois, 
which appeared in Faculty Letter No. 236, April 27, 1973. 

VI. STUDENT AID 
General Impact 

1. The "goal of equal educational opportunity" is by far 
the highest budget priority and the best-treated, ac- 
counting for the 7 per cent overall increase for higher 
education despite many cuts in other programs. 

2. ^Vhile general student aid (administered by the Office 
of Education as distinguished from special aid programs 
in the health professions) is increased by $130,000,000, 
the mix and impact are drastically changed: there is a 
trade-off of $622,000,000 in new Basic Opportunity 
Grants (BOGs) for zero-budgeted Supplemental or 
Educational Opportunity Grants and no new capital 
contribution for the National Direct Student Loan 
program. 

3. The intention is to shift to Basic Opportunity Grants for 
the most needy and to personal indebtedness by private 
financing for the others. The effect will be aid for more 
students, but smaller sums per student and more in- 
debtedness for the middle-class. 

4. This shift to BOGs is contrary to the provisions of the 
Educational Amendments of 1972 (which prescribe 
certain levels for the existing programs as a condition 
for funding the BOGs); hence Congressional-Executive 
"negotiations" will be required on a point which was 
divisive and presumed settled last year. 

5. The Congressional-Executive battle over the new mix 
will produce a critical time impact. It is unlikely that 
the delivery system for the BOG program can be op- 
erative for 1973-74 or that appropriations for the other 
programs (since Congress will have to confront the 
Executive on the issue) will be known in time for even 
tentative commitments to students this spring. 

University of Illinois Impact 

1. More total dollars may eventually be available — per- 
haps an increase of $585,371 (above 1972-73 base of 
$3,551,682) assuming that the University of Illinois 
share of BOGs will be divided among eligible applicants 
at a maximum level of $900 instead of $1,400, minus 
family contribution, since the federal request is not 
really "full funding." (See table following.) 

2. The total new mix will offset a loss of $1,326,921 in 
Educational Opportunity Grants and $1,485,846 in 
direct student loans. 

3. The critical time problem will affect all campuses but 



is compounded on the Urbana-Champaign Campus by 
the early calendar, with registration beginning August 
23, 1973. 

4. More undergraduate students will be aided but for 
smaller sums than heretofore, with greater pressure on 
state and University funds for the remainder, since no 
student may cover more than half his educational costs 
from federal sources. 

3. Graduate students in particular will be adversely 
affected 

a. by the phasing out of the National Direct Student 
Loan program unless given distinct priority for the 
drastically reduced NDSL funds 

b. by the emphasis on privately financed loans, because 
experience shows that the mobile graduate student 
has trouble finding a bank to make such a loan. 

6. Cost of campus administration will rise, with more 
paper work, without any federal aid for federally- 
imposed tasks. 

7. The University's student-aid officers prefer the existing 
programs because 

a. the proposed $622,000,000 in BOGs is not "full 
funding" 

b. the new program will operate by national guidelines 
and forms 

c. the existing campus-based programs permit greater 
flexibility in meeting both individual student needs 
and institutional recruitment and enrollment ob- 
jectives. 

STUDENT AID 

University of Illinois 
Estimated Moximum Share of FY74 Funds 
Compared With Actual Share of FY73 Funds 

ACTUAL SHARE FY73 





Chlrago 
Circle 


Medical 
Center 


Urbana- 
Champaign 


Total 


BOG 
SEOG 
CWS 
NDSL 


$ 451,963 
284,965 
429,534 


$10,000 
18,240 
28,264 


$ 864,958 

303,189 

1,160,569 


$1,3'26,921 

606,394 

1,618,367 


TOTAL 


$1,166,462 


$56,504 


$2,328,716 


$3,551,682 




MAXIMUM SHARE 


FY74 




BOG 
SEOG 
CWS 
NDSL 


$1,161,707 

2,53,000 
35,221 


$75,825 

li5',600 

2,300 

$94,125 


$2,228,000 

270,000 

95,000 

$2,593,000 


$3,465,532 

539.000 
132,521 


T0T.4L 


$1,449,928 


$4,137,053 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 369 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-1562. 



fjU^fa^^'' 



THt 



C^i 



^^p 




o 1 \3i3 



Gift anJ Elxchango Division 
220a Library 
3 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OK THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 239, September 6, 1973 



Evaluation of Administrator Performance 



JOHN E. CORBALLV JR., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

During the past year, conversations within the Uni- 
versity and elsewhere have indicated that there is in- 
creasing concern about the processes for the evaluation 
of administrative performance in higher education. One 
outgrowth of the elimination of biennial appointments 
for a number of administrators in the University of Illi- 
nois was the need to review and to revise our evaluation 
procedures. 

I have discussed this matter at some length with the 
University Senates Conference and at one time during 
1972-73 proposed that I would have a position paper 
prepared on this subject for consideration by the Con- 
ference. However, subsequent conversations led me to 
address the following letter to Professor Peter Yankwich, 
Chairman of the Conference, on June 8, 1973 : 

During the past month a number of my conversations with 
faculty groups have included discussion of the need for new 
and clear procedures for the regular evaluation of University 
administrators. While the elimination of biennial appoint- 
ments has caused some of this concern, there is a general 
feeling that the Statutes do not provide adequate guidance in 
this area and that the area is one in which University guide- 
lines are needed. 

At one time, I indicated to the Senates Conference that 
I would have a draft proposal for administrator evaluation 
prepared for appropriate review by faculty groups. Upon re- 
flection, I believe that it would be more appropriate for the 
Conference to devise a procedure through which such a pro- 
posal could be prepared rather than to start with an "admin- 
istrative document." To use a popular administrative phrase, 
"I want to make it perfectly clear" that I feel that there are 
crucial administrative concerns which must be reflected in 
the evaluation of administrators. I would want whatever grou|) 
is working on this matter to be aware that sooner or later 
real, as opposed to pru forma, administrative review of the 
proposal would be in order. 

It appears doubtful that I can be in attendance at the 
Conference meeting on June 26. I would appreciate it if you 
and the members of the Conference would consider this mat- 
ter at that time and, if possible, agree upon a procedure to 
develop a proposal for the evaluation of administrators. Be- 
cause of general concern about this matter, I believe that when 
a procedure is developed we should inform the faculty and 
administrators of the University that the study is under way 
so that we can avoid what might become duplication of 
efforts. If it would not be considered undue interference, I 



would be interested in reviewing with you the proposed pro- 
cedure before it is finalized so that I could be aware of pro- 
posed timing and of your vIpw; rnnremi'ng .Tdinini^lr.itivp 
input to the process. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

On July 2, 1973, I received the following reply from 
Professor Yankwich : 

The University Senates Conference considered your re- 
quest of June 8, 1973, at its June 26 meeting. The Conference 
welcomes the opportunity to serve in this initiating capacity. 

Evaluation of administrators is important and should 
take place under an umbrella of policy and of procedural 
guidelines that is University-wide. Further, such policy and 
guidelines must be credible as well as applicable to a sub- 
stantial variety of administrative levels and situations. These 
considerations and a number of suggestions conveyed in your 
recent letter and informally have helped the Conference to 
devise the following procedure: 

1. The Conference will appoint a task force or committee on 
administrator evaluation to work during the 1973-74 Uni- 
versity year on preparation of a comprehensive written 
statement of University-wide policies and procedural guide- 
lines for the evaluation of administrators. (We a.ssume that 
such evaluations would be regular, not triggered only by 
the development of crises, and that they would be coupled 
with a decision-making mechanism and opportunity.) 

2. The task force will report to you through the Conference, 
and the Conference will be respon.sible for initial review of 
the report of the task force. 

3. While concurring with your interest in having strong fac- 
ulty participation in this work, the Conference feels it im- 
portant that a substantial number of task force members 
be drawn from the several administrative levels of the 
University. Accordingly, the Conference has selected the 
following persons to be members of the task force : 

Joseph S. Begando, Chancellor, Medical Center 

George Bugliarello, Dean, College of Engineering, Chicago 

Circle 

I. E. Farber, Professor of Psychology, Chicago Circle 

Richard L. Feltner, Head, Department of Agricultural 

Economics, Urbana 

Arnold B. Grobman, Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, 

Chicago Circle 

Eldon L. Johnson, Vice President of the University 

Joseph L. Landin, Head, Department of Mathematics, 

Chicago Circle 



Mary M. Lohr, Dean, College of Nursing, Medical Center 

Barry Munitz, Vice President of the University 

Alfred NisinofF, Head, Department of Biological Chemistry, 

Medical Center 

Theodore Peterson, Dean, College of Communications, 

Urbana 

Sheldon J. Plager, Professor of Law, Urbana 

Martin P. Schulman, Professor of Pharmacology, Medical 

Center 

Morton W. Weir, Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, 

Urbana 

We have selected Professor Plager to be Chairman and 
Vice President Johnson to be Secretary of the Task Force. 

Ralph Daniels, Professor of Chemistry, Medical Center, is 
Chairman of the Uni\'ersity Senates Conference for 1973-74, 
and it would be appropriate for him to issue the invitations 
to membership on the Task Force. 

Unless these arrangements are inconsistent with the views 
expressed in your recent communications to us, I would ap- 
preciate your notifying Professor Daniels so that the invita- 
tions can be prepared. 

I informed Professor Daniels of my full support of the 
recommendations of the Conference and on July 9. 1973, 
Professor Daniels invited the proposed members of the 



Study Group on the Evaluation of Administrators to 
accept this assignment. In his letter of invitation, Pro- 
fessor Daniels on behalf of the Conference asked Pro- 
fessor Sheldon J. Plager (Law, Urbana-Champaign) to 
serve as chairman of the group and \'ice President Eldon 
Johnson to serve as Secretary. 

Because I am aware of various activities under way 
related to this topic, I indicated to the Conference that 
I would inform the faculty and staff of the University 
concerning the Study Group and would ask groups and 
individuals studying this inatter to coordinate their work 
with the Study Group. While strict guidelines for the 
work of the Study Group have not been developed, the 
original thinking was that the administrative positions 
under consideration would be academic administrators' 
positions including those at the department, school, 
college, campus, and University levels. 

I believe that this study is important to the Univer- 
sity, and I am most appreciative of the willingness of the 
Study Group members to undertake this task and of the 
Senates Conference to review the work of the Study 
Group. The University community will be kept informed 
of the progress of this work and will be asked for input 
to the work as the study moves ahead. 



Delay in Payment of State Health Insur^ance Claims 



The following statement has been issued by the 
Campus Insurance Offices in regard to processing of 
health insurance claims with the Northeastern Life In- 
surance Company of New York : 

A number of complaints have been received by the Cam- 
pus Insurance Offices of long delays in the processing of 
health insurance claims under the State of Illinois Group 
Health Insurance Contract with the Northeastern Life In- 
surance Company of New York. 

The Director of the State Department of Personnel ter- 
minated the contract with the Northeastern Life Insurance 
Company on June 30, 1973, and concurrently terminated the 
arrangement for the University to process and pay health 
insurance claims for our faculty and stafi under the program. 
.All claims records and pending claims were transferred from 
the University to the Northeastern Life Insurance Company's 
claim office in Springfield, Illinois, on June 30, 1973. The in- 
surance company also closed its Chicago claim office and 
transferred the claim processing responsibility to the Spring- 
field claim office. 

The volume of pending claims in the Springfield claim 
office is so large that some claims now in the office may not 
be processed for another si.x to eight weeks. Unfortunately, 
your Campus Insurance Office cannot expedite the payment of 
these claims under the State Program even though we know 
that hospitals and physicians are pressing you for the pay- 
ment of their bills. W'e do suggest the following procedure: 
1. If you have not filed a claim for medical expenses incurred 
under the State Plan prior to July I, 1973, do so as soon 
as possible. Be certain to send a completed claim form 
with your bills so that there will be no delay when the 
claims examiner processes llie claim. You should submit 
the claim to your Campus Insurance Office to have a \eri- 



fication that you were insured under the program and the 
Insurance Office will send the claim on to the company's 
claim office. Expenses incurred after June 30, 1973, should 
be submitted directly to one of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield 
claim offices listed in the 1973-74 State booklet. 

2. If you have a claim pending for expenses incurred prior 
to June 30 but failed to send in a claim form with the 
medical bills, send in a completed claim form immediately. 
If the claims examiner has requested additional informa- 
tion, be sure to respond to the request promptly. 

3. If you have assigned the benefit payments of a pending 
claim to a hospital and/or physician, contact them to warn 
them of this delay to avoid any impairment of your credit 
rating. In some cases, the hospitals ha\e requested a small 
payment on the bill. 

4. In most cases your Campus Insurance Office will have a 
transmittal form and can confirm that a claim has been 
received and forwarded to the insurance company but 
they do not have any copies of completed claim forms or 
bills and cannot determine if your claim has been paid or 
when it will be processed. 

5. If you encounter an urgent problem as a result of this 
delay, you may send the details of your claim to Mr. 
Richard Shereda, Department of Personnel, Springfield, 
Illinois, and request a status report on your claim. This 
procedure should be limited to only the most serious prob- 
lems because this procedure will disrupt the claim process- 
ing and further delay the payment of claims. 

6. If you have your dependents insured under the Univer- 
sity's contract with the Continental Assurance Company, 
there should be no inordinate delay in the processing of 
the claims. If you have submitted a claim and wish to 
know its status, contact your Campus Insurance Office and 
you will receive a reply by return mail. 



-£6 



/j^j-jt^ 



unt anil CAca^:!; 

220a Library 
5 copies) 



ui V i5 ion 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 240, October 4, 1973 



TH£. LiartARY OF THE 



OCT 2 4 1973 

IJIilVERSiTY OF ILLINOIS 



Restoration of Budget Reductions 



STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY JR., TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEPTEMBER 12, 1973 



At this meeting, you ha\e before you budget recom- 
mendations for both the current year and for 1974-75. I 
will not repeat the comments I made at our July meet- 
ing except to remind you that we are providing legislators 
with budgetary' information in support of the efforts by 
the General Assembly to o\erride Governor Walker's re- 
duction of about $4 million in our operating appropria- 
tion for 1973-74 and to restore funds for several capital 
projects in our capital appropriations for the same period. 

Some effort has been made to describe our strong 
support of a restoration as a personal battle between 
Go\emor Walker and the Universitx- or, more specifically, 
between the Governor and me. This interpretation is 
simply not true. The Governor, the General Assembly, 
and University officials play separate and distinct roles in 
Illinois government. Both the power of the Governor to 
reduce or veto appropriations and the power of the 
General .Assembly to restore such reductions or vetoes 
are specified in our Illinois Constitution. ^Ve belie\ e that 
the General Assembly was right in its appropriations to the 
Uni\ersity for 1973-74 and we seek — as provided in 
the Constitution — a reaffirmation by the General Assem- 
bly of its position. While the Governor and I disagree on 
the funding requirements of the University for 1973-74, 
it is an honest and open disagreement which we have 
discussed, which we both understand, and in which we 
each must play the role and meet the responsibilities 
assigned to us. 

An analysis of our financial needs and of the program 
restraints, which three — and now, perhaps, four — years 
of State tax support which has failed to recognize our 
needs have imposed upon us, makes it clear to me that we 
must enter 1974-75 with a base operating budget aj^proxi- 



mating the original appropriations made by the General 
Assembly for 1973-74. If the Governor's reductions are 
sustained, we must find other ways to restore that base. As 
distasteful as it is to me and to you, one way which must 
be considered is a sharp increase in tuition. 

Our philosophical commitment to low tuition is a 
matter of extensive public record. I do not agree that the 
financial problems of either public or private higher edu- 
cation should or could be solved by large increases in tui- 
tion at public universities. But our greater commitment 
must be to the University of Illinois and to the main- 
tenance of its distinguished record of high quality people 
offering high quality programs. The meeting of this 
commitment requires financial support greater than we 
have been receiving during the past years of inflation and 
of the increasing costs of excellence. It is not an alarmist 
statement, but rather is the truth, that the libraries, the 
laboratory equipment, the facilities, and, yes, the quality 
of the appearance of our campuses are slipping — slowly, 
but surely. We must stop and reverse that trend and to 
do so requires financial support greater than we have 
been receiving. 

Therefore, later this Fall, I plan to present to you 
recommendations concerning income sources for 1974-75 
based upon a detailed analysis of our financial and pro- 
gram arrears and upon the action of the General Assem- 
bly at its October, 1973, session. This analysis will include 
a study of tuition policy for the future as well as a study 
of tuition as it relates to the immediate need to restore 
our budget base. It is within this framework of "un- 
finished business" that we bring to you for your considera- 
tion the budgets for 1973-74 and the budget requests 
for 1974-75. 



The University's 1973-74 Operating Budget 



At its September 12 meeting on the Chicago Circle 
Campus, the Board of Trustees approved an Operating 
Budget for FY 1973-74 of $355,091,364, consisting of 
$210,322,544 of General Funds appropriated by the State 
Legislature and $144,768,820 of restricted and institu- 
tional income. The General Funds appropriations in- 
cluded $183,431,544 from general tax revenues; $15,000 
for Municipal Clerk Training; $1,058,000 from the Agri- 
cultural Premium Fund; and $24,918,000 from the Uni- 
versity's own income (primarily tuition) . 

The State tax support amounts to 62.2 per cent of the 
total budget, compared with 50.5 per cent in 1972-73 
and 54 per cent in 1970-71. Twenty years ago, the State 
provided 65 per cent of the total budget from tax 
revenues. 

The increase in the General Funds budget is $13,- 
344,075, as follows: 

Salary and Wage Rate Increases $7,586,122 

Net Staff Reductions -2,653,638 

Increases in Expense & Equipment 4,768,991 

Increase in Retirement System 

Contribution 3,642,600 

Virtually no funds were available for program im- 
provement and expansion except in the health fields. In- 



creases totaling $4,750,000 include $4,372,495 for ex- 
pansion of enrollment in the health fields at the Medical 
Center; $252,505 for the Urbana School of Basic Medical 
Sciences; $132,000 for the College of Veterinary Medi- 
cine; and $375,000 for the Division of Services for Crip- 
pled Children. 

The salary increase funds provide for the annualiza- 
tion of the increases made in September and November 
1972, plus further increases averaging approximately 4.5 
per cent. All salary increases are effective with the pay 
period beginning nearest to September 1, except for 
employees paid in negotiated or prevailing rates, whose in- 
creases are made on a date specified in the various col- 
lective bargaining or prevailing rate contracts. Adjust- 
ments have been made in the ranges of nonacademic 
classifications, and new minimum salaries for the aca- 
demic ranks have been made as follows : 



Professor 

Associate Professor 
Assistant Professor 
Instructor 
Research Associate 



9-month 


11 -Month 


Service 


Service 


$14,700 


$14,950 


11,550 


14,100 


9,450 


11,550 


7,350 


9,000 


6,550 


8,000 



The University's Request for FY 1974-75 Operating Appropriations 



Presented here is the Introduction of the University's 
Budget Request for Operating Funds for FY 1974-75 as 
submitted to the Board of Tmstees at its September 12 
meeting: 



INTRODUCTION 
Background 

Fiscal Year 1975 represents the first year of the initial 
five-year combined operating and capital budget request 
under the new Resource Allocation and Management Pro- 
gram (RAMP) adopted by the Illinois Board of Higher Edu- 
cation. The concept behind RAMP is a good one, but the 
enormous volume of detail, extending to FY 1980, is incon- 
sistent with sound long-range planning. Furthermore, the 
implementation is most difficult, at least in the beginning, be- 
cause a year has been omitted from the cycle. To begin the 
envisioned five-year planning cycle, the IBHE staff and sys- 
tem heads agreed, during a preliminary exploratory session, 
that a two-year time frame was essential, with the first year 
being devoted to the synthesis of planning assumptions and ob- 
jectives (scope and mission) to be discussed and ratified by 
pertinent constituencies. From a practical standpoint, however, 
the first implementation (vis., FY 1975) necessitated a com- 
pression of two years into one; otherwise, there would have 
been no procedure to generate a budget request in the first 
year. 

This compression produces a vexing situation. The Uni- 
versity is expected to submit a five-year budget plan, while 
campus personnel and the Board of Trustees are still crystal- 



lizing scope and mission — the fundamental underpinning 
for a sound long-range plan. Furthermore, the IBHE will be 
unable to review these plans until well into the budget request 
year. 

The final FY 1975 request is basically a continuation 
budget, with special consideration given to a series of studies 
which identify deficiencies in the base budget created by 
exigencies of the last few years. Hence, the entire operating 
budget presentation for FY 1975 is based upon the concept 
that scope and mission will be in the process of review and 
that the year is basically one of remaining at a constant size 
(with the exception of the health-related professions), of re- 
viewing our base deficiencies, and of exploring the future 
through scope and mission. 

It should be noted that the provisional scope and mission 
statement, submitted separately, calls for a rate of growth of 
about 950 students a year for the University of Illinois, under 
the assumptions that medical expansion is adequately funded 
and that state policy is to maintain a fairly constant enroll- 
ment rate. However, no increase in enrollment is contem- 
plated, except in the health-related professions, until the scope 
and mission report is adopted and adequate progress in cor- 
recting deficiencies in the base budget has been made. The 
enrollment projections until 1980 in the RAMP documents 
provide only for increases in the health professions. 

Based upon the analytical studies, the University's needs 
for FY 1975 are $49.7 million or 25.1 per cent of the base 
budget for FY 1974. 

The operating budget request for FY 1975 presented by 
the President and the University administration to the Board 



of Trustees is for $22,800,200 or 43 per cent of the calculated 
need. Of this, $11,952,300 or 6.0 per cent is for continuation, 
$3,900,000 or 2.0 per cent is for a programmed restoration of 
deficiencies over six years, and $6,947,900 or 3.ri per cent is 
for the expansion of health-related programs. The total in- 
crease is 11.5 per cent. 



The $11,952,300 continuation represents a 6 per cent in- 
crease by the State. 

The $3,900,000 programmed base correction represents 
approximately the amount the governor reduced the FY 1974 
budget passed by the General Assembly and recommended by 
the Illinois Board of Higher Education. 



Request for Capital Appropriations for FY 1974-75 



President Corbally presented to the Board of Trustees 
at its September 12 meeting the University's request for 
capital appropriations for FY' 1974-75. This is the agenda 
item as recommended by him : 

The President of the Uni\ersity herewith submits the pro- 
posed request for capital appropriations for Fiscal Year 1975. 

The request has been prepared by the \'ice President for 
Planning and Allocation, with the advice of the Vice Presi- 
dent for Academic Development and Coordination and the 
University Planning Committee, and after appropriate review 
by the Chancellors and the President. The request has also 
been reviewed and endorsed by the Uni\ersity Budget Com- 
mittee. The submission date required by the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education (September 4, 1973) has necessitated the 
submission of preliminary requests prior to approval by the 



Board of Trustees. All such transmittals have been identified 
as "preliminary." 

The University's FY 1975 request for capital appropria- 
tions reflects three main types of needs: (a) funds to complete 
and equip buildings under development; (b) funds for the im- 
provement of existing facilities; and (c) new building projects 
needed to meet the programs of the University. The total 
requests from State funds are $43,556,200, exclusive of re- 
appropriations. It is anticipated that $44,918,800 can be 
funded from the Capital Development Bond Fund and 
$637,400 from the General Revenue Fund. 

The President recommends approval of the budget request 
for FY 1975 as presented to the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education and requests authority to submit the request to the 
appropriate offices of State Government. 



Medical Center Einployee Leaves Estate to the University 



George H. Miller, \sho \\orked for the Universitx- of 
IlHnois at the Medical Center Campus for forty-eight 
years, left his entire estate to the University. Proceeds of 
the estate amount to $111,702.36 and were entirely sav- 
ings of Mr. Miller who died August 29, 1972. A native of 
Chicago, he had graduated from the Worsham College of 
Mortuar\' Science when his father brought him at age 
nineteen to the Medical Center for a job. He was hired to 
work in the Department of Anatomy taking care of 
cadavers. At that time the department did its own em- 
balming. Later he became the projectionist for the 
anatomy classes and during his long career with the Uni- 



versity Nvas known to almost every medical student on 
campus. His competence and reliability won the affection 
and respect of faculty, staff, and students. 

Mr. Miller retired in 1969 but soon was asked to re- 
turn for a special project. Living an austere life in a base- 
ment apartment not too far from the campus, he regu- 
larly deposited his earnings and not once, according to 
his savings passbook, did he make a withdrawal from the 
account. 

Mr. Miller's gift to the University will be used for 
educational programs at the Medical Center Campus. 



Laurence J. Norton Chair Established at Urbana College of Agriculture 



Under terms of the will of the late Aurene T. Nor- 
ton, the Laurence J. Norton Chair has been established 
in the College of Agriculture at the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus in memory of her husband. Professor Norton, 
who died in 1956, had sen.-ed on the University faculty 
for 30 years in the area of agricultural marketing, policy, 
and finance and also had been head of the Department 
of Agricultural Economics. 

The Laurence J. Norton Chair will be filled on a 
rotational basis (normally a period of two years or less) 
by individuals selected from the ranks of universities 



(outside the University of Illinois), governmental 
agencies, or industrial firms for the purpose of improving 
the quality of the program in agricultural marketing. 
The Chair will be administered by the Dean of the 
College of Agriculture and the head of the Department 
of Agricultural Economics. 



Inquiries to the Facility Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 







220a Library 
3 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 241, October H, 1973 



THE LIBRARY OF THE 



Organization for Continuing Education and Public Service OCT 2 4 1973 



OFFICE OF \ICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND PUBLIC SERVICE 



UiJivhrtoilr Oh ILLINOIS 



Introduction by President John E. Corbalty Jr. 

When I arrived at the University of Illinois in April, 
1971 , as President-Designate, I was provided with a great 
deal of reading material concerning ongoing projects. 
One such paper was a report written by Vice President 
Eldon Johnson dealing with the topic of the public service 
responsibilities of the University and the structure of the 
Uniz'ersity to meet those responsibilities. 

During my two years on active duty here, this topic 
has assumed new importance. The leadership of the 
Board of Higher Education, for example, is increasingly 
anxious to substitute the concept of "people served" for 
the usual count of "FTE students" when the subject of 
the real work load of higher education is discussed. There 
are always those who would assign "franchise areas" to 
each public university campus in Illinois — an assign- 
ment which violates the traditional role of the University 
of Illinois and an assignment which we cannot accept. 
There is increasing interest on the part of municipal and 
state governmental agencies for new and meaningful re- 
lationships between those agencies and the resources of 
higher education. And the whole subject of "non-tradi- 
tional, innovative , modern . . . etc. methods of educational 
delivery" is a subject with which we must come to grips 
even as we strive to define its meanings. 

Along with the recognition of the increasing impor- 
tance of public service, extension, and continuing educa- 
tion to the University have gone our efforts to structure 
the University to provide as much "local option" to the 
campuses as is consistent with our existence as a single 
University of Illinois. We — and particularly Vice Presi- 
dent Johnson and Dr. Stanley Robinson — have devoted 
major attention to the development of a plan to revitalize 
the campus commitment to public service, to restructure 
our public service activities to insure that we can detect 
and respond to public service needs in Illinois, and to 
build upon the distinguished record of public service 
activities which has characterized the University. The 
following statement by Vice President Johnson provides 
a description of that plan. Making the plan work is a 
critical responsibility of all of us and many aspects of our 
future are dependent upon our ability to do so. I com- 



mend this report to your attention and seek your assis- 
tance as we attempt to expand our commitment to this 
part of our three-part mission ■ — teaching, research, and 
public service. 

ORGANIZATION FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE 

Substantial changes in the University's approach to 
its off-campus or outreach responsibilities have been in 
the making in the academic year 1972-73, with important 
antecedents running back to 1968. The culminating or- 
ganization, both at the campus and University-wide 
levels, is herein described pursuant to the progress report 
made to the Board of Trustees in March, 1973, and as a 
matter of information for the general University 
community. 

In keeping with its organization as a single Univer- 
sity system of three campuses, the public service function 
is organized into four components : 

1 . that which is University-wide 

2. that relating to each of the three campuses. 

The functional and organizational characteristics are: 

University-wide : system-wide staff services, including 
policy-setting, evaluation, and coordination, and the 
operation of (a) a statewide network of field repre- 
sentatives and (b) those continuing education func- 
tions which are most general and autonomous, and 
least dependent on campus personnel for "delivery" 
(specifically, the following units from the former 
Division of University Extension, now comprising 
the new University Continuing Education: Police 
Training Institute, Firemanship Training, Civil De- 
fense Training, Correspondence Courses, and Visual 
Aids Service) . 

Campus: operation of continuing education pro- 
grams to which the regular teaching personnel of the 
campus make a major contribution, such as the Ex- 
tramural Classes and Conferences units from the 
former Division of University Extension, and pro- 
vision of such off-campus services as flow from the 
"mission" of that campus, including the traditional 



land-grant functions of the Cooperative Extension 
Service on the Urbana Campus. 

Each component is briefly described below. 

UNIVERSITY-WIDE 

Reporting directly to the President of the University, 
the University-wide organization has these major com- 
ponents : 

1 . Vice President for Governmental Relations and Public 
Service, who exercises coordinative powers and aids 
the President in a staff capacity regarding public 
service. 

2. UniversitN- Coordinator of Continuing Education, who 

a. directs University Continuing Education, a unit of 
127 employees who administer the five programs 
named above 

b. assists the Vice President in facilitating the con- 
tinuing education function as performed throughout 
the University. 

3. Associate Vice President for Public Sen.ice. who in 
addition to serving as Director, Cooperative Extension 
Service, Urbana Campus, 

a. directs the Uni\ersity field network, utilizing the 
structure of the ten existing regions of the Coopera- 
tive Extension Service 

b. assists the Vice President in facilitating those public 
service functions relating to personnel resident in 
the field. 

Field Network 

Besides exercising a coordinative function, the Uni- 
versity-wide officers also operate the field network, which 
ser\'es as a bridge between public needs and University 
capacity "to deliver" on such needs. That network con- 
sists of special University personnel ser\'ing as "brokere" 
in the field, or linkage mechanisms, or the University's 
"eyes and ears," based on the ten regions of the state 
which are used by the Cooperative Extension Service. 
Such personnel work ^vith individuals, groups, and other 
educational institutions in identifying needs and in match- 
ing them ^\ith appropriate University knowledge and 
programs. Present personnel in the netsvork under the 
Associate Vice President for Public Service are 

a. the ten Regional Coordinators, who tie together all 
University outreach personnel in each region, attempt 
to sharpen the University's focus and impact in the 
area, and link the resources of the Cooperati\e Ex- 
tension Service to all other University effort in the 
field (e.g., the setvices of the Community Resource 
Development officers) 

b. six Regional Program Directors (one intended for 
each region but with three Directors now serving more 
than one region simultaneously), who represent con- 
tinuing education in particular but assist in all field- 
ser\'ice linkages 

c. an overall Program Director, residing at the Univer- 
sit)'-wide headquarters, who works with all field per- 
sonnel, and Regional Program Directors particularly, 



and facilitates communication and planning relation- 
ships with campus personnel. 

This structure is designed to produce a mutually sup- 
portive and reinforcing efifect between the Cooperative 
Extension Service, with its historical presence in all areas 
of the state, and all other aspects of public service, in- 
cluding continuing education in the professions and for 
leisure time, ser\ice to the cities (see section below on 
special coordinative mechanism in the Chicago area), 
independent off-campus study, and the application of 
knowledge to problem-solving, both statewide and na- 
tionally. It does this, in part, by 

a. having the Director of the Cooperative Extension Ser- 
vice serve also as Associate Vice President for Public 
Service 

b. making the Cooperative Extension Service Regional 
Directors also Regional Coordinators for University- 
wide public service purposes in each region (except in 
the Chicago area as described below) 

c. tying all other public service field relations (and spe- 
cifically all of the non-agricultural ts-pe) into this re- 
vised but previously existing regional coverage of the 
state 

d. facilitating the work of the Vice President for Govern- 
mental Relations and Public Service in coordinating 
the application of University educational resources to 
public service activities. 

Regional Coordination in Chicago Area 

Region II, comprising the northeastern portion of the 
state, including Chicago, presents many special problems 
not found in other regions : 

a. two University of Illinois campuses are located in 
Chicago 

b. the Chicago Circle Campus has a special mission to 
ser\-e the Chicago area and to meet the urban prob- 
lems there 

c. the concentrated population makes atypical demands 
on the Cooperative Extension Service 

d. the out-of-Chicago portion of the University of Illinois 
(the Urbana Campus) also has special need for out- 
reach activities in the most populous part of the state. 

Therefore, the Director of Extension, Chicago Circle 
Campus, has been designated as Regional Coordinator for 
Region II, in addition to his campus role, which means 
that he also serves in a University-wide capacity' and, for 
that purpose, reports to the Associate Vice President for 
Public Service, like all other Regional Coordinators. A 
Program Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Re- 
gional Coordinator and consisting of representatives from 
each campus and of the other interested parties, \vill 
assess regional needs and coordinate the University re- 
sponses. This arrangement, recognizing both the special 
geographical mission of Chicago Circle and the disciplin- 
ary mission of the other campuses, is understood to be 
subject to later evaluation in terms of its capacity to 
maximize the total University of Illinois impact in 
Reffion II. 



University Council on Public Service 

To pio\idc overall and intercampiis coordination and 
policy recommendations, to exchange information, and to 
facilitate program planning, a Unixereity Council on 
Public Service, uiider die chaiiTnanship of the Vice Presi- 
dent for Governmental Relations and Public Service, 
brings together the cloief officei-s with continuing educa- 
tion and public service responsibilities, both at the Uni- 
versity and campus levels, plus the Vice President for 
Academic Development and Coordination and the Exec- 
utive Director of the Alumni Association. 



Urbana-Champaign Campus 

EfTecti\e Jul\- 1. 1973, the Office of Continuing Edu- 
cation and Public Service has overall responsibility for 
continuing education, extension, and public service for the 
Urbana Campus. The Director of that office, as an Asso- 
ciate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, helps to re- 
late continuing education and public service more closely 
to resident instruction and research. He is a member of 
the Uni\-ersity Council on Public Senice and is chairman 
of a campus Council on Continuing Education and Pub- 
lic Service, composed of persons from the various colleges 
and institutes. This arrangement is designed to help coor- 
dinate actixdties at University, campus, and college levels. 
The persons to provide liaison between campus and each 
of the colleges and institutes are now being designated. 

The Office of Continuing Education and Public Ser- 
\-ice contains some of the departments that were part of 
the former Division of University Extension, including 
extramural classes, conferences and institutes, and exten- 
sion programs in international affairs, art, music, and 
engineering. 

The Urbana Campus Senate has a standing commit- 
tee on Continuing Education and Public Service, com- 
pwsed of facult)' members, students, and administrators. 
It focuses attention on faculty a\\'areness and policy issues 
regarding continuing education and public service as a 
University function. 

Chicago Circle Campus 

That part of the former Division of University Ex- 
tension vvhich drew heavily on the Chicago Circle Cam- 
pus faculty for its "delivery" off campus is now part of 
the organization of that campus. The transferred parts 
are those portions of the former Extramural Classes and 
Short Courses and Conferences which were Circle-based. 

The new campus unit, effective July 1, 1973, is the 
Office of Extension, headed by a Director, who reports 
to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Direc- 
tor is also Regional Coordinator of continuing education 
and public service in University^ Region II, the nine 
counties of Northeastern Illinois, and a member of the 
University Council on Public Service. 



At the college level, each college has named an official 
(e.g., an Assistant or Associate Dean) to be the liaison 
officer or contact point for relations between "extension" 
and the college. Representatives of a few non-college out- 
reach-oriented units are also included. These taken to- 
gether comprise the Council on Extension and Public 
Ser\ice, which works closely with the Director of Exten- 
sion in program planning and staffing. While all colleges 
have such relationships, some, like the College of Urban 
Sciences, have close and continuous relations because of 
a strong public sei-vice commitment. 

At the faculty level, the Chicago Circle Senate has a 
standing Committee on Continuing Education and Public 
Service, which contributes to faculty awareness and in- 
volvement in the public service function. 

Medical Center Campus 

While continuing education for professionals and 
health scmce delivery are functions of rising priority, they 
are so built in to all other aspects of the Medical Center 
Campus that the public service organization is bound to 
be afTected. It is less "separated out" and more "built in," 
but it is nonetheless there. 

The overall responsibility, under the Chancellor, rests 
with the Vice Chancellor, whose duties extend to many 
other areas, as well, including the academic. He is also 
a member of the University Council on Public Service. 

In each college and school, an Assistant or Associate 
Dean is being identified to coordinate the educational 
units and activities concerned with continuing education 
and public service. Including these officers, plus represen- 
tation from the Center for Educational Development, a 
campus-wide coordinating council is in process of 
formation. 

A new factor is also being integrated into the campus 
policy and structure: the Area Health Education System 
program, funded by a generous grant from the Federal 
Government. One of the purposes of that grant is to 
improve the education of the health professionals, thereby 
improving health service delivery. The director of the 
Area Health Education System is the Dean of the School 
of Associated Medical Sciences, who has continuing- 
education representatives in Rockford, Peoria, and Ur- 
bana, where medical education is now also offered. 

Another piece of the public service structure is the 
Center for Educational Development, College of Medi- 
cine, which has initiated ex-perimentation on statewide 
continuing education for practitioners in the health fields, 
particularly by linking the Chicago resources with facili- 
ties in Peoria and Rockford and by developing the teach- 
inar faculties there. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE REGIONS 



' Tunis Dekker, RC 
Richard Casper, RPD 
Arthur Proteau, RPD 
G. J. Chrislenson, 
Reg. Dir., CES 



Denzil Clegg, RC 
. Richard Kalus, RPD 







Glen Sons, RC 

Fred Steuernagel, RPD 



RC — Regional Coordinator 
RPD — Regional Program Directo 



-Mildred Nuttall, RC 
Fred Steuernagel, RPD 



' John Bicket, RC 
Fred Steuernagel, RPD 



I 



(L 



/^^^.^A 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



^ 'A 



-r. 



THE. LIBRARY OF THE 

No. 242, November 12, 1973 

_ DEC ^^1973 

1^ _ UNiytK6>l r oe ILLINOIS 

State of Illinois Group Health Insurance Claim Iriformation Requested 



The number of complaints on the slow claims 
processing of the State of Illinois Group Health 
Insurance Program has been increasing signifi- 
cantly. Of particular concern are the claims for 
services prior to July 1, 1973, under the North- 
eastern Life Insurance Company contract. Many 
members of the faculty and staff are being pres- 
sured and harassed by hospitals, doctors, and 
collection agencies demanding payment of medi- 
cal expenses covered by the State Plan. In some 
cases, law suits have been threatened. 

The University does not process these claims. 
The State Department of Personnel terminated 
the agreement for the University's administra- 
tion of the program on July 1, 1973, and all files 
and records were transferred to the insurance 
company. Under these circumstances we have 



been forced to refer individuals with complaints 
to the State Department of Personnel and the 
Northeastern Life Insurance Company. This has 
not proved to be a satisfactory procedure and 
many complaints have gone unanswered. 

Since individual efforts have not been success- 
ful, it is proposed that information on all of the 
pending claims be gathered and presented to the 
Director of the Department of Personnel and to 
other State officials to secure payment of the 
claims from the Northeastern Life Insurance 
Company or a status report on each claim. 

To help you and to help us in this effort, 
please complete the following form and mail it 
promptly to your campus insurance office. 

John E. Corbally Jr. 

President 



EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS ONLY 



Social Security- 



Mnili 




Type 


of Service 


Hosp 


ital 


M.D. 


or Surgeon 


Presc 


ription Drugs 


or Medical Expense 



Name of Hospital or M.D. 



Date of Service 



Approximate Expense 



Retirement Credit for Military Service 

The following letter was sent October 23, 1973, by 
Edward S. Gibala, Executive Director of the State Uni- 
versities Retirement System, to the Presidents and Heads 
of Universities, Colleges, and Other Agencies covered by 
the State Universities Retirement System: 

RE: Senate Bill 634 — Purchase of Credit 
for Prior Military Service 

During the past several months, we have kept you and 
the Business and Personnel Officers informed of the current 
status of Senate Bill 634 which covers the purchase of addi- 
tional credit for military service which was rendered before 
the participant became a member of the State Universities 
Retirement System. Following is a very brief summary of the 
action which has been taken on this Bill to date: 

1. The Bill, as initially introduced, would have prohibited the 
State Universities Retirement System from accepting any 
payments covering prior military sen-ice after September 1, 
1973, the effective date of the Bill. 

2. The Senate adopted an amendment to the Bill which made 
the change applicable only to persons hired after September 
1, 1973. That amendment also eliminated credit for other 
types of public employment for those persons hired after 
that date. However, the Senate amendment preserved the 
right of current employees to pay for prior military service 
as well as other types of public employment. The Bill, as 
amended, passed the Senate. 

3. An additional amendment to the Bill by the House pro- 
vided that an employee ivho ivas hired before September 1, 
1973 could purchase credit for prior militan,' service only 
if he (a) was eligible to purchase credit for prior military 
service on that date, and (b) he had applied for purchase 
of such credit by that date. (Note that the House amend- 
ment provided that the participant must have applied for 
the military service credit by September 1, 1973; it did 
not require that he make his payment prior to that date.) 
The House passed the Bill as amended. 



4. Instead of sending the Bill to the Senate floor for concur- 
rence in the House amendment, the Senate sponsor, at the 
suggesdon of some members of the Pension Laws Commis- 
sion, sent the Bill back to the Senate Pension Committee. 
The Bill is still alive and in the Senate Committee at this 
time. 

5. The Pension Laws Commission considered the Bill at a 
meeting which was held on October 11, 1973, and agreed 
to recommend approval of Senate Bill 634, as amended by 
the House, subject to extension of the deadline on filing 
to January 1, 1974. 

At this time, we can only speculate on the final outcome 
of Senate Bill 634. However, we believe that the Conference 
Committee will accept the recommendation of the Pension 
Laws Commission that the deadline on filing of the Applica- 
tion for Prior Military Service be extended to January 1, 1974. 

We need your help in spreading the word concerning the 
proposed January 1, 1974 deadline on filing. Hundreds of 
participants failed to meet the proposed September 1, 1973 
deadline on filing despite the unusual amount of publicity 
which was given to this Bill in special releases from the Re- 
tirement System Office and campus periodicals. We hope that 
you \vill bring the proposed January 1, 1974 filing deadline 
to the attention of your faculty and staff at meetings and in 
campus periodicals \vhich you may distribute prior to Janu- 
ary 1, 1974. 

AVe wish to emphasize again that the Bill would require 
that the participant file his Application for Prior Military 
Service Credit before January 1, 1974; it would not require 
that he pay for the service by that date. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



CAMPUS INSURANCE OFFICE 



ll^^^ j^ 



2ii0a Library 
3 copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Q^Q 1 7 1973 No. 243, De 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

President's Report on Tnition Policy and Tuition for 1974-75 



nber 12, 1973 



President John E. Coibalh Jr. on November 14 sent 
the following report on tuition policy and tuition for 
1 974-75 to the members of the Board of Trustees : 

Discussions concerning tuition policies and tuition levels 
have reached a new peak of volume during the past year. This 
phenomenon is by no means only a local happening, but is a 
matter of national concern. Both the public press and profes- 
sional journals contain an increasing number of tuition pro- 
posals, counter proposals, and rebuttals to both. There are 
only two tuition positions which are based on sound, under- 
standable, philosophical positions. The first is that there should 
be no tuition charges levied in public higher education. The 
other is that students in public higher education should pay 
tuition equal to the full costs of their instruction. All in- 
between positions are compromises which are based upon 
practical and judgmental considerations rather than upon any 
real philosophical framework. Unfortunately, many tuition 
discussions today represent efforts to construct a philosophical 
base for compromise positions for which no such base exists. 
These discussions are interesting, but cloud the current basic 
issues which are practical, financial resource issues. 

For us, the time has come when tuition policy in general 
and specific tuition rates for 1974-75 must be determined. I 
had hoped that the position of the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education concerning tuition policy for public higher educa- 
tion in Illinois would have been determined by this time, but 
no such determination will be made until at least December 
4, 1973. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to provide our 
students with information concerning changes in tuition as 
early as possible before changes are made. I also believe that to 
the extent possible our policy should reflect BIIE suggestions. 

In an effon to meet the requirements of both of those 
beliefs, I am recommending that the Board of Trustees of the 
University of Illinois adopt a provisional position on tuition 
for 1974-75 at the November 21 meeting with the under- 
standing that this position will be reviewed and made final 
following action of the BHE in December on tuition policy. 
The adoption of a provisional position will provide our stu- 
dents with an understanding of probable tuition levels for 
1974-75 while at same time not foreclosing change if the 
provisional position should sary greatly from BHE suggestions. 

The current position of the BHE is that tuitions in public 
universities in Illinois should approximate one-third of under- 
graduate instructional costs. As stated above, there is no real 
support in theory or in philosophy for such a pfjsition. In my 
view, the theory and philosophy of public higher education 
support the concept that no tuition should be charged those 
who attend public universities. This concept, however, has 
eroded over the years under the pressures of financial needs 



and the inability and/or unwillingness of society to provide 
financial support to meet those needs. Tuition at public uni- 
versities is, thus, a concept which has been bom of necessity 
rather than of theory. What we are discussing is a means of 
providing some portion of the financial support requirement 
of a public university through a price charged the students. 

At the present time, tuition charges at the University of 
Illinois are $495 per year for full-time students who are resi- 
dents of the State of Illinois except for students in Dentistry 
($261 per quarter) or in Medicine ($294 per quarter). For 
non-residents, these charges are $1485 except in Dentistry 
($591 per quarter) and in Medicine ($624 per quarter). 
These tuition levels equal something less than 30 percent of 
undergraduate instructional costs. This tuition level was 
established for 1972-73 in an effort to achieve the BHE stan- 
dard. However, at that time, the BHE cost data were for 
1970-71 so that the tuition assessed did not actually achieve 
the standard in spite of this Board's intent to do so. 

Two facts must be clear as we review the financial re- 
sources of the University. First, the resources available to the 
University are not keeping pace with the costs of inflation. 
Second, increases in State tax support of higher education 
will not, in and of themselves, keep pace with the increased 
need for resources. I will not review here the financial picture 
with which you are all familiar. We are losing ground in meet- 
ing the costs of quality. We can either revise downward our 
goals for the University of Illinois or find resources to permit 
us to meet those goals. I believe that we must choose the 
latter course. One financial resource is tuition income. As 
reluctant as we are to consider increasing tuition charges on 
the basis of our theory and philo.sophy of public higher educa- 
tion, that reluctance must give way to reality. 

The budget requests for the University for 1974-75 en- 
visioned the need for $7 million to continue the health pro- 
fessions expansion program and $11.7 million (6 percent of 
the 1973-74 base of $196 million) to meet current salary and 
price increase needs. In addition, budgetary deficiencies ac- 
cumulated over the past .several years in the amount of $30.9 
million were detailed and the need for some funds to begin 
dealing with those deficiencies was stressed. It was hoped that 
the restoration of $4.1 million reduced from our 1973-74 ap- 
propriation would provide funds to begin reducing deficiencies, 
but that hope was not realized. 

It now seems clear that realistic expectations for increased 
State tax support in 1974-75 should include a 6 percent in- 
crease in the tax portion of our appropriations ($171 million) 
plus the $7 million for health professions expansion. In order 
to realize a 6 percent increase over our total appropriations 
(tax or general revenue plus income fund or tuition), we shall 



have to impose a 6 percent increase in tuition or $30 per year 
for all except tuition for Medicine and Dentistry students to 
which a 6 percent increase will also be applied. No tax 
sources seem available to even begin to deal with our ac- 
cumulated budget deficiencies — deficiencies with which we 
must begin to deal. As you know, to restore the $4-.l million 
to our base would require an additional tuition increase of 
$90 per year. Many believe that this restoration is so essential 
that that additional tuition should be levied. I find this argu- 
ment persuasive. 

Based upon our budget requests for 1974-75, average 
undergraduate instructional costs, exclusive of the health pro- 
fessions for 1974-75, will be $2048.16. If tuition for 1974-75 
were to be assessed at the suggested level of one-third of 
undergraduate instructional costs, the charge would be $682 
or an increase of $186 over current tuition. In spite of the fact 
that current BHE policy would support such an increase, an 
increase of that magnitude seems inappropriate. 

It is difficult to determine what increase is appropriate, 
but a rationale can be developed in support of adding $60 
per year to the $30 per year mentioned above. Our costs have 
been increasing due to inflation by at least 6 percent per 
year. The "price" we charge students through tuition has re- 
mained the same last year and this year in the hope that the 
State would provide sufficient additional tax support to meet 
the inflationary pressures upon both salary and other costs. The 
State has not done so with resulting budgetary deficiencies for 
the University. It seems clear that the State is operating on 
a "tuition as price" concept and that tuition in the future will 
need to reflect inflationary pressures. These pressures during 
the last two years would have resulted in annual increases in 
tuition of about $30 per year and one can argue that we must 
now at least restore our tuition level for 1974-75 to the 1972- 
73 level by adding the cost of inflation which has occurred 
during this year and last. 

This decision would provide approximately $2.75 million 
in 1974-75 to begin to deal with budgetary deficiencies. Ob\'i- 
ously some continuing reallocation to attempt to provide 
another $1.35 million for this purpose would be necessary. It 
is clear, however, that five years of reallocation have left us 
with little room to create major sources of funds through this 
method. This total increase of $90 per year in tuition would 
still leave the level of tuition about $100 below the "one-third" 
standard in 1974-75. After reviewing all alternatives, I find 
myself in support of an increase in the amount of $90 per year 
and it is this increase which I recommend. 



It is further recommended that the same percentage in- 
creases be applied to tuition in Dentistry and Medicine which 
would result in increases of $47 per quarter in Dentistry and 
$53 per quarter in Medicine. Non-resident tuition would also 
be increased proportionately to $1752 per academic year ex- 
cept for Dentistry ($697 per quarter) and Medicine ($736 
per quarter). 

The proposed tuition charges are well within the award 
ceiling of the Illinois State Scholarship Commission and stu- 
dents eligible for awards would not be penalized by these in- 
creases. However, a special problem exists at the Chicago Cir- 
cle Campus in which entering students have not appeared to 
avail themselves of ISSC aid for which they are eligible. The 
Planning Committee recommends that tuition levels for 
freshmen students at Chicago Circle remain at the 1973-74 
level while efforts are made to overcome this apparent com- 
munication problem, and the Chancellors and I concur with 
this recommendation. 

It is understood that tuition levels for less than full-time 
students will reflect these increases so as to continue the same 
relationship as now exists between tuition for full-time and 
part-time students. 

In summary, then, I recommend that the Board of Trus- 
tees adopt the following position with regard to tuition policy 
and tuition levels for Fiscal 1975: 

1 . The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois reaffirms 
its support of the budget requests submitted by the Board to 
the Illinois Board of Higher Education for 1974-75; 

2. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois expresses 
its strong feeling that the financial needs of the University for 
1974-75 can and should be met through State appropriations 
without increases in tuition for 1974-75; 

3. If deemed necessary in the light of recommendations of the 
Board of Higher Education concerning 1974-75 budget levels 
and concerning 1974-75 tuition levels, the Board of Trustees of 
the University of Illinois expresses its intention to support the 
financial needs of the University by adopting tuition levels 
up to those tuition levels outlined above. In thus expressing 
itself, the Board is alerting all those concerned that such 
tuition levels may be required for 1974-75 and is suggesting 
that the financial planning of students include consideration 
of this possibility. 

The Board of Trustees at its November 21 meeting 
adopted the President's recommendations as outlined in 
the report. 



Revision of General Rules Re Disability by Reason of Pregnancy 



The Board of Trustees meeting on the Medical Cen- 
ter Campus November 21 approved the revision of Sec- 
tion 29 (c) of The General Rules Concerning University 
Organization and Procedure in regard to disability of aca- 
demic or administrative staff by reason of pregnancy. This 
was President Corbally's recommendation for the revision : 

By administrative practice, pregnancy and the need to ha\ e 
maternity leave have generally been constnied to be a con- 
dition of "disability" under Section 29 (c) (2) of The General 
Rules Concerning University Organization and Procedure. Ap- 
plications for maternity leave were thus go\emed by the same 
approval procedures and rules as other forms of disability. 

In order to make explicit this construction of these pro- 
visions and to assure consistent. University-wide policy in this 



regard, I recommend that the following sentence be added to 

Section 29 (c) (2):* 

For the purposes of this subsection (2), disability includes 
cases in which the staff member is disabled from perfor- 
mance of duty by reason of pregnancy. 
In accordance with procedures specified in the University 

Statutes, I have consulted the University Senates Conference 

in connection with this matter. 

* Analogous provisions specifically relating to nonacademic 
employees already exist in University of Illinois Policy and Rules 
— Nonacademic. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



Tilfivl 



A. 




Gilt ana Lxcnanga jivision 
220a Library 
3 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



. :: '-'^fifflv OF THE 

MAR 2 a iy74 



UNIVERSITY OF ILUNDIS 



No. 244, March 13, 1974 



Presidenfs Mc??w on Office of Academic Development and Coordination 



The following memorandum was sent January 2 to 
the members of the Board of Trustees by President 
John E. Corbally Jr., regarding the Office of Academic 
De\elopment and Coordination : 

On July 9, 1973, I mailed to the Board of Trustees a 
status repon concerning the Office of Academic Development 
and Coordination. I indicated that in my April, 1972, state- 
ment on .Administrative Functions and Organization, the 
Office of .-Xcademic Development and Coordination was de- 
scribed as follows: 

As an interim step while the operation of the Office of 
University Planning and Resource Allocation gets started 
and while the flow of academic decision making and 
academic coordination within the University is analyzed, 
it is proposed that an Office of Academic Development 
and Coordinadon be established with the responsibility 
for the second set of functions listed above. (See below.) 
The chief executive officer of this Office will be desig- 
nated as the \'ice President for .Academic Development 
and Coordination. 

I further emphasized that the whole area of the administra- 
tion of academic affairs w-as imder study and that recom- 
mendations would be brought to the Board early in 1974, 
following consultation with Uni\ersity staff. This memoran- 
dum presents an outline of those recommendations, which 
have been discussed with and are supported by the University 
Senates Conference. 

My April, 1972, statement identified three basic func- 
tions for the Office of Academic Development and Coordina- 
tion : 

The development of relationships both within Illinois and 
the nation and the world to insure that the University of 
Illinois plays its appropriate role as a member of the 
larger education community. 

The coordination of the operation of the various compo- 
nents of the University to insure that the University func- 
tions as an organic university rather than as an aggregate 
of unrelated campuses and capitalizes upon the advan- 
tages of its resources as a system. 

The administration of Universitywide educational 
programs. 

Four units repon directly to the Vice President (Survey 
Research Laboratory, Institute of Government and Public 



Affairs, Office of School and College Relations, University 
Press) and he chairs the University Academic Council and 
other councils coordinating Computer-Based Education, 
Urban Programs, Environmental Studies, Equal Opportunity, 
Graduate Education and Research, Health Affairs, and Li- 
braries. The Administrative Guidelines assign to the Vice 
President responsibilities for a portion of the planning and 
evaluation processes, for the Universitywide review of aca- 
demic programs and policies (including new degrees, majors, 
curriculum revisions), for the appointment of University rep- 
resentatives to commissions and agencies, and (as the dele- 
gate of the President) for the approval of academic admin- 
istrative appointments, faculty promotions, salary increases, 
and other academic personnel matters. In addiuon to general 
responsibilities for recommending University academic pro- 
gram fiscal requirements and priorities, the Vice President 
serves as the system's Program Officer in all relationships with 
the Illinois Board of Higher Education, and he is the Uni- 
versity Equal Opportunity Officer. 

During the first year of the "post-Provost" organization, 
academic functions at the general University level have been 
carried out according to what one might call maximum de- 
centralization. This principle was in keeping with the effort 
to increase the operating role of the campus administration 
and the coordinating role of the central administration. It is 
clear, however, that the issue of the nature and intensity of 
the involvement of a University-level academic officer at both 
the University and campus levels must be pursued further. 

Faced now with the formulation of recommendations 
addressed to this issue, three points require emphasis: 

1. No one supports the elimination of a major involve- 
ment with academic concerns from the central University 
administration • — in fact, there is general faculty and ad- 
ministrative support for a strengthening of such involvement. 

2. The prevailing opinion is that insufficient time has 
elapsed to permit the current organization to undergo any 
meaningful evaluation. 

3. There is a need for reaffirmation of our commitment 
to the development of Universitywide programmatic and 
support systems where such arrangements constitute the most 
effective response of the University to the requirements of its 
mission. 

These three observations represent a part of what we 
have learned this past year, and point the way to the next 
steps I am recommending. This statement will stipulate the 



basic objectives of the Office of Academic Development and 
Coordination, and will describe the outcomes that will be 
observed in order to determine whether or not those pur- 
poses have been served. An evaluation of this or any office 
cannot be undertaken imtil evaluative criteria have been 
established, and sufficient time has elapsed since the state- 
ment of the criteria to permit a review of results. A valid 
context for evaluation must be built, while at the same time 
the quality of the University's academic functions is 
maintained. 

Success in meeting these functions will rest upon the 
quality of three activities based in the system's academic 
office — development, coordination, and evaluation. 

DEVELOPMENT. Academic planning at a multi-cam- 
pus uni\'ersity involves a sensitive layering of innovation 
and stimulation. Board of Trustee action at its July, 
1973, meeting established the Office of Policy Analysis 
and Evaluation to aid the Academic Vice President in 
the analysis of long-range program issues and to serve 
as a link to the Planning and Allocation Vice President's 
analytical staff. The implementation of this office will 
require considerable attention during the next two years. 
The detemiination of University priorities and re- 
source requirements for new programs is the other major 
task within the development function. The Vice Presi- 
dent is charged this year with completion and initial 
implementation of the program sections of the Univer- 
sity's "Scope and Mission" document tied to monthly 
meetings with the planning officers of the campuses. This 
responsibility includes the identification of program areas 
that fall within the mission of one, two, or all three 
campuses, and the establishment of guidelines for the 
development of new programs within these areas. Suc- 
cessful planning will rest, in part, upon the relationship 
between internal allocation procedures and the determi- 
nation of program priorities; therefore, the system office 
will participate in the development, administration, and 
evaluation of major new programs in a way that will 
increase the probability of achieving the required new 
program support. 

COORDINATION. There is an extremely delicate bal- 
ance between preserving campus initiatives in academic 
administration and facilitating the most efficient and 
effective use of the University's academic resources. We 
have not come close to maximizing the educational oppor- 
tunities available to us through multi-campus academic 
programs and support services. We plan to continue a 
series of vigorous explorative discussions concerning 
shared resources and the elimination of nonproductive 
duplication. A major long-nm goal of the system's 
Academic Vice President will be to encourage each of 
the campuses to view the quality of the other campuses 
as intimately related to its own welfare. 

There are a variety of interpretations one can derive 
from the "organic University" concept as it applies to 
academic functions. During the next few years good 
sense dictates a concentration upon a limited number of 
testing models to gauge the opportunities and problems 
confronting systemwide academic coordination : 

Joint Degrees — Both the Chicago campuses and the 
Board of Higher Education have been enthusiastic about 
the development of a joint Ph.D. degree in Bioengineer- 
ing. Built upon the complementary strengths in the 
field at Chicago Circle and the Medical Center and 



administered by a faculty committee appointed by the 
Vice President, this program will be studied carefully 
to determine whether it provides applicable lessons for 
other disciplines. 

University Councils — ■ A series of councils chaired by 
the Vice President advises the President on program 
matters affecting more than one campus. They help to 
define Universitywide needs, exchange disciplinary in- 
formation, and undertake ad hoc assignments addressed 
to the sharing of resources. The University Council on 
Environmental Studies has been particularly effective in 
this endeavor, in large measure because it achieves 
leveraged coordination through Trustee authority to 
assist the Vice President in reviewing program priorities 
and resource requirements. 

Balancing Emphases — There are several fields where 
a greater need exists to orient campus programs toward 
unique strengths and settings. A number of the applied 
social sciences, architecture, and urban plaiming are 
within this group, and at least one of these should re- 
ceive major staff attention to facilitate campus develop- 
ment if resources permit. 

Two-Campus Programs — For the past several months 
campus and University officers have been exchanging 
views on the organization of the Jane Addams School 
of Social Work. A new joint doctoral degree, new 
B.S.W. programs at both campuses, and increased de- 
mand upon school resources have forced a reexamina- 
tion of current patterns in social work at the University, 
and the resolution of this issue will be watched as a 
model for other programs presently or potentially split 
between two or more campuses. 

Program Expansion — As chairman of the University 
Council on Health Affairs, and as the system officer 
responsible to the President for coordinating aca- 
demic planning in the health professions, the Vice Presi- 
dent will continue to play an important role in the 
long-range implementation of the University's health 
programs. As in each of the categories within the coordi- 
nation function, there are other fundamental require- 
ments for system attention in this area (several major 
professional fields, for example), but manpower and 
energy constraints mandate a focus upon a limited num- 
ber of programs. 

Universitywide Degrees — There has been consider- 
able discussion over the past year about the develop- 
ment of quality programs at the University level. This 
exchange includes the suggestion to expand degree- 
granting authority in certain departments from campus 
to University status under limited and carefully controlled 
conditions, in addition to the recommendation for new 
Universitywide degrees in areas such as Human Ecology, 
or Urban Politics and Policy Analysis. The Office of 
Academic Development and Coordination will explore 
these issues with constant attention to faculty-defined 
quality standards and an emphasis upon complementary 
use of academic strengths. 

Supporting Services — The Office of Academic Devel- 
opment and Coordination plans a major effort in 
the development of one or two University facilitative 
mechanisms for improving the support of academic 
functions. Research-Instruction computing and library 
facilities have been identified by the University Planning 



Committee for exploration to determine whether present 
capacities can be strengthened in order to provide better 
services to faculty at all three campuses. 

It is all too easy to point out obstacles challenging 
each of these academic coordination activities. No multi- 
campus university has met very many of them success- 
fully — '"initiatixc" must be present, but "autonomy" 
must be preserved; interests must be protected, but 
trust must prevail; staff is required, but people intrude; 
authority must exist, but its exercise must be cautious; 
resources must be available, but there are pressing cam- 
pus needs. There is a call for wisdom, experience, respect, 
and influence at the system academic level, but a con- 
stant concern that the office not be too active or visible. 
These ironies will never disappear, and the paradoxes 
upon which they rest are in the very fiber of a high- 
quality complex university. We do plan to invest time, 
money, and manpower resources to coordinate the 
multi-campus nature of this institution, and with the 
present quality of our campus, college, and departmental 
administrators the probability of success in responding 
to the challenges above is higher than one would find at 
most universities. 

EV,\LUATION. Very few of the difficulties noted in 
the last section do not apply as well to the evaluation 
fimction, and the necessity to undertake this activity is 
just as great. There are many aspects to the evaluation 
function, which I have called elsewhere one of the three 
major responsibilities of the University's central adminis- 
tration along with planning and allocation. The Office of 
Academic Development and Coordination has respon- 
sibility for several of these aspects, primarily related to 
academic programs. As a member of the task force to 
study the evaluation of academic administrators, the 
\'ice President will participate in the recommendation 
of guidelines for interpreting or revising University 
Statutes. As a personal recipient of a grant from the 
Fimd for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, 
he will be analyzing the criteria and procedures for 
evaluating the performance of university chief execu- 
tives; as an institutional recipient of a National Science 
Foundation grant, he is studying the organization and 
administration of the University's federally supported 
research activities. 

The Academic Vice President's primary concern, how- 
ever, relates to the Scope and Mission discussion of the 
evaluation of proposed and existing programs. Each of 
the campuses has begun to assess systematically the 
quality of its academic programs, and at Urbana those 
interests have reached a level of sophistication unmatched 
at most institutions. The \'ice President, assisted by the 
Office of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, will discuss with 
each campus its mechanism for program review, its set of 
criteria, and analyze reports of specific evaluations. A 
major component of the Vice President's programmatic 
resource allocation decisions to and between campuses 
will rest upon the results of these efforts, and his partici- 
pation in the planning and budgeting processes at the 
University level requires a direct involvement in campus 
evaluation activities. 

In addition, each of the four units reporting directly 
to the Vice President for Academic Development and 
Coordination is involved to some degree in a similar 
enterprise. The Survey Research Laboratory is part of 
the first group of COPE evaluations, the University Press 



has de\eloped a long-range fiscal strategy, the Institute 
of Government and Public Affairs has just completed a 
plan for program development and evaluation, and the 
Office of School and College Relations is in the process 
of defining its specific role and objectives. General cam- 
pus and University procedures will be reviewed, and at 
a fall, 1974, Board of Trustees meeting a report will be 
presented by the Vice President summarizing the progress 
made during the initial evaluation phase. 

It is obvious that many of the systemwide academic re- 
sponsibilities cut across two, or all three, of these primary 
functions. One critical assignment that relates directly to all 
three involves the interaction between the University of Illi- 
nois and the Illinois Board of Higher Education. A recent 
report from New York emphasizes the lifting of a two-year 
moratorium on new doctoral programs, coinciding with plans 
for State Education Department evaluation of all existing 
doctoral programs in the State, and the view that all doc- 
toral programs should be regarded as "an interrelated state- 
wide resource." The Office of Academic Development and 
Coordination has been working with the IBHE staff to insure 
that the goals of quality and complementarity expressed by the 
IBHE are achieved in Illinois without the disniptive intru- 
sion implied by reports from other states. The University ad- 
ministration and the Board staff are committed to faculty- 
oriented quality control of academic programs, and the Vice 
President for Academic Development and Coordination will 
be exploring with the IBHE program staff the leadership 
potential available at the University of Illinois in the areas 
of academic planning and evaluation. 

The announcement of an impending "Master Plan-Phase 
IV" from the Illinois Board of Higher Education places even 
greater emphasis upon this responsibility. If we are to present 
the programmatic vision for the University of Illinois in the 
1970s, supported by quantitative analyses and placed in a 
priority context, then the leadership for such a document 
must come from the Academic Vice President's office. It is 
important to recognize, however, as we have stated in a draft 
of our Scope and Mission report, that the system academic 
officer also will continue to exercise a vigorous review of 
internal program approvals. Only through such a vigorous 
application of quality, need, and cost criteria at each Univer- 
sity level will we be able to argue to the State that those 
program developments the Illinois Board of Higher Education 
is asked to endorse represent the best possible application of 
quality resources. 

These objectives encompass the range of functions assigned 
to the systemwide Academic Vice President. The three es- 
sential components of development, coordination, and evalua- 
tion translate into the primary criteria one must apply within 
three years in assessing the premises and performance of the 
Office. If a valid test of multi-campus academic administration 
is to be constructed, then the objectives must be spelled out 
as they have been, and a commitment of resources and 
stability must be made. A University academic officer with 
major influence in matters relating to the allocation of re- 
sources, the development and evaluation of academic pro- 
grams, and the coordination of academic functions, provides 
the opportunity to judge whether multi-campus academic 
administration can assist the campuses in their mutual efforts 
to enhance the quality of education. 

We have learned during the initial year what the param- 
eters of our effort should be in order to attempt such a judg- 
ment. I recommend now that we proceed to see whether these 
objectives can be approached. 



Appointment of Associate Vice President fo?^ Academic Coordination 



In line with the President's recommendations for the 
Office of Academic Development and Coordination as 
stated above, the Board of Trustees at its February 20 
meeting approved the appointment of Dr. George A. 
Russell as Associate Vice President for Academic 
Coordination. 

Dr. Russell, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research 
and Development and Acting Dean of the Graduate Col- 
lege at the Urbana-Champaign Campus, holds master 
and doctoral degrees from the University. He served in 
the Navy from 1940 to 1960, retiring with the rank of 
lieutenant commander. In 1961 and 1962 he was a Sum- 
mer Session lecturer at Urbana before joining the faculty 
in 1962 as an associate professor of physics. He became 
a full professor in 1965. He also has sened as Associate 
Director of the Materials Research Laboratory, Associate 



Head of the Department of Physics, and Associate Dean 
of the Graduate College. 

Dr. Russell will have responsibility for all aspects of 
system academic coordination as outlined in the back- 
ground paper, including the planning, implementation, 
and evaluation of University-wide programs, and the 
policy issues related to graduate education and research. 
He will help coordinate the University's input to the 
Illinois Board of Higher Education "Master Plan- 
Phase IV," and pay particular attention to the more 
efficient matching of external resources to internal 
strengths. A fundamental long-range goal developed for 
the Vice President and the Associate Vice President will 
be to have each of the campuses view the quality of the 
other campuses as intimately related to its own. 



Board of Trustees Statenunt on the William L. Springer Lake Project 



The Secretary of the Board of Trustees received a request 
from Colonel James M. Miller, District Engineer, Chicago 
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on November 5, to 
comment on the environmental considerations of the Draft 
Environmental Statement — William L. Springer Lake, dated 
September, 1973. On December 19, 1973, the Board acknowl- 
edged receipt of the Statement and asked the Director of 
Robert Allerton Park, who had also received a similar re- 
quest, to make an appropriate response on behalf of the Uni- 
versity of Illinois. The response was forwarded to the Corps 
of Engineers on January 18 as the Report of the Director, 
Professor Walter M. Keith, with copies sent to the University 
Board of Trustees. 

The Director, in his report, raises several questions of 
policy arising out of the review of the Environmental State- 
ment. These questions bear upon the Memorandum of Agree- 
ment of May, 1970, which was signed by the State of Illinois, 
the City of Decatur, the Decatur Sanitary District and the 
University of Illinois. These questions also relate to the 
statement of support of the project by Governor Walker in 
May, 1973. 

Two of the conditions or assurances of importance both to 
the Board of Trustees and to Governor Walker are: 

1. That the project will not result in significantly in- 
creased flooding in Allerton Park or adversely affect 
the ecology of that park. 

2. That the land above the joint-use pool for accommo- 
dation of the flood control pool will be covered with 
foliage and will be generally satisfactory for recrea- 
tional use when not covered with water. (The Uni- 
versity understands that the proposed project has 
established the joint-use pool elevation at 623.0' above 
mean sea level [MSL].) 

The Draft Environmental Statement does not provide clear 
evidence that these two conditions will be met. 

In addition, because of the reported experience record 
of other U. S. Corps of Engineers dams and reservoirs that 
was not available to us when the 1970 Memorandum of Agree- 
ment was negotiated, the Board of Trustees continues to be 
concerned that possible errors in design or changes in opera- 
tional procedures following construction of Lake Springer 



may ultimately result in adverse eff^ects upon the vegetation 
and wildlife in Allerton Park. Objective No. 7 of the Memo- 
randum of Agreement of 1970 outlines the development of an 
operational plan for water management in the reservoir. The 
Board maintains its concern for and interest in the early 
development of this plan prior to construction of the project. 

Some of the elements of the Memorandum of Agreement 
of 1970 have not been implemented and the draft of the 
Environmental Statement submitted by the Corps of Engineers 
does not appear to provide clear answers to concerns about 
"significantly increased flooding" nor about the "adverse 
eff^ects upon the ecology of Allerton Park." 

Accordingly, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees 
reaffirms its position with regard to the requirements of the 
Memorandum of Agreement of 1970 and declares its un- 
willingness to continue its present stance toward this project 
unless assured that those requirements are being and will be 
met. Toward this end, the Board of Trustees directs the 
administration of the University to analyze the final draft of 
the Environmental Statement when completed and to inform 
the Board concerning whether this statement contains the 
required assurances. 

In addition, the Board authorizes the University to retain 
suitable independent engineering or other consulting assis- 
tance to: 

1. Analyze the Draft Environmental Statement, and other 
documents, to ascertain the probable effects on Allerton 
Park, and other University properties, of the dam as 
now proposed and to report the results and findings 
of this analysis to the University. 

2. Advise the University of any feasible alternatives that 
would reduce, to an acceptable level, any damage to 
be expected from the dam. 

3. Advise the University as to how it can be guaranteed 
that the dam and reservoir will be designed, con- 
structed and managed so as to eliminate or restrict 
possible damage to an acceptable level. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



j^jle^^Mj^ 







FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 246, April 10, 1974 



'Tltf Measures of Qjuility'' — The President's Annual Message 



JOHN E. C.ORBALLY JR., PRl.SIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

I am pleased once again to greet and to \ isit with 
you — the people of Illinois — who are the constituency 
of the University of Illinois. In this, my third annual re- 
port to you, I am going to speak about quality. Quality 
is an elusive concept which can often be felt rather than 
measured. It is not easily described within the usual 
framework of numbers and charts and its definition varies 
witli the purposes of the individual or institution to which 
it is applied. In spite of these difficulties, it is important 
that those of us who represent the University of Illinois 
and who work to maintain and to enhance the quality of 
the University can describe that quality in meaningful 
ways. For it is because of that quality that we are a 
unique asset of the State of Illinois, that we require spe- 
cial understanding and special levels of financial support, 
and that we can contribute in so many ways to the 
people of Illinois, of the nation, and of the world. 

Obviously, our qualit)- must be measured in terms 
of what we are asked to be. We are a Land-CJrant uni- 
\ersity and as such we not only are asked to offer pro- 
grams of instruction and of research but to bring these 
programs to bear upon public problems through activities 
of e.xtension and of public seivice. Within the require- 
ments of this charge, we must be more than a teaching 
and research institution in the mold of the great private 
and public non-Land-Grant universities and must invoke 
ourselves with people in ways which influence their daily 
lives for the better. 

In addition to our role as a Land-Grant university, 
we have consistently been viewed as the primary public 
university in Illinois in the areas of graduate and of pro- 
fessional education. We are described as "a comprehen- 
sive university" with programs encompassing every aca- 
demic and professional discipline through the highest 
academic or professional degree appropriate to each disci- 
pline. This combination of breadth and depth requires 
programs of teaching and research which are found in 
only a few such comprehensive universities, rec)uires a 
faculty- and staff with special abilities to permit the design 
and offering of such programs at all levels of university 
instruction, and requires a student body with the motiva- 
tion and academic abilities to permit success in such 
programs. 

So it is within this dual role of Land-Grant univer- 
sity and comprehensive university that the University of 



Illinois performs and it is within this dual role that our 
measures of quality must be found. 

The high quality of the student body at the LTniversity 
of Illinois is one of the major reasons for the University's 
reputation as a center of excellence in higher education. 

The "typical" freshman is a graduate of the upper 
one-fifth of his high school class. Fewer than one student 
in ten enters the University from the lower half of his 
high school class. 

In addition, freshmen entering the University of Illi- 
nois earn test scores substantially higher than the na- 
tional average for college-bound students. The "typical" 
University of Illinois freshman earns a composite score 
of twenty-four on the American College Test — which is 
better than seven out of ten college-bound students taking 
this exam, .'\mong the colleges, the average composite 
scores vaiy from nineteen (better than four out of ten 
students nationally) to twenty-seven (better than nine 
out of ten). In comparison with more than 400 institu- 
tions participating in the ACT Research Service, the 
University of Illinois ranks in the upper two per cent 
in teiTns of the average test scores of its entering 
freshmen. 

The success of these students at the University is evi- 
denced by the fact that, at the end of their first year, 
97 per cent are eligible to continue to their second year. 

It is perhaps not surprising to leam that these highly 
qualified and motivated freshmen earned more than 
29,000 semester hours of college credit last fall on the 
basis of proficiency exams — credit which represents the 
equivalent of a full year of college work for nearly 1,000 
students. 

The University of Illinois also attracts a large num- 
ber of highly qualified transfer students from a variety 
of two- and four-year institutions, including every public 
community college in the State. The typical transfer stu- 
dent enters with a B— average for his previous college 
work, having graduated from high school in the upper 
third of his class. Approximately one of every five under- 
graduates enrolled in the University entered as a transfer 
student. 

The quality of entering students is outstanding in the 
professional colleges: Law and Veterinary Medicine at 
Urbana-Champaign and Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, 



and Nursing at the Medical Center. There are far more 
appHcants than spaces available in all of these colleges, 
ranging from more than two applicants for each space 
in Pharmacy to nearly ten to one in Medicine. And the 
average grades of the successful applicants for college 
work prior to entrance range from B— to A — . For the 
professional colleges requiring standardized tests (Medi- 
cine, Dentistry, Law, and Veterinary' Medicine), the 
average scores of the entering students are better than 
eight out of eveiy ten applicants in the nation. 

At the graduate le\el, the high quality of entering 
students is evidenced by their undergraduate academic 
records. Those admitted ha\e, on the average, earned 
undergraduate grades of B+ to A. In a number of de- 
partments, competition for admission is so keen that only 
those students with the most outstanding records can 
be selected. 

The attracti\-eness of the University to students with 
excellent academic records and a wide variety of career 
interests and goals results in a stimulating atmosphere 
both inside and outside the classroom. As one reflection 
of this atmosphere, the University ranks third among all 
universities in the nation, and first in the Big Ten, in 
the number of its baccalaureate graduates who have also 
earned doctorates. 

Among the outstanding graduates of the University, 
there are five Nobel Prize winners and ten Pulitzer Prize 
recipients; and thirty-one alumni are presidents or chair- 
men of the board of the 500 largest United States cor- 
porations, a record exceeded only by two universities in 
the nation. 

As impressive as are these facts, an even more impres- 
sive measurement of student quality is found in visiting 
infomially with these young men and women. The range 
of their interests is enormous. One need only review the 
list of out-of-class activity groups supported and mostly 
de\eloped by students to realize that these are not ordi- 
nary' young people. Singing groups, radio clubs, chess 
clubs, foreign languages clubs, intramural sports, arts 
and crafts clubs, volunteer activities in the communities, 
astronomy clubs, hiking clubs — these and hundreds more 
engage the attention of our students during their non- 
class hours. One feels their quality in ways much more 
convincing than are mere test scores and high school 
ranks. 

Faculty and staff quality can be measured in many 
ways and also is better felt than quantified. Each month 
I report to our Board of Trustees concerning the honors 
and awards received by members of our faculty and 
staff. Each month I report upon elective offices in pro- 
fessional societies and organizations to which members 
of our faculty and staff ha\e been elected by their col- 
leagues. 

Last June I was pleased to announce the election of 
Professor Rudolph A. Marcus to the American Academy 
of Arts and Sciences, bringing to sixteen the number of 
our faculty members who belong to this group. The oldest 
organization of its kind in the nation, the .\cademy elects 
outstanding .Americans from all areas of arts and sciences. 
Professor Marcus is a physical chemist. 



In May, Professor David Pines was elected to the 
National Academy of Sciences. Professor Pines is a mem- 
ber of the Departments of Physics and Electrical Engi- 
neering and his election brings to twenty the total num- 
ber of University' facults' elected to this exclusive group. 

-Vlso in May, two facult)' members were elected to 
the National Academy of Engineering. Professor Nick 
Holonyak, Jr., an electrical engineer, and Professor Ven 
Te Chow, a civil engineer, bring the total University of 
Illinois membership in this group to thirteen. 

On January 1, an Illinois alumnus took office as presi- 
dent of the 108,000-member American Chemical Society. 
Professor Bernard S. Friedman of the University of Chi- 
cago is the fifth alumnus of the University of Illinois 
to become president of the group in nine years. Another 
alumnus, Professor William J. Bailey of the University 
of Maryland, will assume the post in 1975. 

Particularly at the graduate and professional levels, 
the reputation of the faculty is a key element in attract- 
ing students and new faculty to an institution. The fact 
that graduate enrollments continue to remain stable at 
the University of Illinois in the face of declining enroll- 
ments nationally, and the success of our campuses in 
recruiting able young men and women to join our faculty 
are further measures of quality. 

And, as is true of our students, our faculty and staflf 
members are interesting and involved human beings with 
wide ranging activities in their communities and in their 
leisure time. Whether it be gourmet cooking or weather 
forecasting or ancient coins or antique cars, I have yet 
to find an area of interest in which one or more members 
of our faculty and staff are not bona fide experts. These 
men and women are quality people as well as individuals 
who perform their Uni\ersity tasks with quality. 

The cjuality of the programs of the L^niversity is 
best illustrated by citing just a few examples. These exam- 
ples illustrate the attention which is paid by the people 
of the LTniversity of Illinois to needs which are often 
unrecognized. They are examples of \\hat might be called 
a "quality of concern" which is a hallmark of the Univer- 
sity and they illustrate that our programs are designed 
to ser\-e all of the people of Illinois rather than only 
"registered students." 

The Intensive English Institute is a service of the 
Di\ision of English as a Second Language and the Office 
of Continuing Education and Public Service. 

There are many inquiries and applications for admis- 
sion from promising foreign students who seem well 
qualified in their fields of study but have an insufficient 
knowledge of English for academic work. 

The Intensive English Institute is equipped to meet 
the language needs of these students on the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus. These students have the advantage 
of concurrent campus orientation on the site of their 
future academic work, and special arrangements can be 
made to ease them into their academic courses of study 
as they gain increased knowledge of the language of in- 
struction which, of course, is English. 

Such arrangements may include auditing of select 
academic courses or interaction modules with "commu- 



nication pals" from the relevant academic disciplines. 
For any students needing some additional assistance in 
English after their completion of the regular program, 
semi-intensi\e non-credit courses in English are available 
to be taken along with a reduced course load in the aca- 
demic curriculum. 

The program of instruction includes a minimum of 
twenty hours of classes per week plus PLATO and tradi- 
tional laboratop.- reinforcement: special clinics; tutoring 
as needed on an indi\idual basis; field trips; communi- 
cation pal assignments; and automatic community access 
telephone instruction a\ailabilit\- through direct dialing 
t\senty-four hours per day. 

Community Health Centers have been established by 
the University of Illinois Rockford School of Medicine 
in Belvidere, Kirkland, Durand, and Mt. Morris, bring- 
ing medical services to areas lacking sufficient doctors. 
The vast majority of health care contacts are made in 
the ambulator)- office setting. The teaching of ambula- 
tors' medicine at the Rockford School of Medicine is 
constructed to involve the student and the teacher deeply 
in a system of comprehensive, continuing personal health 
care. 

The community health center office system was de- 
signed specifically for student teaching and the concomi- 
tant provision of health care in areas where medical ser- 
vices are inadequate. The program is the first effort of 
its kind anwhere in the United States. Excellence of 
teaching and care, consistency in cjuality and availability 
of service, and evidence of deep interest in the social and 
professional needs of the community must be hallmarks 
to accompany success for the community health centers 
as a new mode for medical education. 

The objectives of the program are the following: 

1. to provide ambulator)' care centers involving pa- 
tient, student and teacher in a continuing rela- 
tionship : 

2. to encourage students to practice outside urban 
and suburban settings; 

3. to provide health care services to communities 
lacking such services ; 

4. to experiment with delivery systems for health 
care; 

5. to develop experimental programs for sophisti- 
cated "physician extender" care; 

6. to fund the teaching of ambulatory care through 
deliver)' of health care ; 

7. to bring scientific backing and sophistication to 
the health care deliver)' system through experi- 
enced teachers in each office ; 

8. to study the effect of the system on the function 
of ph)'sician-teachers in the office teaching setting. 

The Energy Resources Center at Chicago Circle was 
established to study and offer advice on the overall energy 
problem in the State of Illinois — established, inciden- 
tally, weW before the "energy crisis" became a part of 
our daily lives. The Center will initially determine the 
magnitude of the flow of natural resources, coal, oil, gas, 
and uranium into the State in general, and into Chicago, 



in particular, to establish the use pattern of energ)' re- 
sources in such areas as transportation, industi7, and 
residential-commercial. 

Critical research and development needs for the 
energ)' resource program of the State will be identified 
and active research undertaken in selected areas. The 
technical manpower needs in the energy field in Illinois 
and surrounding states will be explored and, if necessary, 
recommendations for new programs to meet future needs 
will be generated. The Department of Architecture, the 
bioengineering program, and the Departments of Energy 
Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Political Science 
will be involved in the studies. Projects will include the 
analysis of electrical power usage, coal desulfurization 
processes and coal gasification systems for energy use 
patterns, waste heat in the nuclear power program, and 
possible energy savings through alteration of transporta- 
tion patterns. 

The Center is administered by the College of Engi- 
neering. 

The first Annual Illinois Energv' Conference was held 
at Chicago Circle during the summer of 1972. It was 
sponsored by the Department of Energy Engineering 
and the Division of University Extension, and its purpose 
was to examine the energy problems in the State of Illi- 
nois. The first Illinois Conference was the initial step 
in the development of the Energy Resources Center. The 
Center is now actively involved in the planning of the 
second conference devoted to energy conservation in 
Illinois. 

Doing business with the Russians requires training 
and know-how — and the University of Illinois at Ur- 
bana-Champaign is offering its help to Illinois leaders 
in business, industry, and government. 

The University of Illinois Committee for Public Ser- 
vice in International Affairs — through the prestigious 
Russian and East European Center — is mobilizing the 
University's resources to help these leaders, their organi- 
zations or firms and their associates deal effectively with 
Soviet Union agencies. 

Its ammunition includes three dozen faculty spe- 
cialists, a stellar library collection, and even a com- 
puterized Russian language teaching machine program. 

And, first of all, the University is offering to industry 
options as to how assistance in Russian-East European 
background information and studies might be delivered. 

"With the recent dramatic expansion of United 
States-Soviet trade, many Illinois business leaders have 
expressed a desire to know more about Russia — its insti- 
tutions, language, culture, and society," according to 
Professor Ralph T. Fisher, Jr., Director, Russian and 
East European Center, and J. Terry Iversen, Chairman, 
Committee for Public Service in International Affairs. 

They explained that the plan is to help industry 
"profit by the facilities and expertise readily available 
at the University in order to deal more effectively and 
efficiently with the Soviet Union." 

The Committee and the Center are inviting businesses 
to suggest the kinds of Russian studies programs which 



would fit their needs — on-campus instruction, oflF-cam- 
pus courses, short courses, or symposia. 

They point to the outstanding faciUties and courses 
associated with the University of IIHnois Russian and 
East European Center. 

The University of Illinois has been teaching Russian 
history since the 1930's, and the present Center was 
established with support from the United States Office 
of Education. 

"The Russian and East European Center brings to- 
gether some three dozen Russian studies specialists on 
agricultural economics, anthropology', economics, educa- 
tion, geography, history, law, languages, library science, 
literatures, political science, and sociology," the letter 
explains. 

Backing up faculty resources is the third largest ap- 
propriate university library collection in the country. 
Holdings in Slavic and East European studies now total 
more than 300,000 volumes, the largest collection of any 
libraiy west of Washington, D.C. A unique facility is the 
special Slavic-East European Reading Room. 

Even PL.\TO — the mighty computer — has been 
drafted. The University of Illinois has developed a Rus- 
sian language course using PLATO in conjunction with 
a te.xtbook, "Reading and Translating Contemporary 
Russian." It can be a self-instruction course, or be taught 
by an instructor. Its advantage is that each student can 
complete the lab work at his own pace and thus decrease 
the time needed to learn Russian. 

Ninety-five State contracts were actively being car- 
ried out by the University as of April 11, 1973. Involved 
are twenty-seven State agencies and a total dollar amount 
of $4,698,767. 

The projects are classified as research, public service, 
fellowship, scholarship, workshop, instruction, adminis- 
tration, or organized activities. 

Research was contracted in many areas, including 
adult education, exceptional children, cattle and swine 
disease, Illinois wildlife, pollution control, drugs, mass 
transportation, and many others. 

Public Service contracts include veterinary diagnostic 
services, supervision of a pollution control task force, 
the annual Fire College, library services for Illinois resi- 
dents, a workshop in bricklaying and masonry construc- 
tion and one in mechanical trades, in-senice training to 
health occupations instructors, and consumer and home- 
making education for low-income families. 

Fellowships and Scholarships include legislative stafT 
internships, minority group members trained as public 
service administrators, training of social workers, match- 
ing funds for contributions of students for undergraduate 
scholarships, special education traineeships, aircraft and 
engine mechanic scholarships, and a master's level pro- 
gram in preschool education of the handicapped. 

Workshops and Instruction include an educational 
program for low-income fami families in four Southern 
Illinois counties, Asian and Middle Eastern studies, 
sharing computer resources, a summer program for re- 



training special education teachers in preschool education 
of the handicapped, safety and driver education retrain- 
ing for experienced teachers, aircraft maintenance pro- 
gram, recruitment, training and placement of teachers in 
the health field, a master's level program in criminal 
justice, special education traineeships, an environmental 
health seminar series, residency training in psychiatry, 
and a nurse recruiting and education program. 

Organized Activities include the Medical Center 
Community Mental Health Program, the Child Psy- 
chiatry Clinic, and clinical psychiatric services for adult 
outpatients. 

These examples are merely illustrative of the cjuality 
of our students, of our faculty and stafT, and of our pro- 
grams. These people and their activities are what led to 
the designation of the University of Illinois as one of 
forty-eight members of the .\ssociation of .\merican Uni- 
versities, as a member of the International Association 
of Universities, as a consistent high ranking institution in 
ratings of faculty and programs conducted by the Amer- 
ican Council on Education and other agencies, and as an 
institutional member of the Argonne Universities Asso- 
ciation and of the Universities Research Association — 
two national groups engaging in cooperative advanced 
research undertakings. It is these people and these pro- 
grams that assist the University in contributing to the 
economic strength of the State of Illinois through teach- 
ing, research, and public service. It is these people and 
these programs that enable the University of Illinois to 
receive Federal support of its programs in amounts 
exceeded by only nine or ten public and private univer- 
sities of the nearly 1,700 in the nation. It is these people 
and these programs which lead our sister institutions of 
postsecondary education in Illinois to look consistently 
to the University of Illinois for leadership in innovation 
and in problem solving in higher education. 

These examples and countless other activities add up 
to the University of Illinois and to its unique and price- 
less quality. When we speak of and seek dollars from the 
General Assembly, we are really seeking support for these 
people and programs and, ultimately, for each of you. 
We could be a less expensive university; but we could not 
do so and remain the kind of University of Illinois which 
you have supported over the years and which our State 
deserves. As one who has lived and worked in such states 
as California, Washington, Ohio, and New York, I am 
persuaded that no state in our nation can or should sur- 
pass Illinois. We are a top-quality State and one hallmark 
of such a state is the quality of its principal university. 
Our State is known and respected throughout the world 
by many who know only of the University of Illinois. We 
want to continue to play our role as a leading indicator 
of the quality of Illinois. To do so, we need your con- 
tinuing understanding and your continuing support. We 
represent you to many people and in many ways and we 
shall continue to do our best to insure that your Univer- 
sity of Illinois represents you in the special ways of quality 
which characterize our State and the people of our State. 



'jlliAA^-l'P'' 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Prt'sident's Stattituiit to IBHE Tuition Study Ca?mmttee 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY JR., JUNE 3, 1974 
MEMBERS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE: 

While the Board of Trustees of the University of Illi- 
nois has taken various actions in the last year which are 
cither directly or indirectly related to the matter of 
tuition levels for students at the Univereity, the Board has 
not adopted an official jxjlicy {XDsition concerning tuition 
levels. It is, therefore, important to your consideration of 
my statement that you view it as an administrative state- 
ment wliich has the general support of my administrative 
colleagues at the University, but which has not been con- 
sidered by our governing board. 

It is fair to report that in every case where tuition 
le\els have been discussed by the Board of Trustees of the 
University of Illinois, there have been statements made 
in support of maintaining tuition levels at public univer- 
sities at the lowest possible levels. Neither the Board nor 
the administration of the Uni\ersity of Illinois believes 
that the financial problems of either public or private 
higher education can be resolved through a program of 
ever increasing tuitions in the public sector with so-called 
'"full-cost" tuition as the ultimate goal. The public sector 
of higher education was established to meet public pur- 
poses: to be responsive to public direction through gov- 
erning boards selected or elected through public processes, 
through the actions of the General Assembly, and through 
the actions of the executive branch of State Government ; 
and, accordingly, to be supported through public funds. 
The methods of funding and of control differ for the 
public and for the private sectors of higher education 
and it is those differences which permit and nurture the 
dual system of higher education which we believe to be 
important in our nation. To the extent that current real 
or imagined problems are permitted to lead to erosion of 
those differences in funding and in control, the existence 
of true and necessary duality is eroded. 

Low tuition is the best and most efficient scholarship 
mechanism available. Those who would argue that low 
tuition "subsidizes the wealthy" overlook the fact that 
public services are provided to all in this nation according 
to the usefulness and necessity of those services to each 
citizen and to the society as a whole. In the funding of 
those ser\ices — the ta.x program — arrangements can 
and have been made to provide for resting a greater tax 
burden upon those most able to pay. If it is felt that the 



No. 247^'W** 14. 1974 

burden of paying for any public service is not distributed 
equitably, an adjustment of the tax system is needed 
rather than the imposition of special fees which penalize 
the segment of society involved at any given time in a 
program meeting public purposes. 

At a time when many exjjress great concern about 
"overhead" costs, it seems inconsistent to support pro- 
grams which couple high tuition levels in the public sector 
with various new scholarship, loan, grant, and waiver 
programs — each of which adds overhead expense — 
which are not necessary if tuitions are held at reasonably 
low levels. It is equally inconsistent to become enamored 
with complex systems of differential tuition charges with 
the attendant "overhead" involved in calculating, assess- 
ing, and collecting tuition within such systems. Obviously, 
tuition charges deal with averages and with history. There 
is no way to develop a clear and objective jjhilosojjhical 
foundation for current tuition charges; to attempt to 
develop such a foundation for complex subdivisions of 
charges is to add confusion to confusion and is to attempt 
to clarify a pragmatic event by inundating that event 
with calculated subjecti\ ities. 

As I review the testimony already jjresented to the 
Committee, I am particularly impressed by the set of 
questions addressed to you by Representative James R. 
Washburn. I am not certain, for example, that there is 
merit to a statewide tuition policy as opposed to system 
tuition policies. I am not certain that tuition increases 
of the magnitude proposed for Fiscal Year 1975 really 
represent the massive and oppressive burden which they 
have been said to represent. Obviously, dollars spent for 
tuition payments represent dollars which cannot be spent 
for other purposes. With the well-supported ISSC pro- 
gram in Illinois, dollars spent by families and by indi- 
viduals for tuition are not dollars wliich most of those 
families or individuals would spend for food, shelter, or 
clothing. The expenditure of tuition dollars may represent 
some financial sacrifice, but our society has never, it 
seems to me, been based on any concept other than that 
worthwhile objectives are met through some choices and 
some sacrifice. To attempt to design a plan which elimi- 
nates the elements of sacrifice and of effort is, I believe, 
lx)th impossible and unwise. 

I am certain that the Study Committee is less inter- 
ested in comments about what should not be done than 



it is in suggestions concerning what might be done in the 
area of tuition levels. It is my view that the Committee 
should couch its recommendations in general terms, 
should reaffirm the role of system governing boards in 
considering tuition details, should seek system proposals 
for tuition policies which offer the long-range frame- 
works about which Representative Washburn spoke, 
should stress the need for some kind of legislative-execu- 
tive support at the State level of tuition plans ^vhich per- 
mit both institutions and students to plan within a tuition 
framework of stability and predictability, and should dis- 
avow the use of tuition in public higher education either 
as a means of dealing with problems of equity in tax pro- 
grams or as a means of preserving private higher educa- 
tion. While there is no magic in the current IBHE policy 
which establishes one-third of undergraduate instructional 
costs as a reasonable tuition goal, there is no magic in 
other numbers either. The "one-third" concept has served 
as a realistic goal, does have at least the merit of history, 
and is a concept which preserves what most of us consider 
to be low tuition levels in public higher education. It is 
a flexible framework which responds to inflation or to 
deflation and which pro\'ides for differences among sys- 
tems depending upon the nature and costs of system 
programs. It allows for special consideration within sys- 
tems of differential tuitions without attempting to de- 
scribe at the State level a set of complex considerations 
which var\' from system to system and from ^'ear to year. 



It provides a governing board with an opportunity to 
establish tuition levels at a percentage of cost rather than 
at specific dollar amounts so that all those interested in 
tuition levels can predict with some accuracy what the 
levels will be prior to specific governing board action to 
confirm current levels. 

In considering tuition levels within the University of 
Illinois, we must pay special attention to tuition charges 
at many institutions outside of Illinois. While it is im- 
portant that our tuition charges bear some intelligent 
relationship to charges at our sister public systems \vithin 
Illinois, we must also consider our relationships with the 
small number of public universities outside of Illinois who 
strive to meet the unique responsibilities and to serve 
the imique purposes of comprehensive Land-Grant uni- 
versities with special responsibilities for graduate and 
professional education, for public service, and for under- 
graduate education of a special scope and quality. Con- 
sideration, for example, of tuition charges at the graduate 
and professional levels of instruction is of far more signifi- 
cance to the University of Illinois than to anv other 
system within Illinois and is a consideration which we 
believe is best made by our Board of Trustees within a 
general policy framework adopted by the IBHE. 

I appreciate this opportunity- to present my views to 
you and look fonvard to continuing opportunities to work 
with the Committee and with the staff of the IBHE as 
you complete your important tasks. 



Scope and Mission of the University of Illinois. 1974-1980 



President Corbally gave to members of the Board of 
Trustees, meeting on the Medical Center Campus May 
15. 1974, copies of the document. Scope and Mission 
of the University of Illinois, 1974-1980, with this 
presentation : 

The accompanying document entitled Scope and Mission 
of the University of Illinois, 1974-1980 describes a planning 
framework for the educational activities of the University of 
Illinois system during the remainder of the 1970-1980 decade. 
This document is the culmination, but not the conclusion, of 
activities initiated in the spring of 1972 and is the most recent 
of several formal .statements of institutional mission, objectives, 
and plans. The first of these statements, the Provisional Devel- 
opment Plan, was approved in principle and for transmittal 
to the Illinois Board of Higher Education by the Board of 
Trustees on September 16, 1970. 

By the spring of 1972, both the staff of the Illinois Board 
of Higher Education and the staff of the University of Illinois 
had agreed that the principles and the procedures introduced 
by the IBHE staff to prepare the operating appropriations 
requests for FY 1972-73 left much to be desired. Executive 
Director's Report No. 104 recognized that all sectors of Illinois 
higher education "are mutually anxious to avoid the problems 
and the constricted timetable which hampered FY 1973 
deliberations." More specifically, it stated : 

The systems have been asked to provide their separate 
plans for approaching FY 1974 budget decisions. ^Ve will 
work to coordinate their responses to effect uniform 
development and review procedures. We are determined 



that the next several months be dedicated to institutional 
system and statewide planning, encouraging the priority 
and program evaluation activity to be done at the campus 
and system level. 

In response to the IBHE staff's request, the University 
suggested that several general issues be considered before the 
guidelines for the planning of succeeding appropriation re- 
quests were formulated, including the establi.shment of a basic 
fiscal frame of reference for institutional and IBHE-staff 
planning, the assessment by each institution (and by the IBHE 
staff) of the impact of the budget limitations for the biennium 
1971-73 upon the individual institutions and upon the entire 
system of higher education, the updating and further refine- 
ment of statewide enrollment projections for each campus, 
and the examination of the basic planning assumptions re- 
garding scope and mission for the various institutions. 

In its commentary upon the recommendations in Execu- 
tive Director's Report No. 103 for the elimination or sharp 
curtailment of some of its educational programs, the Univer- 
sity indicated that its unwillingness or inability to accept 
most of those recommendations stemmed in large measure 
from fundamental disagreements with what appeared to be 
the assumptions underlying them. It seemed clear then, and 
the IBHE staff subsequently agreed, that the apparent con- 
flict between Report No. 103 assumptions and the Master 
Plan-Phase III and other IBHE policy statements concerning 
the University's scope and mission had to be resolved as a 
prerequisite to effective communication and cooperation be- 
tween the Board of Higher Education and the Uni\crsity of 
Illinois in future planning. 



The first item in Report No. 104 addressed this point di- 
rectly in acknowledging that "Campus master plans at senior, 
jimior ;ind private institutions need systematic revision to 
bring these plans into full concurrence with MP-III, especially 
as it relates to scope and mission and intcrinstitutional plan- 
ning." The University commented in response to that observa- 
tion that: 

... in the light of the discussion above concerning the 
relationship of MP-III to the University of Illinois, that 
there is considerable ambiguity or indeterminancy in MP- 
III regarding that document's "basic planning assump- 
tions" for the various institutions. Many aspects of Master 
Plan-Phase III have not been defined operationally, and 
frequent disagreements have arisen between the IBHE 
staff and institutional representatives regarding the in- 
terpretation of MP-III. 

[University of Illinois Commentary 
on Executive Director's Report No. 
103, p. 57) 

During later discussions between the IBHE staff and the 
staff of each public higher education system, it was agreed 
that the initial step toward accomplishing an operational 
definition of MP-III would be the preparation by each institu- 
tion of a statement of its conception of the scope and mission 
assigned to it and of the corollary basic planning assumptions. 
As these institutional statements were being developed, con- 
ferences were held by the IBHE staff at each campus in May, 
1972, to explore the critical issues that might have emerged 
prior to the adoption of MP-III and since then, for the pur- 
prase of achieving better mutual understanding of apparent 
divergencies of interpretation and in the hope of resolving 
such differences to the fullest e.\tent possible. In the light of 
those discussions and partly on the basis of the statements 
submitted by each of the University's three campuses following 
the meetings with IBHE staff members, a document entitled 
The Scope and Mission of the University and the Basic Plan- 
ning Assumptions of Its Campuses was prepared and sub- 
mitted to the IBHE staff in June, 1972. 

For FY 1975 budget requests and multi-year budget esti- 
mates, the Illinois Board of Higher Education introduced a 
new format, the Resource Allocation and Management Pro- 
gram (RAMP), within which Illinois public senior univer- 
sities must submit their budgets for review by the IBHE. The 



RAMP format required, for the first time as a formal re- 
quirement, universities to state their .scope and mission ob- 
jectives and technical plans for achieving those goals. The 
accompanying document is in response partly to this require- 
ment and is the product of a continuous process of interaction 
between departments, colleges, campuses, central administra- 
tion, governing board, and the Illinois Board of Higher Edu- 
cation. Previous bound versions were prepared for distribu- 
tion to members of the Board of Trustees on July 18, 1973, 
and April 5, 1974. 

The first chapter considers the scope and mission of the 
University of Illinois as a whole, together with its major plan- 
ning emphases, and the continuing process of academic de- 
velopment and program evaluation. The following three chap- 
ters are focused upon the distinctive contributions made by 
each campus to the University's educational mission and 
responsibilities, and upon the basic assumptions underlying 
their respective sets of priorities in educational planning and 
in the allocation of resources. Attention is given to several 
specific problems that have been identified during the many 
scope and mission deliberations. 

The second section of the document spells out the Uni- 
versity's assumptions about enrollment patterns and the avail- 
ability of resources for higher education. The planning pro- 
posals of the first four chapters depend in part upon the 
validity of these assumptions. Also, the enrollments and re- 
source projections of the financing model are reconciled with 
the scope and mission statements of the first four chapters. 

While the basic purposes of a university such as the Uni- 
versity of Illinois remain constant, the specific activities and 
programs undertaken to meet those purposes will vary with 
time. TTie dynamic nature of the University and the multitude 
of plans for innovative response to changes in the state of 
knowledge, social conditions, and the nature of the student 
body defy a statement which specifically defines the scope and 
mission of the University of Illinois over an extended time. 
The accompanying document, which I recommend for ap- 
proval and for transmittal to the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education, is already the subject of the continuous process of 
reassessment and adjustment. 

The Board gave approval of the document and its 
transmittal to the IBHE. Copies of the document have 
been made available to heads of departments. 



Undergraduate Instruction A wards for Summer 1973 Projects 



The Board of Trustees at its May 15 meeting ap- 
proved several undergraduate instructional and cur- 
riculum development awards for projects completed 
during the summer of 1973. The recommendation was 
as follows: 

At its meetings on March 21, 1973, and April 18, 1973, 
the Board of Trustees approved a total of twenty-six projects, 
involving thirty-one faculty members, for support during the 
summer of 1973 under the Urbana-Champaign program of 
Undergraduate Instructional Awards and the Chicago Circle 
program of Curriculum Development Awards. These awards 
generally provided a full-time salary for two months to the 
recipients for work on projects designed to improve the quality 
of undergraduate instruction. (There were two awards for 
projects of one month's duration and one award which pro- 
vided half-time salary.) 



In December, 1972, and again in October, 1973, the 
.Standard Oil (Indiana) Foundation made available a total 
of $5,000 for special awards for outstanding teaching by under- 
graduate faculty — $3,000 on each occasion for the teaching 
awards and $2,000 on each occasion to be deposited in the 
President's Contingency Fund. The sum of $6,000 has been 
held for special awards for projects conducted during the 
summer of 1973. 

The chancellors at the Chicago Circle and the Urljana- 
Champaign Campuses each appointed a special committee to 
review the reports submitted by the grantees following the 
completion of their projects last summer. The committees 
were asked to select the most meritorious projects for recom- 
mendation to their respective chancellors. In the light of these 
recommendations, ten proposals were submitted to the Vice 
President for Academic Development and Coordination for 
consideration (four from the Chicago Circle Campus and six 



from the Urbana-Champaign Campus). After reviewing the 
reports and the endorsements, the \'ice President for Aca- 
demic Development and Coordination recommends that spe- 
cial awards of $1,000 be made for six of the ten projects as 
follows (in the instances where more than one person was in- 
volved in one project, the award will be shared by the 
participants) : 

CHICAGO CIRCLE CAMPUS 

Cynthia Jameson, Associate Professor of Chemistry; Leonard 
Kotin, Assistant Professor of Chemistry; and C. F. Liu, Pro- 
fessor of Chemistry, "Restructuring Chemistry III: Intro- 
duction to Chemistry with Use of Video Tapes and Computer 
Terminals." 

Robert Arzbaecher, Professor of Electrical Engineering in 
Information Engineering, "Curriculum Articulation in In- 



formation Engineering: Modular Design and Computer- 
Assisted Learning." 

David Weible, Assistant Professor of German, "Development 
of PLATO IV Programming for Vocabulary Learning in 
First-Year German." 

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CAMPUS 

Alan W. Haney, Assistant Professor of Botany, "Computer 
Assisted Instruction for General Botany." 

Robert A. Jones, Assistant Professor of Sociology, "Develop- 
ment of an Interdisciplinary 'Phenomenological' Perspective 
in Sociology 100." 

Paul G. Schmidt, Assistant Professor of Chemistry and of Bio- 
chemistry, and J. A. Katzenellenbogen, Assistant Professor of 
Chemistry, "The Chemistry of Life." 



Designation of a University Purchasing Director 



At its May 15 meeting the Board of Trustees ap- 
proved the designation of a University Purchasing Direc- 
tor and the appointment of Lester E. Elliott to that 
position. This follows the practice of several years at the 
University in the area of purchasing by coordinating, and 
in a number of cases by combining, purchases for its 
several campuses, and also during the last year an attempt 
for all of higher education in the State to achieve inore 
coordinated purchasing. Common procurement practices 
have been under development by the senior institutions 
— a purchasing division of lECCS (Illinois Educational 
Consortium for Computer Services) has been created, 
and some commodities have been tentatively identified 
for statewide procureinent. 



Mr. Elliott, Director of Purchases for the Urbana- 
Champaign Cainpus since 1960, has acted as coordinator 
in the University's efforts at coordinating and combining 
purchases for the several campuses. As University Pur- 
chasing Director he will continue his present coordinating 
role and also take a leadership position for the Univer- 
sity in the developing statewide efTorts, efforts being pro- 
moted by a number of State agencies as well as the Joint 
Council on Higher Education. 

Mr. Elliott, a graduate of the College of Wooster in 
Ohio, has been on the University staff since 1946 when he 
joined as Buyer-Assistant Director of Purchases on the 
Urbana-Champaign Campus. 



Of Special Interest to Resigning and Retiring Academic Staff 



The following memorandum was sent May 30 to the 
three chancellors by Morris S. Kessler, Assistant Vice 
President for Planning and Allocation : 

In connection with the change on policy of paying aca- 
demic staff members upon termination of services, I should 
like to point out that, in accordance with State law, the 
health and life insurance coverage provided l)y the State and 
benefits available to active employees under the Universities 
Retirement System cease as of the resignation date. Some 
employees might not think of this when they are anxious to 
get their final paycheck early. Therefore, it would be desirable 
to include such reminder in any notification to staff. 

Staff members employed for the academic year can con- 
tinue their benefits through the summer only if they resign 
as of August 31 at Chicago, or August 20 at Urbana. Staff 
members on a twelve-month basis can continue all their bene- 



fits by taking their vacation before the resignation date. By 
special rule the State insurance coverage is continued through 
the period covered by the lump sum vacation payment. How- 
ever, this ruling does not apply to academic year service per- 
sonnel, since their final payment is not for vacation. 

Staff members who are retiring continue to receive State 
insurance benefits through the retirement system, and there- 
fore, it is normally advantageous for them to retire and apply 
for a retirement annuity as of the date of their last day of 
service. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 






J^jiC-i^-t-leL 




3 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 248, August 14, 1974 



The U&rary of tlw 

NOV 5 1974 

University of Illinois 



Board Receives University's Request for Capital Appropriations for FY 1916 



The Board of Trustees, meeting on the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus July 17, 1974, received from Presi- 
dent John E. Corbally Jr. the University's budget request 
for operating and capital funds for Fiscal Year 1976. 
The budget request had been prepared by the Vice Pres- 
ident for Planning and Allocation and the Vice President 
for Academic De\elopment and Coordination with the 
advice and concurrence of the University Planning 
Council and the University Budget Committee and with 
the review of the three chancellors. 

At tlie suggestion that final consideration of the 
budget recommendations be postponed until the Sep- 



tember meeting, the Board decided, because of time limi- 
tations in the calendar of consideration by the Illinois 
Board of Higher Education, that it would authorize the 
administration to begin discussions with the IBHE Staff, 
approving the materials submitted as "documents for 
discussion" with the IBHE or its stafl and reserving final 
action on the recommendations and accompanying docu- 
ments until a later time. 

In this issue of the Faculty Letter is presented a part 
of the Capital Budget Request, an overview of the re- 
quest. A summary of the Operating Budget Request will 
appear in a later issue. 



University of Illinois Budget Request for Operating and Capital Funds, Fiscal Year 1976 

PREPARED FOR PRESENT.MION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JULY 17, 1974 



Part II. Capital Budget Request 



CHAPTER A. OVERVIEW 



The FY 1976 Capital Budget Request for the University 
of Illinois is presented in the next five chapters: (A) An 
0\er\iew of the Request, (B) The Current Status of Capital 
Programs at the University of Illinois, (C) The Capital Re- 
quirements Necessary for the Scope and Mission of the Uni- 
versity of Illinois for 1974 to 1980, (D) Section I of the 
FY 1976 Request, and (E) Section II of the FY 1976 Re- 
quest. In general terms, this request will show the current 
status of capital facilities and those facilities which are re- 
quired to carry out the programs of the University of Illinois 
for the next five years. This request is the planning document 



which translates the University's long range plans for capital 
improvements into the building and remodeling programs 
necessary to maintain the high quality of instruction, research, 
and public service at the University of Illinois. 

Summary of University's Capital Request for FY 1976 

The total capital program requested from State funds for 
FY 1976 is $50,329,500 exclusive of reappropriations. It is an- 
ticipated that $49,903,200 can be funded from the Capital 
Development Bond Fund and $426,300 from the General 
Revenue Fund. It is estimated that additional funds in the 
amount of $29,531,800 will be available from other sources to 
supplement this request. Table 1 provides a listing of the 
estimated State funds required in FY 1976 for the building 
projects and budget categories by campus. 



The justification for the request is divided into two sec- 
tions which should be regarded as related but separate. 

The first section ($21,466,100) contains only three proj- 
ects. These projects — the Hospital Replacement Facility at 
the Medical Center Campus in Chicago, the site improvement 
necessary for the construction of the Peoria School of Medi- 
cine, and a Crash Rescue Facility for the Willard Airport at 
Urbana-Champaign — have statewide implications other than 
education. The two health related projects are necessary to 
the medical education expansion at the University of Illinois, 
but also are improvements which will benefit other segments 
of the State of Illinois. The Hospital Replacement Facility 
will provide modem facilities to sen-e the referrals from all 
over the state. The site improvement at Peoria will provide 
a benefit to that city as well as to the University. The site is 
part of an urban renewal project for the city of Peoria. The 
University has selected the site for the Peoria School of Medi- 
cine within the urban renewal area as a cooperative effort with 
the city of Peoria and the site development costs requested are 
the additional costs estimated for the development of this 
area. The Crash-Rescue Facility at the Willard Airport pro- 
vides minimal instructional support but is absolutely essential 
for the safety of those using the University's airport. A com- 
plete description of these projects is given in Chapter D. 

The second section ($28,863,400) is comparable to pre- 
vious annual requests for capital budgets. This request is the 
smallest one submitted by the University of Illinois since 



the state began annual budgeting in FY 1970 and indicates the 
beginning of a change from mainly a new building oriented 
request to a remodeling and replacement oriented request. 

.^t the Chicago Circle Campus the request is for three 
major items. It is requested that funds be authorized for (1) 
completing the Library Addition project which will begin in 
FY 1975, (2) beginning Phase I of the remodeling in the Sci- 
ence and Engineering Laboratory to provide facilities for 
graduate work in engineering and the sciences, and (3) plan- 
ning for Phase H of the remodeling program and for an aca- 
demic building. 

At the Medical Center the request is mainly for funds to 

( 1 ) equip and complete those projects previously authorized, 

(2) remodel vacated space, (3) plan for remodeling in FY 
1977 and for a new School of Public Health Facility, and 
(4) construct a small storage facility for flammable liquids. 

At the Urbana-Champaign Campus the request is mainly 
for funds to ( 1 ) construct three buildings — a Law Building 
Addition to increase law enrollment, a Library North Court 
Addition, and Phase I of a Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Addi- 
tion, (2) remodel and upgrade existing facilities for program 
changes, and (3) plan three facilities — Life Sciences Teach- 
ing Laboratory, Engineering Library Addition, a Botany 
Greenhouse — and plan remodeling projects which will be 
requested for construction in FY 1977. 

A complete description of all projects in .Section II is 
given in Chapter E. 



TABLE 1 — CAPITAL REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976 

Project Chicago Medical Vrbana- 

Category Circle Center Champaign Total 

1. Building Projects ($4,187,200) (520,475,000) ($8,983,200) ($33,645,400) 

Hospital Replacement 20,425,000 20,425,000 

Library Addition 4, 187,200 4, 187,200 

Liquid Gas Storage Facility 50,000 50,000 

Law Building Addition 5,783,200 5,783,200 

Library North Court Addition 1 ,471 ,400 1 ,471 ,400 

Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition, Phase 1 1,659,600 1,659,600 

Airport Crash Rescue Facility 69,000 69,000 

2. Funds to Complete Bond-Eligible Buildings -0- 235,300 42,200 277,500 

3. Land -0- -0- 200,000 200,000 

4. Equipment 845,400 1,567,000 655,000 3,067,400 

5. Utilities 799,000 37,800 1,684,000 2,520,800 

6. Remodeling and Rehabihtation 979,800 5,021,300 2,339,700 8,340,800 

7. Site Improvements 103,000 1,075,900 393,000 1,571,900 

8. Planning 195,000 159,000 163,800 517,800 

9. Cooperative Improvements -0- -0- 187,900 187,900 

TOTAL $7,109,400 $28,571,300 $14,648,800 $50,329,500 

In addition to the above State Appropriations, it is estimated that $29,531,800 in additional funds from other sources will be 
obtained — $29,325,000 from Hospital Income and Federal Grants, $206,800 from Federal Grants for Airport Crash Rescue 
Facility. 



University Priorities for FY 1976 Request 

The criteria for placing projects in LTniversity priority 
considered the campus priorities in all cases with the general 
philosophy that those projects which were under constniction 
would receive the highest priority. The next order of priority 
was for projects which will provide for enrollment increases 
and program development. This included both new buildings 
and remodeling of existing facilities. The next order of prior- 
ity was to provide for planning FY 1977 projects. 



Table 2 provides a list of the projects requested in FY 
1976 placed in LTniversity priority order according to the 
rationale listed above. Each project is identified by budget 
category and campus priority. .\n "H" by the project indi- 
cates that it is a health-related project. Of the total 
$50,329,500 requested in both Sections I and II, $28,771,300 
(57%) can be attributed to health-related projects. 



TABLE 2 — UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FY 1976 CAPITAL PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER 



Pri- 




ority 


Campus 


Section J — Speci 


IH 


MC 


2H 


MC 


3H 


MC 


4 


LC 


:> 


LC 


SfCtion II 


1 


UC-1 


2 


UC-2 


3H 


MC-1 


4H 


MC-2A 


5H 


MC-2 


6H 


MC-3 


7H 


MC-4 


8H 


MC-5 


9H 


MC-6 


10 


CC-1 


11 


CC-4 


12 


CC-3 


13 


UC-3 


14 


UC-4 


15 


UC-5 


16H 


MC-7 


17 


UC-6 


I8H 


MC-9 


19H 


MC-1 2 


20 


UC-7 


21 


UC-8 


22 


UC-9 


23 


UC-10 


24 


UC-11 


25 


UC-1 2 


26 


UC-1 3 


27 


CC-5 


28 


CC-6 


29H 


MC-8 


30 


UC-14 


31 


UC-1 5 


32 


UC-IG 


33H 


UC-1 7 


34 


UC-18 


35 


UC-20 


36 


UC-1 9 



Project 



Univei-sity Hospital Replacement 
Peoria School of Medicine 
Peoria School of Medicine 
Airport Crash Rescue FaciHty 
Airport Crash Rescue Facility 

Speech and Hearing Clinic 
Speech and Hearing Clinic 
9th Floor SUDMP 
Peoria School of Medicine 
Peoria School of Medicine 

Rockford School of Medicine 
Dentistry Building, Phase II 
Rockford School of Medicine 
Rockford School of Medicine 
Library Addition 

Library Addition Sewer Relocation 
Library Addition 
Turner Hall Addition 
Law Building Addition 
Law Building Addition 

School of Public Health 

Life Sciences Teaching Laboratory 

College of Medicine - Space 

\'acated by Dentistry # 1 
College of Medicine - Space 

\'acaled by Dentistry #2 
Solid Waste Disposal Landfill 

Airport Sewage Treatment 
Architecture Building Safety 
English Building Renovation 
Visual Arts Laboratory 
College of Engineering - 
Remodeling 

Central Supervisory Control Center 
Science Engineering Laboratory 
Science Engineering Laboratory 
Pharmacognosy and Pharmacology 

Laboratory 
Tennis Court Improvements 

Library North Court Addition 
Engineering Library Addition 
\'eterinary Medicine 
Energy' Conservation Heating 

Controls 
Freer Gym 

Space Realignment and 
Renovation Plan FY77 

Residence Hall Con- 
version-Plan 820,000 

English Building Ren- 
ovation-Plan 20,000 

College of Engineer- 
ing-Plan 20,000 

Auditorium Roof Re- 
placement-Plan. .. . 45,000 

Veterinary Medicine- 
Plan 20,000 











Accumulated 


Category 


CDB 


Gen 


Rev 


Other Total 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


$20,425,000 






$29,325,000 $20,425,000 


Site Developinent 


793,400 






21,218,400 


Funds to Complete 




$164 


700 


21,383,100 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 




69 


000 


206,800 21,452,100 


L'lilities 




14 


000 


21,466,100 


Funds to Complete 




$ 40 


200 


$ 40,200 


Equipment 


% 250,000 






290,200 


Remodeling 


210,000 






500,200 


Funds to Complete 




19 


000 


519,200 


Equipment 


860,200 


65 


800 


1,445,200 


Equipment 


491 ,000 






1,936,200 


Equipment 


150,000 






2,086,200 


Utilities 


37,800 






2,124,000 


Funds to Complete 




51 


600 


2,175,600 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


4,187,200 






6,362,800 


Utilities 


115,000 






6,477,800 


Equipment 


273,800 






6,751,600 


Funds to Coinplete 




2 


000 


6,753,600 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


5,783,200 






12,536,800 


LUilities 


498,000 






13,034,800 


Planning 


159,000 






13,193,800 


Planning 


93,600 






13,287,400 


Remodeling 


2,461,100 






15,748,500 


Remodeling 


827,200 






16,575,700 


Coop Improvements 


100,000 






16,675,700 


LItilities 


56,000 






16,731,700 


Remodeling 


262,500 






16,994,200 


Remodeling 


250,000 






17,244,200 


Remodeling 


162,200 






17,406,400 


Remodeling 


250,000 






17,656,400 


Utilities 


300,000 






17,956,400 


Remodeling 


929,800 






18,886,200 


Equipment 


571,600 






19,457,800 


Remodeling 


270,000 






19,727,800 


Site Improvements 


44,000 






19,771,800 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


1,471,400 






21,243,200 


Planning 


41,200 






21,284,400 


Remodeling 


200,000 






21,484,400 


Remodeling 


105,000 






21,589,400 


Remodeling 


150,000 






21,739,400 


Remodeling 


125,000 






21,864,400 



Pri- 
ority Campus 



TABLE 2 — UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FY 1976 CAPITAL PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (Con».) 

Project Category CDB Gen Rev Other 



Accumulated ^^ 
Total P- 



37H MC-10 Space Realignment and Renova- 
tion Plan FY77 

Instrument Shop Lab- 
oratory-Plan $22,000 

Basement & 1st Floor 

SUDMP-Plan 60,000 

Research & Library 

Building- Plan 23,000 

2nd Floor Old Illini 

Union-Plan 26,000 

Air Condition Phar- 
macy-Plan 63,000 

5th Floor-General 

Hospital-Plan 10,000 

General Services 

Building-Plan 22,000 

38 CC-7 Academic Building (Repro- 

grammed COSSB) 

39 UC-21 Abbott Power Plant Chimney 

40 UC-22 Miscellaneous Remodeling Projects 

41H MC-11 LIniversity Security and Fire Alarm 

42H MC-14 Rockford School of Medicine 

43 UC-23 Agriculture Replacement Land 

44 UC-24 Boneyard Creek Channel 

45 UC-25 Campus Landscape Improvements 

46 UC-26 Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition 

47 UC-27 Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition 

48 UC-28 Botany Greenhouse 

49H MC-15 Interconnect Chilled Water Lines 

50 CC-8 Stack Emission Control System 

51 UC-29 Animal Room Improvements 

52 UC-30 Electrical Modernization 

53 UC-31 Residence Hall Conversion 

54 UC-32 Campus Water Main Extension — 

Plan 

55 UC-33 Turner Hall Addition 

56 UC-34 Peabody and Pennsylvania Street 

Improvements 

57 UC-35 Coble Hall Improvements 

58 UC-36 Steam Tunnel Improvements 

59 UC-37 Mathews Street Improvements 

60 CC-9 Building Equipment Automation 

61 CC-10 Space Realignment — Plan for 

FY77 
62H MC-17 Pharmacy Laboratories — Room 

200 
63H MC-22 OSHA Corrections 
64H MC-23 Building Equipment Automation 
65H MC-24 Liquid Storage Facility 

66 CC-11 Exterior Campus Lighting, Phase II 

67H MC-27 Air Condition Third Floor FUDMP 

68 CC-12 Campus Graphics — Exterior 

69H MC-30 Correct Building Code Violations 

70H MC-31 Pharmacy Offices 

TOTAL SECTION I AND SECTION 2 



Remodeling 



226,000 



22,090,400 



Planning 


195,000 


22,285,400 e 


Utilities 


565,000 


22,850,400 


Equipment 


205,000 


23,055,400 >f 


Remodeling 


175,000 


23,230,400 "" 


Site Improvements 


282,500 


23,512,900 " 


Land 


200,000 


23,712,900 '" 


Coop Improvements 


60,000 


23,772,900 ^ 


Site Improvements 


75,000 


23,847,900 ^ 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


1,659,600 


25,507,500 e 


Utilities 


175,500 


25,683,000 i 


Planning 


29,000 


25,712,000 


Remodeling 


207,000 


25,919,000 


Utilities 


375,000 


26,294,000 


Remodeling 


245,000 


26,539,000 ' 


Remodeling 


65,000 


26,604,000 • 


Remodeling 


400,000 


27,004,000 1 


Utilities 


25,500 


27,029,500 [ 


Equipment 


200,000 


27,229,500 


Site Improvements 


274,000 


27,503,500 


Remodeling 


125,000 


27,628,500 


Utilities 


50,000 


27,678,500 


Coop Improvements 


27,900 


27,706,400 


Utilities 


309,000 


28,015,400 ; 


Remodeling 


50,000 


28,065,400 


Remodeling 


140,000 


28,205,400 


Remodeling 


100,000 


28,305,400 


Remodeling 


105,000 


28,410,400 


Bldg, Addn/Struct 


50,000 


28,460,400 


Site Improvements 


60,000 


28,520,400 


Remodeling 


100,000 


28,620,400 


Site Improvements 


43,000 


28,663,400 


Remodeling 


100,000 


28,763,400 


Remodeling 


100,000 


28,863,400 




$49,903,200 $426,300 $29,531,800 $50,329,500 



PROPOSED PROGRAMMING OF REQUESTS FOR BUILDING PROJECTS LISTED IN FY 1976 (STATE FUNDS ONLY) 
(In Thousand Dollars) 



Total 
Cost 



Authorized 
Prior to 
FY 1976 



Request 
FY 1976 



Programmed 
Request for 
FY 1977 



Programmed 

Request jor 

FY 1978 

ami Beyond 



Chicago Circle 

Library Addition $ 5,986.9 $ 1 ,280.0' 

Academic Building 9,700.0 

.Medical Center 

Dentistry Building, Phase II S 12,563.6 S12,413.6 

Peoria School of Medicine 8,700.6 6,816.5 

Rockford School of Medicine 5,833.3 4,970.4 

Hospital Replacement 30,000. 0^ 1,750.0 

School of Public Health 9,828.3 

Liquid Storage Facility 50 . 

Urbana-Champaign 

Speech and Hearing Clinic $ 2,514 3 $2,154.1 

Turner Hall Addition 8,276.7 7,227.1 

Law Building Addition 7,106.3 228.1 

Library North Court Addition 1 ,621 .4 

Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition 2,204. 3 

Airport Crash Rescue Facility 90 . 5^ 

Life Sciences Teaching Lab 6,289. 7 

Engineering Library Addition 2,252. 1 

Botany Greenhouse 1 , 716 . 3 

TOTAL $114,734.3 $36,839.8 

' This amount has been approved by the General Assembly. 

' This represents the State's portidn of the funding. The total cost will be .$60,000,000. 

' This represents the State's portion of the funding. The total cost will be $297,300. 



$ 4,576.0 
195.0 

$ 150.0 

1,884.1 

802.9 

20,425.0 

159.0 

50.0 



$ 290.2 

202.0 

6,281.2 

1,471.4 

1,835.1 

83.0 

93.6 

41.2 

29.0 

$38,628.7 



130.9 
9,505.0 



7,825.0 
9,669.3 



$ 70 . 

847.6 

423.0 

80.0 

200.0 

7.5 

5,819.6 

1,952.9 

1,615.8 

$38,146,6 



$ 1 74 , 

70.0 

169.2 

376.5 

258 . 

71.5 

$1,119.2 



Implications of Approval of FY 1976 Projects Relating to Buildings 

The time required for completion of a building project 
from planning through occupancy will depend upon the size 
and complexity of the project. In general, the time will vary 
from one year for a very small project ($100,000) to four 
years for a large project (over $5,000,000). The approval of 
fimds for planning a building project will have an impact on 
the budget requests for succeeding years. Table 3 — Proposed 
Programming of Request for Building Projects Listed in the 



FY 1976 Budget (State Funds Only) — provides an indication 
of the status of existing building projects and the implication 
of the additional funds that will be required in future budget 
years to complete the projects. 

Copies of the document, University of Illinois Budget 
Request for Operating and Capital Funds, Fiscal Year 
1976, may be examined in the offices of heads of 
departments. 



Legislative and Administrative Actions re Retirement System Operations 



Edward S. Gibala, Executive Director of the State 
j Universities Retirement System, sent the following report 
on actions taken by the General Assembly and the Trus- 

Itees of the State Universities Retirement System concern- 
ing operations of the system to presidents of colleges and 
universities and heads of other agencies covered by the 
system. 

Of special note is the second item of the report, "In- 
crease in Prescribed Rate of Interest," regarding the in- 
crease of the rate of interest from 4'/2 per cent to 5 per 
cent, efTective September 1, 1974, and would be of par- 
ticular impoitance to participants who are paying for 
prior lUinois ser\-ice or for other public employment. 
This is the report : 



Revised Employer Contributions on Earnings 
Paid from Federal and Trust Funds 

Effective September 1, 1974, employers should submit to 
the State Universities Retirement System, employer contribu- 
tions of 11.27 per cent of earnings paid from Federal and 
Trust funds. The charge will be reduced beginning that date 
from 11.61 per cent. The reduction is due mainly to an in- 
crease by the Actuary of the interest assumption from Wz per 
cent to 5 per cent. 

Increase in Prescribed Rate of Interest 

The Trustees of the System approved the recommendation 
of the System's Actuary that the prescribed rate of interest to 
be used in actuarial valuations and preparation of annuity 
tables be incrca<^ed from 4'/2 per cent to 5 per cent effective 
September 1, 1974. The prescribed rate of interest is based 



upon long-term investment predictions and is not necessarily 
the rate of interest which is to be credited to the employee ac- 
counts at the end of each year. 

Under the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code, pay- 
ment by the employee for prior Illinois service and for other 
public employment is based upon the prescribed rate of in- 
terest which is in effect on the date that the payment is re- 
ceived. Consequently, if an employee defers his payment 
beyond August 31, 1974, his cost for such service could be 
increased substantially, depending upon the number of years 
which elapses from the date he became a member to the date 
he makes his payment. For example, if a person became a 
member twenty years ago at an annual salary of $5,000, his 
payment for ten years of other public employment would be 
increased from about $9,646 to $10,613, if he defers his pay- 
ment until September 1, 1974. Thus, he could save about 
$967 by paying for the additional service before September 1, 
1974. 

The savings in interest cost is not the only reason why 
it may be advantageous to pay for other public employment 
as early as possible. Under legislation which was approved in 
1971, there is a guarantee that the sur%-ivors annuity shall be 
at least 50 per cent of the annuity earned by the member's 
service and earnings credits, calculated on the assumption 
that he is age sixty on the date of death. Thus, a point is 
reached when payment for additional service will increase the 
sun-ivors insurance protection for the member's spouse, chil- 
dren under age eighteen or dependent parent. 

Increase in Rate of Interest to Be Credited to Employee Accounts 

In view of the continued increase in the return on invest- 
ments, the Trustees of the State Universities Retirement Sys- 
tem have agreed to credit interest for the fiscal year ending 
August 31, 1974, of 8 per cent on the balance in the partici- 
pant's account on September 1, 1973. This includes 6 per cent 
to cover distribution of investment income earned during the 
year plus an additional 2 per cent as partial distribution of 
income earned in prior years in excess of the amount distrib- 
uted. (Prior to 1973, the Retirement System was prohibited 
by statute from crediting interest in excess of 4'/2 per cent.) 

The statute provides that if a participant resigns and 
elects to withdraw his contributions in a lump sum, he must 
forfeit the interest credited to his account which is in excess 
of 4'/2 per cent. We are attempting to secure legislation which 
would enable a participant to receive full refund of the interest 
credits. When a member withdraws from the System, he loses 
the employer contributions. There appears to be little or no 
justification for forfeiture by the participant of a portion of 
the interest earned on his contributions. House Bill 2554, which 
was introduced by Representative Hirschfeld on April 17, 
1974, \\ould authorize the System to include full interest on 
refunds. No action was taken on this Bill during the spring 
legislative session and none is anticipated imtil the 1975 
legislative session. 

Amount to Include in Appropriation Request for FY 1976 

The Actuar)' for the State Universities Retirement System 
has certified that the minimum employer contribution re- 
quired by the "Illinois Pension Code" for FY 1976 is }6.41 
per cent of that portion of salaries covered by the State Uni- 
versities Retirement System, and the Trustees of the System 
have approved this rate. Therefore, the college and university 
governing boards and other agencies covered by the System 
should include this amount for employer contributions in the 
State budget request for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. 
The appropriations for retirement contributions covering the 



community colleges are requested by the Illinois Community 
College Board; therefore, the individual community colleges 
need take no action concerning this matter other than to sup- 
port the request of the Community College Board. 

Credit for Prior Military Service 

You may recall the correspondence during the past year 
concerning SB 634, which would ( 1 ) limit the type of prior 
public employment which can be used by new employees in 
purchasing additional ser\'ice credit under the State Universi- 
ties Retirement System, and (2) set September 1, 1974 as the 
deadline for filing an application to purchase additional credit 
based on prior military service. The initial deadline in the 
Bill on applying for purchase of military service credit was 
September I, 1973. The Pension Laws Commission later 
agreed to extend the deadline until January 1, 1974, and the 
sponsor of the Bill subsequently agreed to postpone the dead- 
line until July 1, 1974. The Senate-House Conference Com- 
mittee, which was appointed to resolve the differences in the 
Senate and House versions of the Bill decided that September 
1 , 1974, would be a more appropriate date. The Senate and 
House adopted the Conference Committee report, and the 
Bill is now awaiting action by the Governor. 

We have received word that the Illinois Federation of 
Teachers has suggested that its members urge the Governor 
to veto the Bill. In view of the extension of the deadline on 
filing to September 1, 1974, the Retirement System has recom- 
mended that the Governor approve the Bill. The deadline 
applies only to the filing of the application for military service 
credit; it does not require payment by that date. The mem- 
bers have been given ample time to file the application. Those 
who are interested in purchasing the additional credit should 
have met the filing requirement by this time. 

Report on Employer Retirement Contributions for FY 1975 

The minimum amoimt which the General Assembly should 
have appropriated for FY 1975 to meet the statutory require- 
ments is $83,625,800. The Governor's Budget included only 
$25,004,600, which was slightly less than the amount required 
to meet the State's share of the estimated benefit and expense 
payments. The General Assembly appropriated $28,939,820 
which was $3,935,220 more than the amount which was in- 
cluded in the Governor's Budget but $54,635,980 less than the 
minimum required by statute. 

The minimum appropriation mandated by the statute is 
the normal cost required to cover the pension benefits earned 
by all employees during the year plus interest on the imfimded 
liabilities for past senice. This is also the standard which the 
Federal Internal Revenue Service has used in the past in de- 
termining whether a private pension plan is "qualified," and 
which the House Ways and Means Committee had recom- 
mended as a standard for government pension plans under the 
Pension Reform Bill of 1974. It is imlikely that the final ver- 
sion of the Pension Reform Bill will require immediate dis- 
qualification of a government pension plan, if it fails to meet 
this minimum funding requirement; however, the Reform 
Bill of 1974 (H.R. 2) mandates a study of state and local 
government pension plans. Washington sources say the study 
will not be an academic exercise, but the first step toward 
e\entual legislation \\hich will set minimum funding, vesting, 
and participation standards for state and local pension plans. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



Z^Ov^^f^ 



220a Library 
3 copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



uionMKT UK THE 
No. 22?r-A)i3U5fT28,(l974 

Sumviary of University's Operating Budget Request for FT 197^%^^^iJ^^ofjLum\5 

On July 17. 1974, President John E. Coibally Jr. pre- 
sented the University's operating budget request for FY 
1976 (July 1, 1975-June 30, 1976) to the Board of Trus- 
tees. In his preface to the request. President Corbally 
stressed the adverse effects of inflation upon the Univer- 
sity and also noted that the requests contained no funds 
for new programs other than for the continuation of the 
planned expansion of programs in the health professions. 
He also stated that the request contains no funds for 
either personnel or operations beyond those needed to 
attempt to meet inflationar)' pressures. The request re- 
quires increased support of approximately 12 per cent 
above the appropriations for FY 1975 if program expan- 
sion in the health professions is included and of approxi- 
mately 10 per cent above 1975 appropriations if this ex- 
pansion is excluded. 

A summar)' of the new funds requested is as follows — 



FY 1976 Operating Budget Request 



(Thousands of Dollc 


>rs) 


Per Cent 
of Request 


Personal Services — 9.5% 


$15,537.5 

4,272.9 
277.9 


59 24 


Price Increases 

General— 11% $2,632.6 

Utilities 1,640.3 

Opening New Buildings 

Health Professions 

Medical Center $3,940.6 

College of Veterinary 

Medicine 200.0 


16.29 
1.06 



stated in the .Scope and Mission document, under continuous 
analysis, will change from time to time as a result of economic 
and demographic conditions, The following projections con- 
tained in the FY 1976 operating budget request are based on 
current conditions — 

1. Inflation impact on salaries — 9.5%. 

2. Inflation impact on expenses — 1 1.0%. 

3. Enrollment — From a summary of enrollments from FY 
1975 to FY 1980 by student level for each of the three 
campuses, the following basic assumptions are made : 

a. A base enrollment level of 18,200 students is planned 
for the Chicago Circle Campus, with a significant shift 
in student program and level. The reduction in total en- 
rollment will be matched with the changing mix and 
programs to alleviate the need for additional funds. 

b. Continued increase of approximately 350 students per 
year at the Medical Center Campuses. 

c. A stable enrollment of appro.ximately 34,000 students at 
the Urbana-Champaign Campus. 

4. Alleviation of deficiences over a six-year period at an an- 

nual funding level of $2,000,000. 

To evaluate the effects of inflation on staff members of 
the University of Illinois, estimates were made for varying 
income levels at Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, and the United 
States as a whole. Inflation rates by location and income group 
are shown below. 

INFLATION RATES BY INCOME LEVEL AND LOCATION 
Income Level by Percentage 

Bstiwale by U of I 



4,140.6 
Programmed Elimination 

of Deficiencies $ 2,000.0 

FY 1976 Request $26,228.9 

Separate Items 

\'eterinary Diagnosdc Laboratory 
Division of Services 

for Crippled Children 

Remodeling Projects 

Under $100,000 

Cooperative Extension Service . . . 



15.79 



7.62 
100.00 



$ 33.9 

1,059.7 

462.5 
174.8 



hicovie Income Income Income Income 
$7,000 $12,000 $17,000 $22,000 $30,000 

Urbana- 
Champaign 

All 1973 10.1 

Most Recent 

Quarter .... 9.8 



Total All Items $27,959.8 

The operating budget presentation is based upon the 
Scope and Mission of the University of Illinois, presented to 
the Board of Trustees on May 15, 1974, as well as the con- 
tinuous review of the base deficiencies. The basic assumptions 



Chicago 

All 1973 10.3 

Most Recent 

Quarter .... 9.9 

United States 

All 1973 10.3 

Most Recent 

Quarter 9.9 



9.6 
9.8 

9.7 
10.1 

9.8 
10.0 



9.4 
9.8 

9.4 
10.0 

9.5 
10.0 



9.1 
9.7 

9.4 
10.1 



9.0 
9.7 

9.2 
10.0 



No Estimate 
Made 



In order that staff members of the University might even 
partially retain the purchasing power of their salaries, the Uni- 
versity must recei\e the requested salary increase money for 
FY 1976. The total amount of incremental money necessary 
for such an increase is $15,537,500. 

The University of Illinois now is paying much higher 
prices for the supplies which it purchases throughout the year. 
To retain a purchasing power roughly equivalent to that pres- 
ently in effect, an 1 1 per cent increase in funds used to pur- 
chase goods and contracted services is necessary. The 1 1 
per cent increase is based upon a conservative analysis of the 
effects of inflation on the State appropriated object-of-expcndi- 
ture categories, i.e., travel, equipment, contractual services, 
commodities, telecommunications, and operation of automo- 
tive equipment. From FY 1971 to FY 1974 the purchasing 
power of the dollar used to purchase goods in these si.x cate- 
gories has changed so that $1.33 today is necessary to purchase 
those goods which $1.00 would buy in FY 1971. The total in- 
cremental dollars necessary to fund the 1 1 per cent increase 
are $2,632,600. 

Utility price increases have risen considerably. It is esti- 
mated that at Chicago Circle the FY 1976 price of fuel oil 
will be 45 cents per gallon and the price of electricity will 
increase 10 per cent. A similar increase in the cost of elec- 
tricity is anticipated for FY 1976 at the Medical Center and 
Urbana Campuses. In addition, the price of natural gas at 
Urbana-Champaign is expected to increase approximately 20 
per cent in January 1975. 

No new buildings are scheduled to open in FY 1976, but 
funds are requested to annualize funds for three buildings 
opened in FY 1975 ($277,851). The FY 1976 request repre- 
sents that portion of the operating cost which was not re- 
quested in FY 1975. 

The Medical Center Campus \\'ill require for FY 1975-76 
the amount of $3,940,600 to continue its planned expansion of 
health-related programs by 350 students. This amount includes 
funds required for the groulh of the School of Basic Medical 
Sciences at Urbana-Champaign and the continued develop- 
ment of clinical schools at the regional locations. An FY 1976 
request of $200,000 is also necessary to provide supplemental 
instructional funds for students supported by federal capitation 
funds at the College of Veterinary Medicine in Urbana. 

Regarding programmed elimination of deficiencies, each 
campus has identified the area in which needs are most press- 
ing: Chicago Circle — Library; Medical Center — Library; 
Urbana-Champaign — Equipment. Although the total need 
in FY 1976 is $13,497,800, the University has decided that a 
reasonable recovery program of these needs would be at a rate 



of $2,000,000 per year. Base deficiencies, which are of a 
recurring nature, are scheduled for recovery in three years 
if considered by campus administrators to be the top campus 
priority, and six years if not. The non-recurring deficiencies 
are scheduled for recovery in nine years. The $2,000,000 is 
required in FY 1976 to partially offset underfunding which 
has occurred since FY 1971. 



SEPARATE ITEMS 

The Division of Services for Crippled Children (DSCC) 
is the official state program for services to handicapped chil- 
dren. Although this program is located at the Medical Center 
Campus and has in the past been considered a public service 
administered by the LIniversity of Illinois, its budgetary 
treatment since FY 1975 is separate from the base operating 
budget of the University. The budget request for the Division 
of Services for Crippled Children is $1,059,700, to be em- 
ployed for personal ser\'ices, price increases, hospitalization 
and medical care, and increases in staff positions. 

The College of Veterinary Medicine has administered and 
operated the Urbana Diagnostic Laboratory on contract with 
the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The contract for 
FY 1975 will be $261,550. The College has also been con- 
tracted by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to conduct 
research on diseases of swine and cattle; in FY 1973 and 
FY 1974 $102,000 was appropriated for this contract. The 
University has provided support for these areas by contributing 
physical facilities and manpower ($128,000 in FY 1974). In 
order to assure the continuance of these activities, $33,900 in 
funds is requested. 

For FY 1976 the Illinois Board of Higher Education has 
instructed that remodeling projects under $100,000 be in- 
cluded in the operating budget request as an identified non- 
recurring item. Ten such projects have been identified. All 
are for the Urbana-Champaign Campus, amounting to 
$462,500. 

A request of $174,800 has been submitted for the Coopera- 
tive Extension Ser\ice (fifteen counties in southern Illinois) 
in order to intensify the work with lo\v-resource farmers; to 
provide two area livestock development advisors to support 
the statewide objective of developing the livestock industry 
further in light of current needs; and to meet an increase in 
mileage reimbursement for field staff. 

Copies of the document, University of Illinois Budget 
Request for Operating and Capital Funds, Fiscal Year 
1976, can be found in the offices of head of departments. 



Recent Actions re State of Illinois Group Health and Life Insurance 



The following special notice has been issued by the 
University's Insurance Office regarding an open enroll- 
ment period for insuring dependents and an increase in 
premituns under the State Plans and the University 
Plans of the University's Health Insurance Program. The 
special open enrollment period for the State Plans ends 
September 8. 

The State Department of Personnel awarded the health 
insurance contract for the policy year July 1, 1974 to July 1, 
1975, to the Blue Cross-Blue Shield organization. 

The group life insurance contract \vith Crown Life In- 
surance Company \vas continued at the same premiums. 



HOUSE BILL 2848 

The "State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971" 
was amended to provide: 

1 . An open enrollment under the State Plan. 

2. A contribution toward any increase in the cost of 
purchasing dependent health insurance will be paid 
by the State provided the increase became effective on 
or after July 1, 1974. The contribution is limited to 
the actual amount of the increase in premium or $7.00 
per month, whichever is less. 

Note: The contribution wall also be applicable to any in- 



crease in the cost of the University Plan (Continental Assur- 
ance Company ) . 

OPEN ENROLLMENT 

A special open enrollment period will be conducted during 
which time you may insure your dependents imder the health 
insurance programs without evidence of insurability. You may 
also purchase optional life insurance under the State Plan 
on the same basis. 

Open EnroUment Effective Date 
Period of Coverage 



State Plans 

I Blue Cross-Blue 

Shield) 



.August 8, 1974 
to September 8, 
1974 



October 1, 1974 



University Plans November 1, 1974 Januan' 1, 1975 

(Continental Assurance thru November 29, 
Company) 1974 

PREMIUMS FOR 1974-75 

University Plan (Continental .'\ssurance Company) — 
The premiums for the dependent health and dental insurance 
were established on January 1, 1972, and despite the increased 
cost of medical care, there has been no adjustment in the 
premiums. An adjustment is now required to continue the 
coverage through 1975. Although the amount of the increase 
has not been finalized it is anticipated the cost will not ex- 
ceed the maximum contribution of $7.00 per month now 
authorized by the State. This \\ill mean that your cost of in- 
surance under the University Plan will remain the same if you 
are eligible for the contribution. 

State Plan (Blue Cross-Blue Shield) — Effective July 1, 



1974, there was an adjustment in the premiums for some of 
the plans available through the State and the changes are 
outlined below: 



Slale 
Conlribu- 



Cost 



Employee $15.60 $22.60 — $22.60 = $ -0- 

Dependents under 65, or over 65 
and Ineligible for Medicare 
High Option — 

1 dependent 18.20 26.00 - 7.00 = 19.00 

2 or more dependents 34.70 42.50 — 7.00 = 35.50 

Low Option II — 

2 or more dependents 18.10 21.08 — 2.88 = 18.10 

Dependents 65 Years or over 
Eligible for Medicare 
High Option — 

1 dependent 10.66 9.90 — -0- = 9.90 

2 or more dependents 22.68 19.50 — -0- = 19.50 

Low Option I — 1 dependent... 4.38 4.78 — .40 = 4.38 

Low Option II— 1 dependent... 2.90 4.20 — 1.30 = 2.90 

Sponsored Dependents 11.02 13.02 — 2.00 = 11.02 

* You must be eligible for the State-paid Basic coverages to receive the con- 
tribution. If you are on leave of absence without pay or otherwise eligible 
to continue the basic coverage at your own expense, your cost will be those 
listed in Column B. 

Premiums for plans not listed above remain the same as 
outlined in the State Booklet for 1973-74. 

Contact the Insurance Office on your campus to enroll 
dependents during the open enrollment period or if you 
ha\e any questions relating to the group health and life 
insurance programs. 



Revision of Univei^sity Statutes re Graduate Work of Academic Staff Members 



Upon recommendation of President Corbally, the 
Board of Trustees at its July meeting approved a revision 
of the University Statutes in regard to graduate work of 
academic staff members. 

This was the President's presentation to the Board : 

Article IV, Section 7, of the University Statutes provides 
that no person may be a candidate for an advanced degree 
at the University who also holds an appointment as an assis- 
tant professor, associate professor, or professor at the Univer- 
sity. The intent of the language, which is identical to that 
contained in the 1957 version of the Statutes, was to prevent 
conflict of interest between members of ths academic staff of 
professorial rank when one is also, at the same time, a candi- 
date for a degree. 

Developments within the University since 1957, particu- 
larly in graduate faculty and degree programs at the Chicago 
Circle Campus, have made it likely that a professorial staff 
member might pursue an advanced degree in a department on 
another campus of the University without prejudicing the 
objectivity of the latter. In order to allow such action, I rec- 
ommend that the Board approve provisionally the following 
revision in Article I\', Section 7, of the Statutes (new lan- 
guage is italicized; deleUons are in parentheses ) : 

No person shall be admitted to candidacy for an ad- 
vanced degree (who) on a campus of the University if he 
holds an appointment as professor, associate professor, or 



assistant professor in any department or division of that 
campus of the University. Any person engaged in graduate 
study who accepts an appointment with the rank of assis- 
tant professor or higher at a campus of the University will 
be dropped as a degree candidate at (this) that campus 
of the University. 

The Chancellors at the three campuses and the Vice Pres- 
ident for Academic Development and Coordination concur in 
this recommendation. 

In accord with the procedures for amendment of the 
Statutes, this recommendation, if approved, would be sub- 
mitted to the Senates and the University Senates Conference 
for their advice and subsequently submitted to the Board for 
final action. 



Attention — Academic Staff Retirees 

Members of the academic staff who have retired or 
are about to retire and who have not been con- 
tacted about receiving the Faculty Letter during 
retirement (if they wish) are asked to send their 
name and address to the editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 
272c Administration Building, Urbana, 111. 61801. 
Or phone 333-6502. 



Formal Decentralization of the Jane Addams School of Social Work 



Another action of the Board of Trustees at its July 
meeting was the approval of the recommendation for 
establishment of two separate schools for the Jane 
Addams School of Social Work, one at the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus and one at the Chicago Circle 
Campus where the program is now conducted. 

Here is the text of the recommendation : 

In March, 1970, the Board of Trustees approved a recom- 
mendation of the Executive Committee and the entire faculty 
of the Jane Addams Graduate School of Social Work' that 
"two separate Schools be established, with the Urbana- 
Champaign and Chicago Circle programs being conducted 
under the legislative jurisdiction of the respective Senates of 
these two campuses." While under the plan there was to be a 
single director and a common Executive Committee, "pro- 
posals relating only to the Chicago Circle school would be 
sent to the Chancellor and thence to the Senate at that cam- 
pus for review and approval; recommendations involving only 
the Urbana-Champaign program would be sent to the Chan- 
cellor and senate at that campus . . . Neither the Chancellor 
nor the Senate at a given campus would be bound by actions 
taken by the Chancellor or the Senate at the other campus." 

The administration of the Jane Addams School of Social 
Work is presently the responsibility of the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus, with faculty and students on both the Urbana- 
Champaign and Chicago Circle Campuses. Over the years, 
both divisions of the School have grown in enrollment and 
developed significantly in a programmatic sense. This growth 
and development of maturity means that the Chicago division 
no longer depends on or receives direction from the Urbana 
division. Much of the joint effort of previous years no longer 
exists and the two divisions have developed along different 
paths. This has been viewed as appropriate in view of the 
different but complementary campus missions and the differ- 
ence in population served. 

In the past several years, the two divisions have achieved 
integration within the academic affairs of the individual cam- 
puses. In practice, budgetary decisions involving each campus 

'By Board of Trustees action on June 20, 1973, the word 
"Graduate" was deleted from the name of the School concur- 
rent with the introduction of the new Bachelor of Social Work 
programs into the Chicago Circle and Urbana-Champaign 
divisions of the School. 



division have been made separately by each Chancellor. In 
addition, recommendations as to promotion and retention of 
faculty within the two divisions have been transmitted sepa- 
rately by each Chancellor to the President. Both the old 
M.S.W. degree and the new B.S.W. degree offered by each 
division of the School are of concern to each campus senate 
and the senate of each campus certifies to the Board of 
Trustees those students who have successfully fulfilled re- 
quirements for the degrees. The relatively new doctoral pro- 
gram was approved by the Board of Higher Education as a 
joint program between the campuses. Except in this last in- 
stance, each division has been acting, in fact, as an autono- 
mous unit with an appropriate amount of inter-campus 
consultation. 

In the light of these developments, the Chancellors have 
now recommended the following steps to formally decentral- 
ize the School (the changes would be effective September 1, 
1974): 

1. the establishment of the Jane Addams School of Social 
Work at Urbana-Champaign and the Jane Addams 
School of Social Work at Chicago Circle as adminis- 
tratively independent schools reporting to the respective 
chancellors; 

2. the appointment of Professor Mark Hale, presently 
Director of the Jane Addams School of Social Work, 
as Director of the Jane Addams School of Social Work 
at Urbana-Champaign and the appointment of Pro- 
fessor George Magner, presently Associate Director of 
the Jane Addams School of Social Work, as Director 
of the Jane Addams School of Social Work at Clii- 
cago Circle; 

3. the establishment of a joint faculty committee ap- 
pointed by the Vice President for Academic Develop- 
ment and Coordination in consultation with the Chan- 
cellors to advise him on the nature and extent of the 
interaction of the two Schools with advice as to 
changes, if any, which would be in the best interests of 
both Schools and the University; 

4. a charge to the present faculty doctoral committee to 
recommend in 1974-75 whether the joint doctoral pro- 
gram is in the best interests of the Schools or whether 
it should be replaced by separate doctoral programs. 

The Vice President for Academic Development and Co- 
ordination endorses this recommendation. 



New Director of University Office for Capital Programs 



With the retirement of Vernon L. Kretschmer this 
month as Director of Capital Programs in the University 
Office for Capital Programs, the Board of Trustees ap- 
proved the appointment of Joseph Frederick Green to 
succeed him. Mr. Green has been Associate Director of 
Capital Programs since 1972. 

Mr. Kretschmer has served the University in many 
capacities since his appointment as Illini Union Building 
Manager in January, 1940, including directorship of the 
Illini Union, Housing, Auxiliary Services, and Plant 
and Services. 

Mr. Green, a native of Mattoon, attended the Uni- 
versity briefly in 1944 before entering the United States 



Maritime Service. He was graduated from the U.S. 
Military Academy in 1950 and served in the U.S. Air 
Force for four years. He was engaged in field engineer- 
ing in Illinois and California and as project manager for 
development of Lincoln Square in Urbana for Carson, 
Pirie, Scott and Company before joining the Uni\-ersity 
staff in 1967 as assistant to the Director of the Physical 
Plant. He served as Campus Director of Physical Plant 
Planning for Chicago Circle Campus during 1968-1972. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 









Gift and Exchange Division 
220a Library 
3 copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 251, October 16, 1974 



The Uiiraiy of Uw 



NOV 5 1974 



University of Illinois 



Changes in University Policies on Transfer of Sick Leave, Vacation Credit 



President John E. Corbally Jr. sent the following let- 
ter to the three Chancellors in regard to changes in Uni- 
versity policies applying to the transfer of sick leave and 
vacation credit of staff members, academic and non- 
academic : 

Ch.vncellor Begando 
Chancellor Chesto.x 
Chancellor Peltason 

Gentlemen : 

On June 25, 1974, I wrote you seeking your advice on 
recommendations I had received from the Special Committee 
on Professional Personnel concerning changes in University 
fwlicies related to the transferability of sick leave and vacation 
credit. I have now received from each of you support for the 
recommendations. Accordingly, the following policies now 
have my approval and should be put in force immediately. 

I. Transfer of Sick Leave Credit 

.■\. Sick leave credit will be transferred when a staff mem- 
ber changes to an academic appointment from a non- 
academic position within the University. 
Under the current academic disability leave provisions, 
it is provided that a staff member may accumulate up 
to si.x months of sick leave credit. An employee trans- 
ferring from nonacademic status to academic status 
may transfer alt accumulated sick leave credit, but 
should that credit exceed the allowable maximum, no 
further sick leave may be accumulated. If the credit 
transferred is less than allowable maximum, additional 
sick leave may be accumulated up to that amount. 
This policy is to be effective upon approval and is lo 
cover current academic employees who in past years 
have transferred from nonacademic to academic status. 
.All transfers of sick leave credit require the presenta- 
tion of appropriate records \erifying sick leave accumu- 
lated under the nonacademic system. 

B. Sick leave credit will be transferred when a staff mem- 
ber changes to a nonacademic apjxiintment from an 
academic position within the University. 
This policy is to be effective upon approval and is to 



cover current nonacademic employees who in past 
years have transferred from academic to nonacademic 
status. All transfers of sick leave credit require the 
presentation of appropriate records verifying sick 
leave accumulated under the academic system. 

II. Transfer of Accumulated Vacation 

A. When an employee transfers from a nonacademic posi- 
tion to an academic position, any vacation earned under 
the nonacademic system will ordinarily be taken or 
paid for by the employing nonacademic unit before 
the employee transfers to the academic position. 

In cases in which the employee prefers vacation time 
but taking it prior to transfer would create a hardship, 
arrangements may be made for transfer of all or part 
of the accumulated vacation provided that these ar- 
rangements are acceptable to the two administrative 
units and the employee. In no case can a transfer of 
accumulated vacation result in a loss of accumulated 
benefits, except that at the time a staff member retires, 
resigns, or otherwise terminates his employment with 
the University his accumulated vacation may not ex- 
ceed 46 working days. 

B. When an employee transfers from an academic posi- 
tion to a nonacademic position, any vacation earned 
under the academic system will ordinarily be taken or 
paid for by the employing academic unit before the 
employee transfers to the nonacademic position. 

In cases in which the employee prefers vacation time 
but taking it prior to transfer would create a hardship, 
arrangements may be made for transfer of all or part 
of the accumulated vacation provided that these ar- 
rangements are acceptable to the two administrative 
units and the employee. In no case can a transfer of 
accumulated vacation result in a loss of accumulated 
benefits, except that at the time a staff member retires, 
resigns, or otherwise terminates his employment with 
the University his accumulated vacation may not ex- 
ceed that provided for in the Policy and Rula — 
Nonacademic. 

John E. Corbally Jr. 

President 



Administrative C/ianges at the Chicago Campuses 



The Board of Trustees at its September 18 meeting 
approved an administrative reorganization at the Medi- 
cal Center Campus, the subsequent appointment of a 
Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services at that cam- 
pus, and the appointment of a Director of Business 
AfTairs to serve both the Medical Center Campus and 
the Chicago Circle Campus. 

In regard to the reorganization at the Medical Cen- 
ter, this was President Corbally's recommendation : 

The revision of the general administrative structure of the 
University approved in principle by the Board of Trustees on 
April 19, 1972, and the substantial expansion, both achieved 
and anticipated, of the programs and ser\ices offered by the 
Medical Center Campus are the primary reasons for recom- 
mending an administrative reorganization at the Medical 
Center Campus at this time. 

The focus of the proposed reorganization is upon a 
decentralization of the current responsibilities undertaken 
by the Office of the Chancellor. Central to the plan is the 
inclusion of three Vice Chancellors in the administrative 
structure : 

1. the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 

2. the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Ser\ices 

3. the Vice Chancellor for Health Services 

The Office of the \^ce Chancellor for Academic Affairs 
will be established in accordance with the University of Illi- 
nois Statutes which contain the following: 

"Article III, Section 1(e): There shall be a vice chan- 
cellor for academic affairs or equivalent officer at each 
campus. He shall be the chief academic officer, under the 
Chancellor, for the campus and will serve as chief execu- 
tive officer in the absence of the Chancellor. He shall be 
appointed biennially by the Board of Trustees on recom- 
mendation of the Chancellor and the President, who 
shall have the advice of the Senate on the occasion of 
each appointment." 

Upon approval of the plan for the reorganization, a search for 
candidates will be conducted. In due course a recommendation 
for appointment of a person to fill the position of \'ice Chan- 
cellor for Academic .Affairs will be brought to the Board of 
Trustees. 

Establishment of the Office of the Mce Chancellor for 
.Administrative Services will permit the Office of the Chan- 
cellor to delegate the responsibility for se\eral units pro- 
viding important supporting ser\ices. A recommendation for 
appointment of the Mce Chancellor for Administrative Ser- 
vices is included among the agenda items to come before the 
Board at this meeting. 

The Office of the \'ice Chancellor for Health Services 
now exists. Thus, only a further definition and clarification 
of the role of the \'ice Chancellor for Health Services is in- 
volved in the current proposal. 

The Chancellor at the Medical Center recommends ap- 
proval in principal by the Board of Trustees. The Vice Presi- 
dent for Planning and Allocation and the \'ice President for 
.Academic Development and Coordination concur. 



Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services 

Following Board approval of the reorganization 
President Corbally then recommended that David W. 
Bonham. Director of Business Affairs at the Medical 
Center, be named Mce Chancellor for Administrative ^H 
Services, effective October 1, 1974. ^B 

Initially the Mce Chancellor will have administrative 
jurisdiction over the Physical Plant Department, the _ 

Office of Business Affairs (this office reports to the ^H 
Mce President for Planning and Allocation but functions ^^ 
in the ser\-ice of the Medical Center Campus), the Per- 
sonnel Sen.'ices Office, the Campus Services Division, the 
Office of Administrative Data Processing, the Safety 
Office, and such other administrative service units as 
the Chancellor may assign from time to time. 

He will report directly to the Chancellor on policy 
matters related to the units under his administrative 
jurisdiction, and provide budget allocations and policy 
guidelines for those administrative units reporting to 
him. 

Mr. Bonham, a native of Galesburg, is an alumnus of 
the University and a veteran of the U.S. Na\T. He 
worked summers for the Illinois State Geological Survey 
during student years and following graduation in 1950 
was a systems analyst for the U.S. Rubber Company at 
Mishawaka, Ind. In 1953 he joined the University staff 
at Urbana as a senior accountant, became a procedures 
and systems analyst, then assistant to the auditor before 
moving to the Medical Center Campus in 1964 as assis- 
tant to the business manager. He became business man- 
ager in 1965 and Director of Business Affairs in 1968. 

Director of Business Affairs, Chicago Campuses 

With the installation of a single payroll system for all 
three campuses, a single budget accounting system now 
is being implemented. To further this administrative 
consolidation, the Board of Trustees approved the nam- 
ing of a single Director of Business Affairs to serve 
both Chicago campuses. He will report directly to the 
\'ice President for Planning and Allocation. 

James E. Osbom, Director of Business Affairs at 
Chicago Circle since 1969, has been appointed Director 
of Business Affairs for the Chicago campuses. A native of 
Pana, he received a Bachelors Degree from the Univer- 
sity in 1938 and sen-ed in the Navy during 1941-45 and 
again in 1951-53. He owned and operated the Southern ^^ 
Tea Room in Champaign for a year before his Navy ^H 
service. He joined the University staff in 1945 as senior ^^ 
purchasing assistant, became purchasing agent for the 
Galesburg Undergraduate Division the following year, ^^ 
then served successively as acting assistant director of ^| 
purchases, assistant director, and finally director at Ur- 
bana before going to Chicago in 1961 as business man- 
ager of the Chicago Colleges and Divisions. He was 
named business manager at Chicago Circle in 1965. 






^t 



Gift and Exchange Division 
220a Library 
3 • copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 252, October 25, 1974 



TJie Initiation, Review, and Approval of New Units of Instruction' 

OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION 



At the University of Illinois the Senates determine 
matters of educational policy, subject to final approval 
by the Board of Trustees. Administrative officers through- 
out the University structure — from the department head 
to the President — participate directly in the formulation 
of such policy through the allocation of budget and 
space, through recommendations to the Board of Trust- 
ees concerning faculty proposals for new programs, and 
through the initiation of suggestions for appropriate 
review. 

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the 
review process by which faculty proposals for new units 
of instruction are approved for implementation. Estab- 
lished University policy and regulations of the Illinois 
Board of Higher Education which influence the process 
are described. The nature of responsibilities delegated to 
the various participants in the review process is discussed, 
with attention to the rationale behind the particular 
assignment of responsibility. The final section details the 
procedures instituted for the orderly and timely process- 
ing of proposals subsequent to approval by the Senate. 

POLICY STATEMENTS 

Senate proposals are implemented with the concur- 
rence of the President, usually in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Board of Trustees and with the Vice 
President for .Academic Development and Coordination. 
The President takes action on recommendations routinely 
forwarded from the offices of the campus Chancellor. 
The Office of .Academic Development and Coordination 
reviews those items referred to the President to deter- 
mine whether or not they fall within any of those cate- 
gories of new programs described below which require 
the approval not only of the central administration but 
also of the Board of Trustees and/or the Illinois Board 
of Higher Education. 

* Including, but not limited to, new, expanded, or otherwise 
substantially modified depanments, colleges, schools, institutes, 
degrees, curricula, and majors. 



OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

The organization of University-wide responsibilities 
attempts to maximize the educational efl'ectiveness and 
efficiency of the programs of each of the campuses. Fac- 
ulty Letter No. 230, May 10, 1972, spoke to eight spe- 
cific functions of the central administration, six of which 
relate directly to the role of the central administration 
in the approval process for new, axpgnded, and improved 
units of instruction, particularly those requiring State 
Board and/or Board of Trustees approval. Enunciation 
of institutional mission, development of plans for attain- 
ment of that mission, and evaluation of the success in 
meeting that mission constitute the fundamental respon- 
sibilities of the central administration — fundamental re- 
sponsibilities which, in the context of academic planning, 
depend heavily upon the interest, initiative, and support 
of campus faculty and administrators. 

\'ested in the system-wide academic officer is central 
administrative responsibility for the development, coordi- 
nation, and evaluation of academic policies, procedures, 
and activities. It is the academic Vice President's respon- 
sibility not only to ultimately articulate the academic 
scope and mission of the University system, but also 
to plan for its realization. Thus, the determination of 
University priorities and resource requirements for new 
programs is a major task within the academic Vice Presi- 
dent's office. The review of new, expanded, and im- 
proved program proposals by the Office of the President 
will be coordinated by the Vice President for Academic 
Development and Coordination working with the Vice 
President for Planning and Allocation. 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

All new degree programs must be approved by the 
Board of Trustees, which acts upon recommendations 
submitted by the President. The categories of academic 
items requiring central administration and Board of 
Trustees approval are as follows: new degree programs, 
new majors, new or revised units, substantial curricular 



revisions, intra-institutional arrangements, inter-institu- 
tional arrangements, and educational policy generally 
(including admissions).' Items which come to the atten- 
tion of the Vice President through the referral process 
from the Chancellor to the President will be reviewed 
and steps taken to assure appropriate authorization. The 
central administration will consider recommendations 
from the Chancellors' offices that a particular item, while 
not requiring Board of Trustees action, go to the Trustees 
as a report item. 

ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

Campus recommendations regarding action by the 
Illinois Board of Higher Education are considered in the 
context of State Board guidelines. The act which estab- 
lished the Illinois Board of Higher Education provides 
that the governing boards of the state universities: 

"shall not hereafter undertake the establishment of 
any new unit of instruction, research or public ser- 
vice without the approval of the Board. The term, 
'new unit of instruction, research or public service,' 
includes the establishment of a college, school, divi- 
sion, institute, department or other unit in any field 
of instruction, research or public ser\ice not there- 
tofore included in the program of the institution, 
and includes the establishment of any new branch or 
campus of the institution. The term does not include 
reasonable and moderate extensions of existing cur- 
ricula, research or public service programs which 
have a direct relationship to existing programs; and 
the Board may, under its rule making power define 
the character of such reasonable and moderate 
extensions." 

At its regular meeting of April 3, 1962, the State 
Board gave final approval to a rule defining "reasonable 
and moderate extensions" and established guidelines re- 
lated to that question. In 1968 the Board amended the 
1962 rule so that approval of the Bachelor of Arts degree 
in a specific discipline implied approval of the Bachelor 
of Science degree in that discipline and vice versa, with 
s'milar joint approval being extended to the Master of 
.\rts and Master of Science degrees. 

At its regular meeting of November 9, 1972, the 
Board approved an amendment to the rule defining "rea- 
sonable and moderate extensions" as that rule pertains 
to changes in the names of existing programs, depart- 
ments, or degrees. The text of the rule as adopted in 
1962 and as amended in 1972 is as follows: 

"Reasonable and moderate extensions" of existing 
[instructional] programs are hereby defined as those 
which are directly related to existing programs, and 
(a) which consist of new and additional courses 
of instruction within an existing academic depart- 
ment or division which do not involve a new de- 
gree, certificate, or academic major . . .^ 

' Guidelines for Administrative Procedures, March 1, 1973. 
-Subparagraphs (b), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) of the rule deal 
with research and public service activities. 



Any change in the name of an existing unit of in- 
struction, research, or public service (including but 
not limited to departments, colleges, schools, insti- 
tutes, degrees, and majors; and excluding individual 
courses) which by the commonly accepted standards 
of the academic community denotes a substantive 
change in the unit itself, shall not be considered a 
reasonable and moderate extension, and must there- 
fore still be submitted to the Board for approval as 
a new unit of instruction, research, or public service. 
In particular any change in name which denotes a 
change in discipline or academic major, or a change 
from an arts and science discipline to a similarly 
named professional discipline or vice versa, or a 
change from a teacher education curriculum to a 
similarly named professional or arts and science cur- 
riculum or vice versa, or a change in level of degree 
or level of organization, must still be submitted to 
the Board for approval as a new unit. 

In regard to the planning of programs for any new 
campuses which have been or may be established, the 
Board so far has expected the governing boards to submit 
for approval any new units of instruction, research or 
public service (including a college, school division, de- 
partment, or institute) on a given campus even though 
similar programs are already in existence at another 
campus within the same system. 

Further, in order to assist the Board in comprehend- 
ing the scope and nature of its planning function, each 
institution is requested to submit annually, not later than 
March 1, a list of all new courses, new research contracts, 
and new public service activities which were initiated 
during the twelve-month period ending on the previous 
December 31 and which were considered "reasonable 
and moderate extensions" of existing programs and as 
such were not presented to the Board for approval. Each 
institution is requested to report at the time of System 
Board approval any change in the name of an existing 
unit of instruction, research, or public service (except 
individual courses) which that institution or system plans 
to implement as a reasonable and moderate extension. 

Current programmatic priorities established by the 
Illinois Board of Higher Education provide guidelines for 
the review of academic programs. Those priorities have 
been presented as follows : 
"1. Health-related programs at all levels; 

2. Programs of excellence and innovation at the under- 
graduate level, programs aimed at improving under- 
graduate instruction; 'Report of the Committee on 
New Institutions'; Less Time, More Options (Car- 
negie Commission) and Report on Higher Education 
(Newman Report) ; 

3. Programs which respond to the special needs of those 
who have been historically excluded from higher edu- 
cation by virtue of age, race, sex, economic or social 
status or geographic location ; 

4. Programs of cooperation between public and private 
institutions; 



5. Programs which respond to specific recommendations 
in Master Plan — Phase III. 

"When all institutions are facing tight fiscal situa- 
tions, the review of new program proposals must give 
special care and scrutiny to the basic questions asked 
historically of all new programs: Are the resources avail- 
able adequate? Is there clear evidence of need? Does the 
new program duplicate other similar existing programs? 

"3 

and, in regard to doctoral program proposals through 

June, 1975: 

"1) No new doctoral program of any kind be considered 
unless a compelling need within the State for that 
program can be established ; 
2) additionally, no new Ph.D. program be considered if 
a similar program exists in a public or private insti- 
tution of higher education within Illinois . . ."^ 

PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED NEW 
OR REVISED UNITS OF INSTRUCTION 

In general, the initiation and review of a new or re- 
vised academic unit is a sequential legislative process 
which takes place at several levels within the University 
organization: department, college (including the Gradu- 
ate College), Chancellor, Senate, University Senates 
Conference, central administration, Board of Trustees. 

.\ proposal usually originates in a department, the 
primary unit of education and administration. (Occa- 
sionally an interdepartmental or intercampus committee 
or "division" will initiate and after approval administer 
a new instructional program.) .\fter re\'iew and approval 
by the departmental executive or advisory committee, 
the proposal is sent to the dean of the college. 

The dean of the college refers proposals to the col- 
lege committee on educational policy (or committee on 
courses and curricula) . Major changes are referred, with 
committee recommendation, to the general faculty of the 
college. In certain colleges, the committee on courses and 
curricula is authorized to act for the faculty on proposals 
for individual course changes, deletions, or additions. 

The Graduate College has jurisdiction in the case of 
all programs which lead to graduate degrees. The Grad- 
uate College review, which normally is undertaken by a 
committee appointed specifically for each program and 
representative of all colleges having an interest in that 
program, concerns itself with the academic cjuality of 
proposed programs.'^ Individual courses that carry both 
undergraduate and graduate credit must be approved by 
both the cognizant undergraduate college and by the 
Graduate College. 

^ Illinois Board of Higher Education, March 7, 1972. 
* Illinois Board of Higher Education, December 4, 1973. 
^ "At each campus, a Graduate College shall have jurisdiction 
over all programs leading to graduate degrees as determined 
by Senate action and approved by the Board of Trustees. It is 
the responsibility of the Graduate College to develop and safe- 
guard standards of graduate work and to promote and assist in 
the advancement of research in all fields." University of Illi- 
nois Statutes, V, Sec. 1(a). 



Following approval at the college le\el, the proposal 
is submitted to the Chancellor's office. The Chancellor 
refers it to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy 
(at Chicago Circle, the Senate Committee on Academic 
Programs) which reviews it and recommends action, 
favorable or otherwise, to the Senate." Deliberations in 
Senate committee or full Senate meetings are predomi- 
nately concerned with the educational policy implications 
and academic merit of a proposed new unit of instruc- 
tion. It is to the Senates that responsibility for the assur- 
ance of a quality program, particularly at the under- 
graduate level, is delegated. When approved by a given 
Senate, the proposal is referred to the University Senates 
Conference, and, at the same time, back to the Chan- 
cellor's office. 

The University Senates Conference, consisting of 
elected representatives of the Senates of all three cam- 
puses, considers the proposal in the context of system- 
wide University educational policy. If a proposal involves 
more than one campus, it will be referred by the Senates 
Conference to the other Senate or Senates concerned. 
A proposal always will be referred to one or both of the 
other Senates if their representatives so request. If the 
Senates disagree, the Senates Conference will first seek 
agreement on the part of the Senates, but will make its 
own recommendation to the President if no such agree- 
ment can be reached.' Clearance by the University Sen- 
ates Conference is a prerequisite to either Board of 
Trustees or State Board action. 

A key element in the process is review of the proposal 
by the Office of the Chancellor. Prior to the submission 

^ "Each Senate may exercise legislative functions in matters of 
educational policy affecting the University as a whole or its 
own campus only. No such Senate action shall take effect until 
it has been submitted to the University Senates Conference 
. . . and either approved by the Board of Trustees itself or ap- 
proved in a manner agreed to by the Board. 
"Except as otherwise provided in these Statutes, each Senate 
shall determine for its campus matters of educational policy 
including but not limited to: requirements for admission to 
the several colleges, schools and other teaching divisions; gen- 
eral requirements for degrees and certificates; relations be- 
tween colleges, schools and other teaching divisions; the aca- 
demic calendar; and educational policy on student affairs." 
University of Illinois Statutes, II, Sec. 1(b), (c). 
' "The University Senates Conference shall review all matters 
acted upon by each Senate. The Conference shall determine 
whether Senate actions requiring implementation or further 
consideration by officials or other groups within the University 
have been referred to the appropriate officials or groups. The 
Conference itself may make any original or additional referral 
it deems advisable, and may append its comments and recom- 
mendations. Should the Conference find a matter acted upon 
by one of the Senates to be of concern to one or more of the 
other Senates, it shall refer the matter and the action to the 
other Senate(s) . . .The Conference may act and may autho- 
rize its Executive Committee to act as an advisory group to 
the Board of Trustees (through the President), the President, 
other administrative officials, and the several Senates on mat- 
ters of University-wide concern." University of Illinois Stat- 
utes, ll,Stc.2{h), (c). 



of a proposal to the Office of the President, the Chan- 
cellor has the responsibility for ensuring a review that 
evaluates the proposed unit of instruction from such 
standpoints as quality, scholarly importance, student 
need, job market demands, relationship to campus pri- 
orities in scope and mission, and resource requirements 
and availabilities. The Chancellor forwards the proposal, 
with his own recommendations for disposition, to the 
President, to the Vice President for Academic Develop- 
ment and Coordination, and to the Secretary of the 
Board of Trustees, in line with the referral procedure 
for all academic Senate items. 

The President and the Vice President arrange for 
appropriate review by the staff of the Vice President for 
Planning and Allocation and by other offices or com- 
mittees as appropriate. This review may include consul- 
tation with the University Academic Council, the Uni- 
versity Planning Council, the University Council on 
Graduate Education and Research or other relevant all- 
University councils. 

The review by the Office of the President emphasizes 
the total needs, resources, and priorities of the University. 
It includes an analysis of the "relationship (of the pro- 
posed item) to the University's mission and long-range 
planning assumptions" and "the general long-term re- 
source implications."^ There is an examination of the 
programmatic content of the proposal in the light of the 
priorities established in the University Scope and Mission 
statement; the budgetaiy impact of the proposed item; 
and its impact on enrollment, faculty hiring, and space 
utilization. The nine criteria outlined in the Scope and 
Amission statement will be applied, particularly at the 
advanced graduate and professional levels. The Vice 
President for Academic De\elopment and Coordination 
reviews with the other Chancellors any intercampus im- 
plications, and, as a final step, advises the President 
concerning action to be taken on the recommendations. 

The President reports to the relevant Chancellor (s) 
on the final disposition to be made of the recommenda- 
tions. The recommendations of the Senate, as modified 
by the review by the University Senates Conference and 
at the Chancellor and central administration levels, are 
submitted by the President with his own recommenda- 
tions to the Board of Trustees for final internal action. 
The President is required to submit a proposal approved 
by the Senates or the University Senates Conference to 
the Trustees, but may recommend that it be modified or 
rejected — for policy reasons or due to lack of funds or 
facilities. After an item requiring State Board approval 
has been approved by Board of Trustees' action, the item 
is formally submitted to the State Board by the Office 
of the Secretary of the Board of Trustees. Revisions to 
proposals after University Senates Conference or Board 
of Trustees approval, either at the initiation of the State 
Board or as a result of negotiations with the State Board, 
will be made at the discretion of the Vice President for 
Academic Development and Coordination in consulta- 

^ Scope and Mission, May, 1974. 



tion with the relevant Senate Educational Policy or Aca- 
demic Programs committee and reported by him to the 
various University offices concerned. 

In an institution of the size and complexity of the 
University of Illinois, the process outlined, although 
time-consuming, is essential. Not infrequently in the 
course of their journey through the legislative process, 
proposals are modified, rejected, or abandoned, in whole 
or in part. The total process is designed so that the 
intrinsic educational worth of new programs is weighed ^^ 
by the bodies most competent to make such evaluations ^0 
— the various committees of the entire University fac- 
ulty. Administrative review at any level within the Uni- 
versity structure presumes thorough academic review and 
sound faculty advice regarding the educational worth of 
a proposed new or revised unit of instruction. The fac- 
ulty assume this fundamental responsibility for academic 
excellence in departmental. Senate committee. Senate, 
and Graduate College settings. 

Given this tradition of faculty responsibility in edu- 
cational policy, administrative appraisal and recommen- 
dation will not normally be concerned with the substan- 
tive aspects of intrinsic educational policy. However, 
before a proposal is finally approved and implemented 
or forwarded to the Illinois Board of Higher Education, 
it is evaluated in terms of the total needs, resources, and 
priorities of the campus as judged by the campus admin- 
istration and in terms of the total needs, resources, and 
priorities of the University as judged by the University 
administration and by the governing body, the Board 
of Trustees. 

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS FOR REVIEW 
AND/OR APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND/OR ILLINOIS BOARD 
OF HIGHER EDUCATION" 

Proposals to Be Submitted 

Proposals for the following should be submitted in the 
format required by the State Board to the Office of the 
President for review, approval, and, generally, forward- 
ing to the Board of Trustees and the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education : 

1 . New or revised units of instruction ; 

a. New degree programs (graduate and undergradu- 
ate) , including new curricula ;" ^t 
h. New majors;" ^^ 



^ While all Senate items may be implemented only with the 
approval of the Office of the President, these procediues apply 
to those academic Senate items requiring approval beyond that 
office — by the Board of Trustees and/or the Illinois Board 
of Higher Education. 

'° Nomenclature may differ from one campus, college, or de- 
partment to another; however, the terms "curriculum" and 
"major" designate and include those sub-units of academic de- 
gree programs one or two steps removed from the degree itself, 
whether labeled fields of concentration, specializations, etc. 



c. Substantial re\isions" of degree piogiani, curricular, 
or major requirements; 

d. New academic administrative units; 

e. Reorganizations of academic administrative units ;'- 

2. New or substantially revised units of research ; 

3. New or substantially revised units of public service. 

In addition to the above, formal intra-institutional 
and inter-institutional agreements require the approval 
of the Office of the President, the Board of Trustees, 
and, possibly, the Illinois Board of Higher Education. 
Similarly, changes in ongoing programs which have sig- 
nificant impact on enrollment, budget, faculty hiring, or 
on librar>-, space, and/or facility requirements must be 
reviewed and approved by the Office of the President 
and possibly by the Board of Trustees and the State 
Board. Agreements and proposals for these changes 
should be submitted as described in this document in 
the format appropriate to the nature of the proposal. 

Format for Submission 

Seven copies of each request for approval should be 
submitted to the Office of the \'ice President for Aca- 
demic Development and Coordination. All requests 
should include the following: 

••The guideline for campus determination is the IBUE rule 
on "reasonable and moderate extensions." 
'^ This category includes those reorganizations which would 
require IBHE approval under the "name change" regulation 
of the State Board. 



1 . The title page form "Program Approval Request" ; 

2. A statement of clearances given the proposal on the 
campus at the department, college, Senate, Graduate 
College, etc. levels; 

3. A discussion by the Chancellor of the relationship of 
the proposed program to the campus statement of 
scope and mission, its priority level within that general 
plan if it requires new resources or represents major 
campus reallocation, and its relationship to the stated 
priorities of the campus; 

4. A draft Board item if Board of Trustees approval is 
required ; 

5. The completed forms required by the Illinois Board 
of Higher Education; in individual instances, only 
portions of the form may be relevant. 

Preliminary review of the proposal may establish a 
need for information beyond that submitted. In that case 
a request will be made for those additional materials. 
Once final approval is given by the Board of Trustees, 
fifteen additional copies will be requested of the campus 
(with any modifications agreed to) for foi"warding to 
the State Board. 

Schedule of Submission 

Proposals may be submitted for review at any time 
during the year. However, proposals which will affect 
the FY 1977 fiscal year budget request should be for- 
warded for review and approval to the Office of the 
President no later than March 15, 1975, in order to re- 



PROGRAM REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS 



CHANCELLOR 



CAMPUS 



(2) 



UNIVERSITY 

SENATES 
CONFERENCE 



(4) 



LONG RANGE . 
^ PLANNING "^ 



1(3) 



POLICY ANALYSIS 
AND EVALUATION 



-♦ REVIEW 

-»• INFORMATION 



(7) 



VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR ACADEMIC 

DEVELOPMENT AND 

COORDINATION 



t 1 



(6) 



SENATES 
CONFERENCE 



OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 



(10) 



COMMISSION 
OF SCHOLARS 



(8) 



(9) 



SECRETARY 
BOT 



Li (5) 



BOARDS 



ceive adequate consideration before the construction of 
the FY 1977 budget request in late spring or early sum- 
mer of 1975. 

The Review Process 

A flow chart of the process of review and approval 
at the University, Board of Trustees, and Illinois Board 
of Higher Education levels of review appears on page 5. 

The Chancellor's Office ( 1 ) has the following major 
responsibilities with respect to this process: 

a. Ensuring the review of the proposal as required at the 
campus level ; 

b. Reviewing the stated need for the proposed program, 
establishing whether or not the campus has the capa- 
bilities (financial and academic) to build and main- 
tain a high-quality program in this area, reviewing and 
approving the projected resource requirements for the 
program, and defining its relationship to the campus 
scope and mission; 

c. Ensuring the submission of the proposal to the Univer- 
sity Senates Conference (2), as required; 

d. Submitting the proposal to the Office of the President, 
including a formal request to the President and, in the 
format described above, to the Vice President for 
Academic Development and Coordination with an 
information copy to the Secretary of the Board of 
Trustees (5). (Included in Format for Submission 
section.) 

e. Preparing and submitting, upon request by the Vice 
President, to the Board of Trustees office fifteen copies 
of the finally approved format for referral to the Illi- 
nois Board of Higher Education. 

The Vice President for Academic Development and 
Coordination (3) has the following major responsibilities 
for the review of proposals : 

a. Determination of the final level of approval required 
for a given proposal (in consultation with the Secretary 
of the Board of Trustees) ; 

b. Review of the proposal for completeness of informa- 
tion; 

c. Coordination of the review of the proposal by other 
units (4) in the Office of the President (Vice President 
for Planning and Allocation, Budget and Long-Range 
Planning offices) and, as necessary, by all-University 
councils or committees; 

d. Submission of an information copy to the Secretary of 



the Board of Trustees (5) and to the University Man- 
agement Information System office (6) ; 

e. P'inal review of the proposal and of comments by other 
offices; 

f. Recommendation to the President. 

The President (7) and the Secretary of the Board 
(5) have responsibility for submission to the Board of 
Trustees (8) and for notification of the action of the 
Board. 

Subsequent to approval by the Board of Trustees and 
when required, the Secretary of the Board and the Vice 
President for Academic Development and Coordination 
are responsible for the following : 



Vice President for 

AcacJemic Development 

and Coordination 



Determination of any 
additional documenta- 
tion required; 



c) Negotiations, as re- 
quired, with the staff 
of the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education;* 



Secretary, 
Board of Trustees 



b) Formal submission of 
the request to the Illi- 
nois Board of Higher 
Education (9) ; 



d) Notification to those 
involved of the formal 
action of the Illinois 
Board of Higher 
Education. 



* The Vice President would ordinarily involve campus aca- 
demic officers and faculty in such discussions; should the 
negotiations result in changes to the proposal approved by the 
faculty Senate concerned, the University Senates Conference, 
and the Board of Trustees, the Vice President for Academic 
Development and Coordination will determine whether such 
changes are significant enough to require review and re- 
approval by these University bodies. 

Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 272c Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Gift and Exchange Division 
220a Library 
3 copies) 



DCU8RARY0FTNE 

JAN 2 4 1975 

UNIVERSITY OF ILUNOIS 



Trnsfccs Approve Amendment of FY 1976 Operating Budget Request 



Meeting on die Chicago Circle Campus November 
13, the Board of Trustees among other actions approved 
an amendment of the University's Operating Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 1976 in regard to salary increases. 
The Board had initially approved the Operating Budget 
Request at its September 18 meeting. 

This was the recommendation offered to the Board 
by President John E. Corbally : 

On September 18, 1974, the Board of Trustees approved 
an operating budget request for Fiscal Year 1976 which in- 
cluded salar\' increase funds in an amount to provide a\erage 
increases of 9.5 per cent. .\t that time it was clear that eco- 
nomic conditions continued to be unstable and that, while 
the assumptions which supported the salary increase request 
would remain valid, updated information related to those as- 
sumptions could change the amounts required to meet salary 
needs of University personnel. 

.\s of this date, a number of new studies have been com- 
pleted concerning all types of salary levels, and the analysis 
of the cost-of-living impact by level of salary has been up- 
dated for the quarter ending September 30, 1974, and for the 
year to that date. This analysis shows clearly that the impact 
of inflation on the "market basket comparison" for both the 
recent quarter and year is between 11.9 per cent and 12.1 
per cent. This result is, as expected, not significantly different 
from the recently-published Consumer Price Index. 

It is also clear from studies and comparisons which are 
incorporated into the President's Report at the November, 
1974, meeting of the Board of Trustees that a deficiency in 
salary levels for all categories and all campuses exists with 
respect to state and national comparisons. 

It is therefore concluded that any increase of less than 



12 per cent will not only cause the University to lag behind 
the measured cost of living, but indeed would increase the al- 
ready-existing salary deficiency level at the University of 
Illinois. 

The cuncntly-appro\ed FY 1976 operating budget request 
seeks $26.9 million in additional support, an increase of 12.6 
per cent on the base of FY 1975. If medically-related expan- 
sion programs are removed from the request, the increase is 
10.4 per cent. An increase from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent 
for personal services adds $3.7 million, for a total increase 
o\er 1975 of 14.3 per cent (12.1 per cent without the medi- 
cally-related expansion ) . Table 1 reflects these changes in 
dollars and in percentages. (See page 2) 

It is clear that the economy remains unstable and it cannot 
be assumed that even these current data will remain correct 
as the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 1976 moves 
along toward action in June, 1975. We will continue to moni- 
tor the appropriate data and to bring to the Board quarterly 
reports of our salary needs for 1976. At this time, it is essential 
that we amend the request which is pending before the Board 
of Higher Education so that Board will have the benefit of 
current data. These data show that the rationale which origi- 
nally led me to recommend salary increases for Fiscal Year 
1976 averaging 9.5 per cent now supports increases averaging 
12 per cent. 

I, therefore, recommend that the operating budget request 
for Fiscal Year 1976 be amended to include personal services 
increases averaging 12 per cent and that this amendment be 
transmitted to the Board of Higher Education. I further rec- 
ommend that the studies which led to this amendment be 
continued and that this Board be prepared to for\vard further 
recommendations when and if the data warrant such 
recommendations. 



Toble 1 — FY 1976 Operating Budget Request 
(Thousands of Dollars) 



Per Cent of 
Request 



Personal Sendees — 12.0%' $19,236.3 62.89 

Price Increases 

General — 1 1% $2,632.6 

Utilities 2,275.2 

4.907.8 16.05 

Open New Buildings 184.0 .61 

Health Professions 

Medical Center 3,940.6 

College of Veterinaiy 

Medicine 200.0 

4.140.6 13.53 

Student Loan Matching 

Funds 121.5 .39 

Programmed Elimination 

of Deficiencies 2,000.0 6.53 

FY 1976 Request $30,590.2 100.00 



Increase Over FY 1975 Base 14.3% 

Separate Items: 

Veterinary' Diagnostic Lalioratory". . $ 39.6 
Division of Sen'ices for 

Crippled Children' 1,076.4 

Remodeling Projects 

Under $100,000 462.5 

Cooperative Extension Ser\ice 174.8 

Total — All Items $32,343.5 

NOTE: 'y Increase = r5% X 2/12 X 12% X 10/12) 

= 10.89'r 

' Personal Services Base $177,571.1 
' Base Personal Services $272.8 

Other $ 90.8 (IKr is applied) 

' DSCC Personal Ser\'ices Base $801.9 



A report, "Study of Salaries for University of Illinois 
Personnel," covering the four employee groups at the 
University, comparison of academic salaries with those of 
other institutions, and a "Proposed University of Illinois 
Step Plan" for nonacadcjnic employees will appear in the 
next issue of the Faculty Letter. 



University of Illinois Employees Job Satisfaction Study 



I'NIVERSITY BURi:.\U OF INSTITUTIONAL RESF..\RCH 

There are difTerences, both University-wide and 
among the three campuses, in the way the University's 
employees feel about their job situation. Moreover, there 
are distinctions in job satisfaction between academic and 
nonacademic employees and within each of these groups. 

These conclusions are based on the results of a sur- 
vey (The University of Illinois Employees Job Satisfac- 
tion Study) conducted last spring by Dr. Sandra A. 
Warden at the request of President Corbally. 

The survey questionnaire, designed to examine the 
attitudes of University employees to a variety of job- 
related variables and conditions, was distributed by mail 
at each campus to a random sample of employees in each 
of the following nine employee groups: 
Academic Staff : 1. Tenured Faculty 

2. Non-tenured Faculty 

3. Professional 

4. Graduate Assistants 
.5. Officials and Managers 

6. Professional and Technical 

7. Office and Clerical 

8. Skilled, Semi-skilled, and 
Unskilled 

9. Service Workers 

A random sampling of the nonrespondents in each group 
at each campus was followed up by telephone. 

The final analyses of the survey results were based 
on the mail and phone samples in combination, which 
totaled 2,048 employees, distributed by campus as fol- 
lows: Urbana-Champaign, 976; Chicago Circle, 490; 
Medical Center. 582. 



\nnacademic Staff : 



UNIVERSITY-WIDE AREAS OF RELATIVELY HIGH 
AND LOW SATISFACTION 

The results of the University of Illinois Employees 
Job Satisfaction Study indicate that the University's aca- 
demic and nonacademic employees as a whole are \vell 
satisfied with the following job-related factors or cir- 
cumstances, each item having been responded to favor- 
ably by at least three-fourths of the employees surveyed, 
with the percentage often approaching or exceeding 
ninety per cent: 

( 1 ) The work itself — pride in and liking for one's work; 

(2) Co-workers — their friendliness, intelligence, com- 
petence, and cooperation ; 

(3) Feeling of being liked, respected, and needed ; 

(4) The boss — his/her honesty, competence, coopera- 
tion, and fairness; 

(5) Opportunity to use and to improve one's skills and 
training; 

(6) Opportunity to control how the job is done ; 

(7) .\vailability of needed supporting services, supplies, 
and equipment ; 

(8) The job-related information received. 

The lowest relative level of satisfaction among Uni- 
\ersity employees as a group apparently centers around 
the following job-related factors or circiunstances, each 
item having been responded to unfavorably by more than 
40 per cent of the employees included in the study: 

( 1 ) Opportunity for promotion and professional ad- 
vancement; 

( 2 ) Prospects for a comfortable retirement ; 

(3) Earnings and prospects for financial security; 



(4) Chances (if briiiiiiiia; about needed changes in one"s 
unit. 

CAMPUS DIFFERENCES IN JOB SATISFACTION 

Where iiiter-campiis dill'erenies in le\el of job satis- 
faction exist, and the suney findings suggest that sucli 
differences are rather general, the tendency is for tlie 
Medical Center employees to be most satisfied and the 
Chicago Circle employees least satisfied, with the Vr- 
hana-Chanipaign employees intemiediate to the other 
two. This higher overall degree of dissatisfaction on the 
part of Chicago Circle employees is substantiated by the 
fact that relatively fewer employees at that campus fSfi 
per cent), comjsared to the employees at the other cam- 
puses (72 per cent for Urbana-Champaign and 78 per 
cent for Medical Center "i, would prefer to continue 
working at the Uni\-ersity. 

JOB SATISFACTION FOR ACADEMIC 
AND NONACADEMIC EMPLOYEES 

The results of die study did not reflect consistent 
Uiii\ersit\-wide differences between academic and non- 
academic employees in their degree of job satisfaction. 
On some factors the academic stafT are somewhat more 
satisfied while on others the reverse is true. 

Academic employees in general appear to be more 
satisfied than non-academic employees on factors such 
as the opportunities (1) to achieve promotion and pro- 
fessional advancement, (2) to use and to improve one's 
skills and training, (3) to control how the job is done, 
('4) to bring about needed changes in one's unit, (5) to 
study or research in one's field, and (6) to accomplish 
desired things. Academic staff, moreover, are more in- 
clined to be favorably impressed by the distinction or 
eminence of the University, by its physical facilities, 
and by the academic atmosphere and surroundings. 

Xonacademic employees as a group seem to be more 
satisfied than academic employees concerning such vari- 
ables as (1) prospects for financial and job security, (2) 
prospects for a comfortable retirement, and (3) the 



fringe benefits. These factors are related more to the con- 
ditions of eniploynient with the University than to the 
work itself, which is consistent with the fact that non- 
academic employees are noticeably more inclined than 
academic staff to indicate a preference for working at 
the University, but are somewhat less predisposed than 
academics to prefer working in the same kind of job thev 
now hold. 

.Academic and nonacademic employees apparently 
are in striking agreement regarding what could be 
changed to impro\c working conditions at the University. 
Both most frequently cite salaries as the item most in 
need of improvement. 

There are University-wide differences among both 
academic and nonacademic employees in degree of satis- 
faction \vith employment at the University. The most 
consistent difference within the academic employees is a 
tendency for Graduate Assistants to be less satisfied than 
other academic staff, and even this tendency is reversed 
for some aspects of the employment situation. Among 
the nonacademic stafT, the most pronounced tendency is 
for Skilled, .Semi-skilled, and Unskilled employees to ex- 
hibit the highest level of satisfaction, but this trend oc- 
curs for less than half of the job-related variables in- 
cluded in the study. 

The results of the Employees Job Satisfaction Study 
provide one measure of satisfaction with the employment 
situation at the University. 

After reviewing the results of the study, President 
Corbally indicated that those matters appearing to lead 
to employee dissatisfaction will be discussed with appro- 
priate University personnel so that remedial actions can 
be taken. The question of the economic status of Univer- 
sity personnel has already been described as the top 
priority concern of the University administration and 
efforts continue to be made to deal with that concern. 

A detailed report of the study can be received by 
contacting the University Bureau of Institutional Re- 
.search, 252 Illini Tower, Champaign. 



Academic Term Defined for Staff Exemption from Tuition and Fees 



Because of recent calendar changes at the University, 
there is confusion about the wording of policy in regard 
to regulations governing the assessment and exemption 
from fees for staff members. The policy, which appears 
in both undergraduate and graduate catalogs, reads as 
follows : 

'For fee assessment purposes, a staff appointment must 
require service for not less than three-fourths of the 
term. fTTiis is interpreted as a minimum of three and 
one-half months in a semester, nine weeks in a quarter, 
and six weeks in an eight-week summer session.)" 

To disjjel the confusion and to clarify the application 
of the "three-fourths" rule in the specification of the 
pteriod of time covered by a "term,"' the following 
changes in the wording of the current policy are being 



made (deletions are in parentheses and additions are 

italicized) : 

"For fee assessment purposes, a staff appointment must 
require service for not less than three-fourths of the 
academic term (.), defined as the period between the 
first day of registration and the last day of final examina- 
tions. Specific dates marking the end of three-fourths of 
the term shall be established by the Chancellor or his 
designee on each campus. (This is interpreted as a mini- 
mum of three and one-half in a semester, nine weeks in 
a quarter, and six weeks in an eight-week summer 
.session. ) 

Inquiries to the Fatuity Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 364 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



L)LUAA.-^jcLy 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 254, December 13, 1974 



Study of Salaries for University of Illinois Personnel 



PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF PLANNING AND PRESENTED IN CONNECTION WITH PRESIDENT CORBALLY S 
SALARY INCREASE RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE NOVEMBER 13 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



INTRODUCTION 

A study of salaries for University personnel is a very 
complex problem. It involves over 12,400 employees paid 
from State appropriations and located on three different 
campuses, who have varying degrees of responsibilities up 
to the President of the University. It is the policy of the 
University to treat all classes and all campuses as equi- 
tably as possible. Thus, when salary increases are ob- 
tained, the funds are distributed to four employee groups 
in proportion to their portion of the total Personal Ser- 
vices budget. The groups are ( 1 ) academic employees, 
(2) nonacademic open range employees, (3) nonaca- 
demic prevailing rate employees, and (4) nonacademic 
negotiated rate employees. The ratio of the total State 
dollars for Personal Services paid to these classes is 
shown below : 

Per Cent 
Group of Total 



Academic 

Nonacademic Open Range 
Nonacademic Negotiated 
Nonacademic Prevailing 

Total 


65.60 

20.83 

10.95 

2.62 

100.00 



This study will be mainly directed to the academic and 
nonacademic open range salaries, as the salaries of the 
other nonacademic employees are set by either negotia- 
tion or in accordance with prevailing rates in the com- 
munity. The study will attempt to indicate the status of 
University of Illinois employees in relation to groups out- 
side the University to determine if any deficiencies exist. 

Where Do We Stand in Relation to Our Competi- 
tion? — In order to determine where we stand in rela- 
tion to our competition, the following chart shows how 
each group of employees can be compared with their 
appropriate competition. 



REVIEW WITH 
PEERS 



MARKET ANALYSIS 

NONACADEMIC 

OPEN RANGE NEGOTIATED 



REVIEW OF REVIEW OF BY IDENTICAL 

BENCHMARK SIMILAR TRADES AND 

OCCUPATIONS OCCUPATIONS CRAFTS 



The salaries of the academic employees can be reviewed 
with the salaries of academic employees at selected peer 
institutions. The nonacademic employees can be com- 
pared by a market analysis. In the case of (a) the open 
range employees, a review of benchmark occupations can 
be made; (b) the negotiated employees, a review of simi- 
lar occupations in the community can be made, and (c) 
the prevailing group, a review of identical outside groups 
can be made. 

Relationship of Market Surveys and Cost of Living 
Surveys — Quite often market surveys and cost of living 
surveys become intermingled in salary studies. This is 
quite easy to do, but the diagram below is provided to 
eliminate some of the confusion. 

RELATIONSHIP OF MARKET AND COST OF LIVING 
IN SALARY STUDIES 



COMPARISONS 



BY 
MARKET ANALYSIS 



m 






COST OF LIVING 
CONSIDERATIONS 



FY 1971-72 FY 1972-73 FY 1973-74 FY 1974-75 FY 1975-76 



ntC UBRARY OF THE 

JAN 24 1975 



The preparation of budget requests must necessarily 
be made prior to the implementation of the request. In 
the case of the FY 1976 budget request, the studies for 
comparison with competition had to be made in FY 1974 
and prior years, i.e., any market analysis that compares 
a group with similar occupations must be made looking 
backward as far as budget requests are concerned. \Vhen 
the budget is prepared, consideration must be given to 
looking forward to what is thought will occur. This is 
where cost of living considerations are made to estimate 
what the market will be in the budget year. 

ACADEMIC SALARY STUDIES 

The academic salary studies were made in two parts. 
One part was the study of the status of the academic per- 
sonnel at the Urbana-Champaign and Chicago Circle 
Campuses, and the other part was the study of the status 
of the academic personnel at the Medical Center Cam- 
pus. Because of the slight differences, each part will be 
discussed separately. 

The data for the Urbana-Champaign and Chicago 
Circle Campuses were obtained from A.\UP bulletins 
giving reports on the economic status of the profession 
for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1973-74 and Univer- 
sity of Illinois salary statistics for academic and adminis- 
trative staff for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1973-74. 
The institutions selected for comparison with the aca- 
demic employees at Urbana-Champaign and Chicago 
Circle are shown below : 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY (NP) 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY (P) 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY (NP) 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY (NP) 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEM (P) 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-UC 8 CC (P) 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN (P) 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA (P) 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN -MADISON 8 MILWAUKEE (P) 

Of these groups, six are public (P) institutions and three 
are non-public (NP). 

The procedure for making the salary comparison was 
to (a) determine the salar)' for each academic rank at 
each institution, (b) determine the median, and (c) ob- 
tain the difference between the median salary and the 
University of Illinois salary. An illustration of the data 
for the cash salary comparison for an academic year at 
the rank of professor follows: 



MEDIAN 

RANGE 

U OF I LESS MEDIAN 



$21.100 (CORNELL) $22,100 (U OF I) $23,600 (CORNELL) 
$3,900 $4,000 $«,000 

+ $200 -0- -$600 





1971- 


72 


1972- 


-73 


1973- 


-74 




SALARY 


RANK 


SALARY 


RANK 


SALARY 


RANK 


CORNELL 


$21,100 


5 


$22,100 


5^ 


$23,600 


5 


INDIANA 


$20,700 


6 


$21,100 


7 


$21,700 


8 


NORTHWESTERN 


$23,700 


1 


$24,600 


1 


$25,500 


1 


STANFORD 


$22,300 


2 


$23,300 


2 


$24,400 


2 


CALIFORNIA SYSTEM 


$20,400 


7 


$22,600 


H 


$23,800 


4 


UNIVOF iLL.-ccauc 


$21,300 


4 


$22,100 


»^ 


$23,000 


6 


UNIV. OF MICH. ■^" "■•" 


$21,600 


3 


$22,600 


3i 


$23,900 


3 


UNIV Of MINN. 


$19,800 


8^ 


$20,600 


9 


$21,500 


9 


UNIV OF WISC.-MAOISON 

MILWAUKEE 


$19,800 


H 


$20,900 


e 


$21,900 


^ 



The data indicate the Uni\ersity of Illinois professor 
ranked fourth in salary in 1972, dropped to 5V2 position 
in 1972-73 (median), and dropped to sixth position in 
1973-74. Stating the data another way, the salary for 
University professors was $200 above the median in 
1971-72, but dropped to $600 below the median bv 
1973-74. 

When similar calculations were made for all of the 
ranks, the salary differences from the median were those 
shown below : 



Rank 



1971-72 



1972-73 



1973-74 



Professor 


+ 200 





-600 


.Associate Professor 








-400 


-\ssistant Professor 


-100 





-200 


Instructor 


+ 200 


-100 


-100 



When calculations were made considering the staff 
on both campuses by rank, the funds required to bring 
the cash salary of the academic staff at the Urbana- 
Champaign Campus to the median of 1973-74 was 
$918,500 and for the Chicago Circle Campus $301,100, 
for a total of $1,219,600. 

The data for Medical Center were not available 
from A.\UP bulletins and it was necessary to utilize 
national and regional salary surveys conducted by the 
respective national professional organizations of the dis- 
ciplines.^ The data were very similar to those given in 
the A.-\UP bulletins except that only one year's data 
were available and the data were given by college rather 
than by the entire campus. As such, the data were ana- 
lyzed by colleges and then combined in the same manner 
as for the Urbana-Champaign and Chicago Circle Cam- 
puses with one exception. .\s the data included all medi- 
cal schools for each discipline and all the schools are not 
as comprehensive as the Medical Center, each academic 
rank of each college was compared with the 75th per- 
centile of the reference source material. From this study, 
it was determined that the total funds required to bring 
the cash salary of the academic staff at the Medical 
Center to the 75th percentile in 1973-74 would be 
$2,340,336. 

Comparison of Probable Academic Salary Increases 
in FY 1975 and FY 1976 — Data for FY 1976 salarv' 
increases to be requested are still pending, as many insti- 
tutions have not had their requests approved by their 
governing boards. The information given below is the 
result of telephone conversations with representatives of 
several institutions. 



1 Dentistry: Office of Educational Resources and Studies, 
American Association of Dental Schools, Harry Wiesenfelder, 
Director, December 21, 1973. 

Medicine: Division of Operational Studies, Association of 
.American Medical Colleges. February, 1973 and May, 1974. 
Pharmacy: American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 
Charles W. Bliben, Executive Secretary. February 6, 1974. 
Nursing: A study conducted by the School of Nursing at the 
University of Colorado, 1971-72. 



FY 75 



CORNELL 


6.CX) 


8.00 (PENDING) 


INDIANA 


5.53 


12.00 


NORTHWESTERN 


5.70 EST. 


12.00 


STANFORD 


6.00 


7.00 (PENDING) 


CALIFORNIA 


5.45 


11.00 


ILLINOIS 


5.00 


12.00 


MICHIGAN 


8.00 


N/A 


MINNESOTA 


5.00 


16.50 


WISCONSIN 


5.50 


17.00 


IOWA 


6.75 


12.00 


OHIO STATE 


6.50 


N/A 


MICHIGAN STATE 


8.00 


12.00 


PURDUE 


5.00 


12.00 



These data show that while salary increases were ob- 
tained in FY 1975 and are also pending for FY 1976, the 
University of Illinois salars- increases for FY 1975 are 
at the lower end of those offered for the institutions con- 
tacted and they are about average for the request in FY 
1976. If the salary- increases indicated are provided, the 
result will probably be that the University of Illinois 
academic group will remain at about the same relation- 
ship with their competition in FY 1975 and FY 1976, i.e., 
they will still be below the midpoint and will still have 
a total salary deficiency in the order of $3.5 million. 

NONACAOEMIC OPEN RANGE EMPLOYEES 

Whereas the academic group studies required the 
analysis of only four ranks, the nonacademic open range 
study involves approximately 600 job classification titles. 
Each of these titles has a salary range that indicates the 
minimum and maximum salary which can be paid to a 
specific employee within this range. In order to reduce 
the time required to individually analyze 600 specific 
classification titles, a procedure was developed in which 
the 600 titles were consolidated to twenty-four levels with 
each level combining classes displaying relatively similar 
salary characteristics. Then each of these levels was com- 
pared to benchmark jobs in the community, the weighted 
average for each level was determined and a difference 
was obtained. A flow chart of this procedure is shown 
below : 



CXASSiriCATION 

TITLES 

(APPROXtlUTELy 

600> 



IN COMMUNITY 



DIFFERENCE 



A further consolidation was made of the levels into 
three groups that mainly included clerical personnel for 
levels .A-H, senior clerical and technical personnel for 
levels I-M, and professional and supervisory personnel 
for levels N-X. It was also determined that positions 
within levels .^-M are mainly influenced by local condi- 
tions and those positions within levels N-X are mainly 



influenced by national trends. Thus, separate surveys 
were made in the Urbana and Chicago areas for levels 
A-M, and one survey was used for the levels N-X. 

The Urbana-Champaign survey for levels A-M em- 
ployees was made with thirty-two employers in the 
Urbana-Champaign, Danville, Rantoul, Bloomington- 
Nornial, and Decatur areas. This suney covered 4,720 
people in forty-nine clerical and technical occupations. 
The Chicago survey for levels A-M included data from 
the .Administrative Management Society and covered 
45,100 non-supervisory positions in 106 firms. Also used 
were data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which 
involved 685,000 office jobs in 579 firms, and data from 
the Chicago Hospital Personnel Management Association 
which involved 80,000 positions in ninety-five hospitals. 

The survey for levels N-X utilized the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics Survey of Professional and Administra- 
tive Positions, which covered 1,550,000 employees, and 
also the Weber Survey of Data Processing, which in- 
cluded 110,000 positions in 1,461 firms. 

Results of Market Survey — The results of the mar- 
ket surveys for the nonacademic open range employees 
are shown in a series of graphs below. 

The following graph indicates a difiference of market 
salaries for similar positions at Urbana-Champaign and 
Chicago. 



COMPARISON OF ANNUAL MARKET SALARIES 

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN AND CHICAGO 

(FY 74 -LEVELS A THROUGH M) 




UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

CHICAGO 

MARKET 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



-SENIOR CLERICAL 



L Ml 
CAL »l 



The graph indicates that the market salaries at Chicago 
are higher than those at Urbana-Champaign, but as the 
level increases to level M, where the employees are more 
influenced by national conditions than local conditions, 
they become similar. 

The comparison of the average annual salaries at 
Urbana-Champaign to the market in the Urbana-Cham- 
paign area (as of 7-1-74) is shown below: 



Chicago campuses is shown for five job classification 
titles. 

MARKET U of 1 DEFICIENCY 



/J 


CLERK TYPIST H 


$620 


$492 


-$128 


'T 


CLERK STENO HI 


$721 


$676 


-$45 




SECRETARY STENO 


$788 


$804 


+$16 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
URSANA'CHAMPAIGN 


MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST H 


$971 


$830 


-$141 




DATA PROCESSING ANALYST H 


$1362 


$1314 


-$48 



-Mi 



This graph indicates that, with the exception of level 
M, all of the levels are paid below the market at Urbana- 
Champaign. 

A sample of the difference in monthly salaries for 
five positions on the Urbana-Champaign Campus is 
shown below : 





MARKET 


Uof I 


DEFICIENCY 


CLERK TYPIST I 


$562 


$440 


-$122 


CLERK STENO 311 


$674 


$567 


-$107 


SECRETARY STENO 


$768 


$767 


-$1 


ACCOUNTANT I 


$971 


$892 


-$79 


ENGINEER 


$1,797 


$1,665 


-$132 



The comparison of the average annual salaries at 
Chicago Circle and Medical Center to the market (as 
of 7-1-74) is shown in the next graph. 




UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
CHICAGO CIRCLE 
ACTUAL 



^UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
MEDICAL CENTER 
ACTUAL 



The comparison of the average annual salaries at 
the University of Illinois to the market for the profes- 
sional and supervisory levels (N-X) is shown below: 



MEDICAL CENieR 




Oi 



-PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY- 
LEVELS 

The salaries of the levels for all three campuses are 
shown on the same graph for comparison to the market, 
as these levels are influenced by national conditions 
rather than local conditions. The data indicate that, in 
most cases, the salaries paid are below the national 
market. 

When the data are analyzed for each level and the 
number of employees in each level is considered, the 
calculations indicate that the funds required to bring 
the nonacademic open range groups up to the market of 
FY 1974 would be $1,986,460. This amount, with the 
deficiency in the academic group, indicates a total re- 
quirement of $5,546,423 necessary to bring these two 
groups up to the market. 



Again, these data indicate a similar trend to that at 
Urbana-Champaign with most of the annual salaries 
being below the market level. 

A sample showing the difference between the monthly 
salaries of the market and the weighted average of the 



If the University r.eceives the requested salary in- 
creases in FY 1976, a step plan will be initiated for the 
nonacademic open range employees. A step plan is a 
salary administration plan which provides for progres- 
sive upward movement within a pay range, and which 



emphasizes both seniority and merit. It is believed that 
if a step plan is provided and funds are made available, 
the following advantages will be obtained: 

1. AVOIDS CONGESTION AT ENTRANCE SALARY LEVEL -ESPECIALLY 
TRUE AT LOWER LEVELS. 

2. PROVIDES FOR ORDERLY MOVEMENT TOWARD THE MARKET 
AVERAGE. 

3. ALLOWS PREDICTION OF FUTURE FUNDING NEEDS. 

4 GIVE EMPLOYEES A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ADVANCEMENT 
POTENTIAL. 



To gain a better conception of the possible advan- 
tages and results of a step plan, a comparison of the 
distribution of Univereity of Illinois employees within 
pay ranges with the distribution of similar employees of 
the State of Illinois Code Departments was made. There 
are seven steps within each pay range of the job classifi- 
cations for State Code Department employees. Data were 
obtained to determine the percentage of employees 
within each step. Data for the University of Illinois 
employees were also obtained and, from their pay data 
for each range, the percentage of employees was deter- 
mined that would have fallen into corresponding steps 
of the State Code Departments. The following three 
graphs indicate distribution of University of Illinois and 
State Code employees within steps of pay ranges for the 
clerical group, senior clerical and technical group, and 
the professional and supervisory group. 

Looking at the clerical employee group, the State 
Code Department indicates what is believed to be the 
results of a mature step plan; i.e., the employees are 
fairly well distributed along the steps of the salary range 
with the ma.^mum number being at the midpoint (step 
5) and a reduction in the number in steps 6 and 7, 
which are superior performance areas. This distribution 
of employees is contrasted to the present distribution of 
University of Illinois employees where the greater por- 
tion of employees are at steps 1 and 2 and relatively few 



of the employees at the higher steps within the pay range. 
It is believed the initiation of a step plan at the Uni- 
versity of Illinois will tend to distribute the University 
employees over the range of pay in a more equitable 
manner similar to the distribution of the State Code De- 
partment employees. 

The characteristics of the Proposed University of 
Illinois Step Plan are shown below : 

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE PROPOSED UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STEP PLAN? 



1. A SALARY RANGE FOR A PARTICULAR CLASS IS DIVIDED INTO 
EQUAL PARTS, OR STEPS. 

2. STEPS WILL VARY FROM 9 TO 13 AS GROUPS PROGRESS FROM 
CLERICAL TO SUPERVISORY. ANNUAL INCREASES TO BE 4^% OF 
ENTRANCE SALARY. 

3. EMPLOYEES WHO PERFORM SATISFACTORILY PROGRESS FROM STEP 
TO STEP TO JUST BEYOND THE MIDPOINT OF THE SALARY RANGE 
AS THEIR SENIORITY INCREASES. 

4 SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE INCREASES GRANTED UP TO 20% OF 
ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES ON ANY DATE WITH AN 18 MONTH INTERVAL 
BETWEEN SUCH INCREASES FOR A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE. 



.\s indicated in the characteristics of the University of 
Illinois Step Plan, it is proposed that each salary range 
be divided into a number of steps which will vary from 
9 to 13 and in which nomial progression will proceed up 
to market average, after which further progression will 
only be on the basis of superior performance. An example 
of a salary range and step for a class is shown on page 
6 as well as an example of the progression through a 
ten-step plan. The first two steps of a ten-step plan 
would be 2'/4 per cent of the entering salary for the class. 
Thereafter, all other steps would be at a 4'/2 per cent 
level. Normal progression would be the first two steps 
at 6-month intervals and, thereafter, all the next steps 
up to the market average on the anniversary date of 
employment. Beyond the market average the progres- 
sion would only be the result of superior performance. 



COMPARISON OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF SENIOR CLERICAL 

AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS- STATE CODE DEPARTMENTS 



i » 




COMPARISON OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFESSIONAL AND 

SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-STATE CODE DEPARTMENTS 





EXAMPLE OF A SALARY RANGE AND STEP 
FOR A CLASS 



MAXIMUM SALARY 
FOR CLASS 







SALARY 

RANGE 

IN 

DOLLARS 


■ 







. SALARY MIDPOINT 
FOR CLASS 



MINIMUM SALARY 
FOR CLASS 



EXAMPLE OF A 10 STEP PLAN 



STEP 



STEP LENGTHS 
(% OF ENTERING) 



123456789 10 



impact by level of salary has been updated for the quar- 
ter ending September 30, 1973, and the analysis shows 
that the impact of inflation on the market basket is be- 
tween 11.9 per cent and 12.1 per cent, not significantly 
different from the recently published Consumer's Price 
Index. The data obtained by the Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics for families of various income levels and the re- 
sultant calculation of the impact of inflation upon the 
market basket expenditures are shown below: 

LOWER INCOME LEVEL 

COST OF FflMILt CONSUMPTION 

MEDICAL OTHER FAMILY 



1973 FALL 


2.420 


1.711 


FACTORS 


1.1126 1 


1340 


197"! FALL 2.692 
(CALCULATEOl 


1.940 


L 1974 
Z 1973 


iHI-— 





INTERMEDIATE INCOME LEVEL 



NORMAL 

PROGRESSION 

MONTHS 



6 12 12 12 



12 12 



SUPERIOR 

PERFORMANCE 

ONLY 



The estimated cost of the proposed step plan is about 
4.1 per cent of the FY 1975 Personal Services base for 
FY 1976 and about 5.3 per cent for FY 1977. The esti- 
mated cost of starting the plan and maintaining the 
plan is shown below : 



FY 76 

"GETTING ON THE PLAN" 
PAY PLAN MAINTENANCE 
(SEPT 1975- JUNE 1976) 



COST-STATE FUNDS % OF FY75 BASE 



$697,000 

$984,000 

$1,681,000 



1.7 
2.4 



COST OF FAMILY CONSUMPTION 



1973 FALL 3,196 3,159 1.046 1.089 
FACTORS 1.1126 11340 11646 10904 

1974 FALL 3.556 3.582 1.218 1,187 
(CALCJLATEDI 



1.229 10,405 

10984 
1,355 11.668 



:: 19» ii!«?. 11214 
C 1973 10,405 



HIGHER INCOME LEVEL 



COST OF FAMILY CONSUMPTION 



FOOD 



CONSUMPTION 



1973 FALL 3386 4,614 
FACTORS 11126 11340 

1974 FALL 4.435 5.232 
(CALCULATED) 



1.350 1.567 

11646 1,0904 

1.572 1.709 



1.911 
10984 
2,099 



ANNUALIZATION OF FIRST 
YEARS COST 

PAY PLAN MAINTENANCE 
(JULY 1976 -JUNE 1977) 



MARKET BASKET EXPENDITURES 



C J974 15,824 _ 
L 1973 14.129" 



$779,000 
$1,394,000 
$2,173,000 



1.9 
3.4 
5.3 



When the FY 1976 budget was presented to the 
Board of Trustees on September 18, 1974, the request 
included salary increase funds in an amount to provide 
an average increase of 9'/2 per cent. President Corbally 
indicated that the economic conditions were unstable 
and that updated information regarding the amounts 
required to meet salary needs of the University personnel 
would be provided as new information became available. 
Since the September Board meeting, the cost of living 



Summary 



INCOME LEVEL 


MARKET BASKET 

EXPENDITURES 

SEPT, 1973 


EQUIVALENT 

EXPENDITURES 

SEPT, 1974 

$7,652 


PERCENT 

INFLATION 

SEPT , 1973 TO 

SEPT, 1974 


LOWER 


$6,836 


11.9 


INTERMEDIATE 


$10,405 


$11,688 


121 


HIGHER 


$I4,i20 


$15,824 


12.1 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 364 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



X ^i/-^^- ■ 



T 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 






No. 256, March 28, 1975 



^^ 



JQ?r 



ACCOUNTABILITY— Is the University of tllimis Efficient and Productive? 



ANNUAL MESSAGE OF JOHN E. CORBALLV, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



r-^'^^^g^s 



I am pleased once again to have this opportunity to 
report to you about the University of Ilhnois. This mes- 
sage is my fourth annual report to the citizens of Illinois 
on behalf of your principal State university. As is my 
usual custom I intend to emphasize our positive accom- 
plishments ratlier than our difficulties and problems. I 
would, however, be less than honest in reporting to you 
if I failed to state that as citizens of Illinois, we all owe 
a great debt to our staff and faculty who have main- 
tained the quality of the University of Illinois in the face 
of declining real-dollar support, increasing enrollments, 
and increasing demands for service. We make no effort 
to conceal the fact that an institution such as ours cannot 
be at the same time inexpensive and of high quality. Our 
libraries, laboratories, and - particularly - our faculty and 
staff are of the highest order of quality. Our people are 
the kind of university' people who are in great demand 
regardless of the circumstances in which our economy 
might find itself. Our staff and faculty represent a truly 
valuable and scarce resource. It is on behalf of this scarce 
resource and of the contributions in teaching, research, 
and ser\-ice that this resource provides to the people of 
Illinois that we press so hard for the funds which are 
necessar)' to maintain the quality of our University. 

But I want quickly to reassure you that because of 
our understanding both of the scarcity of our resources 
and of the economic pressures of today we do not waste 
these resources. We are an institution which is both effi- 
cient and productive, although both terms must be mea- 
sured differently in a comprehensive institution of higher 
education than is true for many other enterprises. We 
cannot — to repeat an old story — do as the s)Tnphony 
orchestra was said to have been told to do by an efficiency 
expert: save money by playing our music twice as fast 
and by avoiding duplication of musical instruments. 
Teaching, research, and public service require unique 
tests of efficiency and of productivity. It is within those 
requirements that we have been striving for a number 
of years to insure faithful stewardship over the dollars 
you provide in support of the University. In this annual 
report I mention but a few of literally hundreds of efforts 



we have been making to improve and to maintain effi- 
cient and productive operations. I recognize the danger 
in focusing on any single aspect of a complex under- 
taking, but it seems worthwhile this year to describe some 
of these efforts in detail. 

EFFICIENCY EFFORTS RESULTING IN DOLLAR SAVINGS 

In some ways the University operates as a business 
enterprise and is able to adopt or modify effective and 
efficient business practices which result in obvious dollar 
savings — a measure of efficiency upon which I believe 
we all can agree. 

The purchasing of supplies and equipment for the 
University offers one example. We carefully coordinate 
our purchasing activities among the Chicago Circle, 
Medical Center, and Urbana-Champaign Campuses. 
Whenever a monetary or service advantage is made possi- 
ble by a collective effort, we solicit bids and contract as 
one group. Such procedures are advantageous, for ex- 
ample, in purchasing paper, light bulbs, computer tapes, 
X-ray film, and standard classroom and office furniture. 

The University has also taken a leadership role in 
working within the Illinois Educational Consortium for 
Computer Services. This organization began as a con- 
sortium for sharing costly computer resources among a 
number of colleges and universities within the State. 
Recently, the University of Illinois has coordinated the 
expansion of the Consortium's activities to include col- 
lective purchasing arrangements among all public insti- 
tutions of higher education in the State. More than one 
million dollars in products have been purchased or con- 
tracted for under the Consortium's auspices in the six- 
month period beginning July 1, 1974. Equally important, 
the colleges and universities of the State have gained 
valuable insight into the potential benefits to be gained 
from such cooperative efforts. As a result of the success 
of this venture and of the organization's broadened 
scope of activities, steps have now been taken to change 
the name of the organization to the Illinois Educational 
Consortium. 



Dollar savings have also resulted from centralization 
of the use of costly and complex scientific equipment, as 
in the case of the Center for Electron Microscopy at 
Urbana-Champaign. The Center's dozen major micro- 
scopes and their supporting equipment represent an in- 
vestment of nearly one million dollars. Resources for the 
purchase of this equipment were obtained from funds 
contributed by the agencies and organizations which sup- 
port research projects at the University. Such equipment 
is priced beyond the reach of any single department, so 
centralization is the only way to provide widespread fac- 
ulty access to it. Approximately 100 different projects are 
now being conducted at the same time at the Center, 
involving research personnel from such diverse schools 
and departments as life sciences, chemical sciences, engi- 
neering, agriculture, veterinary medicine, basic medical 
sciences, anthropology, home economics, and horticulture. 

Beyond providing substantial dollar savings in equip- 
ment costs and allowing for greater equipment utiliza- 
tion, the presence of the Center has allowed many faculty 
members to continue to develop and expand research 
interests and skills, and it has helped to attract new funds 
for research projects we otherwise would not have had 
the ability to undertake. Further, it has allowed us to 
develop a formal course of instruction in the theory and 
operation of electron microscopes and we have trained 
more students in the use of electron optical equipment 
than has any other such facility in the country. 

Another area in which major dollar savings have been 
realized is in the operation of our physical plants. Cam- 
puses as large and diverse as those of the University of 
Illinois require a complex process of balancing the needs 
and desires of each department within the limitations of 
available facilities. An Office of Space Utilization on each 
campus is assigned this difficult task, which is compli- 
cated by several problems peculiar to the operation of a 
university. For example, laboratory facilities in many 
buildings are highly specialized. We cannot teach dra- 
matics in the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory nor teach 
botany in a home economics laboratory. Our general 
policy is to allow as much use of a building as is prac- 
tical. Until recently, the policy was quite liberal. Most 
buildings remained open and heated for long hours, and 
were available for use even by non-University groups. 

In the last few years, this unlimited access has been 
severely curtailed, primarily because of tremendous in- 
creases in the cost of energy. A secondary motivation has 
been to reduce the threat of vandalism and theft. 

Heat is now turned off in most buildings week nights 
and weekends. It is left on only when utilization of the 
building is very high — as in the libraries — or when 
educational needs of the University demand it. Green- 
houses, for example, need constant heat. So do certain 
laboratories where experiments are in progress twenty- 
four hours a day. 

If a group needs a classroom at night or on the week- 
end, either for a regular class session or for a special 
meeting, it is scheduled into a building which must be 
heated anyway. Other buildings are locked except during 



normal business hours. While this may cause some minor 
inconveniences, the instructional program does not suffer 
and savings result. 

Perhaps the best measure of the effectiveness of this 
program is the fact that it has resulted in a 20 per cent 
reduction in fuel consumption and a 15 per cent reduc- 
tion in the use of electricity at the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus. Without these cost-saving measures, the Uni- 
versity would have had to pay approximately $587,000 
in additional utility costs during the period from July, 
1974, to January, 1975. 

Yet another example of dollar savings which have 
resulted from improved efficiency and productivity con- 
cerns our efforts to enhance the upward career mobility 
of nonacademic personnel. In an attempt to help indi- 
viduals as well as the institution, the University has made 
a direct effort to encourage nonacademic employees to 
make greater use of abilities they already possess or to 
develop their potential skills through further training. At 
Urbana-Champaign, an "underutilization program" has 
been established to search out employees who may have 
skills which are not being fully utilized in their current 
jobs. Employees' educational levels and job-related apti- 
tudes are reviewed and compared with the educational 
requirements, salary, and job requirements of their cur- 
rent positions. Whenever it is found that an employee's 
abilities and aptitudes are not being fully utilized, he or 
she is counseled about the availability of more demand- 
ing and rewarding positions. 

To further our continuing interest in affirmative ac- 
tion the Personnel Services Office focused the initial trial 
of this "underutilization program" upon nonacademic 
employees who were members of minority groups or who 
were women. Approximately 400 employees learned 
about the opportunity for personal job counseling when 
they were contacted directly by the Personnel Services 
Office. Nearly 100 chose to take advantage of the oppor- 
tunity to explore new job possibilities, and some were 
among the 271 employees on the Urbana-Champaign 
Campus who advanced to higher paying, more demand- 
ing and rewarding positions by changing job categories. 
At Chicago Circle, thirty employees were promoted out- 
side of the normal promotion lines, and at the Medical 
Center an additional 123 were similarly promoted. Thus 
the University is now more fully utilizing the skills and 
abilities of more than 400 of its nonacademic employees 
in addition to the much larger number of employees who 
advanced through tlie normal promotional lines. 

STUDENT-CENTERED PRODUaiVITY 

Of course, the University is productive and efficient 
in many other ways which cannot be measured directly 
in terms of dollars and cents. 

In the interest of providing an opportunity for quali- 
fied students to accelerate their undergraduate programs, 
the Carnegie Corporation is sponsoring a study of time- 
shortened degree programs at Urbana-Champaign. The 
program, initiated in 1972, has two major experimental 
components : residential early admission of students after 



the junior year of high school, known as EEA, and an 
individuahzed degree program, entitled ISSP. 

The EEA plan is based on the assurn[)tion that some 
students are academically and emotionally ready to begin 
a four-year college career one year before normal gradu- 
ation from high school, thus shortening the time to the 
baccalaureate by one year. The firet group of fifty-four 
early admission students was enrolled in September, 1972, 
the second in September, 1973, and the third in August, 
1974. Two members of the first group are scheduled to 
graduate this June, receiving bachelor's degrees two years 
earlier than other members of their high school classes. 

The ISSP program examines shortening time to the 
degree by constructing a student's program in six eigh- 
teen-hour semesters, rather than eight fifteen-hour semes- 
ters, and by providing more efTecti\-e long-range schedule 
planning on an individualized basis with academic coun- 
selors who help students identify situations in which their 
goals can be reached more efficiently. The program is 
comprised of 140 student \olunteers chosen from the 
freshman class which entered the College of Liberal Arts 
and Sciences in September, 1973. 

Students in these programs have performed well aca- 
demically, with each group earning average grades higher 
than tlie all-University grade point average. Although it 
remains to be seen how many members of these experi- 
mental groups actually will complete requirements for 
a bachelor's degree in less than the usual time, evidence 
so far supports the idea that good high school prepara- 
tion, coupled with counseling at the University, can en- 
able students to plan college careers more efficiently and 
to complete degree requirements in fewer than eight 
semesters. 

Our interest in students goes beyond their quality at 
entrance and their achievements while on campus. We 
are equally concerned about the employment success and 
satisfaction our graduates enjoy after they receive their 
degrees. It is no secret that the job market is currently 
constrained across the nation, and that unemployment 
has been rising. Beyond the question of employment, 
however, we are deeply interested in the satisfaction our 
graduates find in their jobs and the degree to which their 
skills and abilities are being used productively. These 
latter two areas are admittedly difficult ones to measure 
with precision. But few issues are more important than 
studying and strengthening the contribution which higher 
education can make to expanded productivity at the 
state and national levels while at the same time providing 
educational experiences which ofTer enrichment in areas 
not directly related to employment, particularly those 
areas related to civic and social leadership. 

For several years our Bureau of Institutional Research 
has been conducting surveys of recent graduates to ex- 
amine these issues in detail. Survey information indicates 
that graduates of the University of Illinois stand well 
above the national average not only in terms of their 
ability to find jobs but to find jobs for which their train- 
ing and skills are appropriate. For all of our campuses 
together and for all degrees combined in 1972, four per 



cent of those graduates surveyed were unemployed and 
seeking employment. In 1973, this figure rose slightly to 
four and one-half per cent. The National Bureau of 
Labor Statistics reports that in 1972 for all degrees com- 
bined, 7.2 per cent of the college-educated work force 
was unemployed and seeking work. Thus, the unemploy- 
ment rate for our graduates was about one-half the 
national average. 

Using the job classification categories suggested by 
the United States Bureau of the Census, we have ex- 
amined the wide variety of jobs our graduates take to 
determine how many are employed in positions for 
which their level of education is appropriate. Those who 
appear to have an educational level higher than that re- 
quired by their current jobs are termed "underemployed." 
For all degree levels on all three campuses combined in 
1972, we found 12.3 per cent of our employed graduates 
underemployed. Applying the same procedures to infor- 
mation reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals 
a national rate of underemployment of 19.6 per cent ^ — 
more than 50 per cent larger than that for University of 
Illinois graduates. Thus, for all three campuses, roughly 
88 per cent of our graduates are believed to be employed 
in positions appropriate for their educational levels. This 
figure is given additional support by the fact that 86 per 
cent of those surveyed indicated that they were either 
highly satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current 
jobs. 

Further, slightly more than 70 per cent of the group 
surveyed in 1973 took jobs within the State of Illinois. 
This group includes graduates with advanced degrees 
who must look to a nationwide labor market for employ- 
ment. We are encouraged by the fact that only 1.3 per 
cent of the group indicated that if they had the decision 
to make again, they would elect not to attend college. We 
are doubly proud of the fact that more than eight out of 
ten of them indicated that if they had another oppor- 
tunity to decide, not only would they attend college, but 
they would attend the University of Illinois. 

As with faculty appointments and nonacademic per- 
sonnel employment, we are especially concerned about 
insuring that members of minority groups receive oppor- 
tunities to pursue careers in areas in which they have 
traditionally been underrepresented — for whatever rea- 
sons. One such area is the field of engineering. For more 
than a decade the Urbana-Champaign and Chicago 
Circle Campuses and Bradley University have coopera- 
tively offered a program known as the Illinois Junior 
Engineering Technical Society Two- Week Summer Pro- 
gram in Engineering, designed to give high school stu- 
dents an opportunity to become familiar with the field 
of engineering. Recognizing that this program was an 
effective means of drawing interested students into the 
field, but aware that virtually no minority students were 
participating, Howard L. Wakeland, Associate Dean of 
the College of Engineering and Jerry S. Dobrovolny, Head 
of the Department of General Engineering, conceived 
of the Inner-City Engineering Orientation Program 
(ICEOP). They felt that a special program for black 



students from the inner-city areas of Chicago and East 
St. Louis, patterned after regular programs, could be 
instrumental in helping minority students toward engi- 
neering careers. 

The program was designed to provide students an 
opportunity to be expiosed to college life, to learn what 
the different areas of engineering are, to learn about the 
educational requirements in a college of engineering, 
and to become acquainted with the working life of a 
practicing engineer. Basic areas in mathematics, engi- 
neering problems, lectures on engineering, experiments, 
research, and professional engineering practice were 
covered in the program. 

The Inner-City Engineering Orientation Program 
ran for five years. It was followed by the Minority Intro- 
duction to Engineering Program (MITE), held at the 
University of Illinois July 7 to 20, 1974, and at nine other 
sites across the nation. The ICEOP program was used 
directly as a model for the MITE program which was 
sponsored at the national level by the Engineers' Council 
for Professional Development. More than 300 minority 
students participated in the ten MITE programs in 1974. 
Extra sites will be added for the coming year, and more 
than 500 student participants are expected. 

FACULTY EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY 

No discussion of productivity and efficiency at the 
University would be complete without some attention to 
the topic of faculty productivity. That our faculty is 
productive by any measure is beyond question. Each of 
my last two messages has been filled with examples of 
effective and efficient faculty endeavors in the classroom, 
the laborator)', and the community, state and nation. I 
have stressed that quality in teaching and research must 
be felt as much as measured. And so it is with produc- 
tivity in teaching and research. To be sure, there are 
statistical measures available which can provide an idea 
of the relative productivity of our faculty over time. We 
can, for example, count the total number of credit hours 
taught per full-time equivalent faculty member. When 
we do so, we find that at Urbana-Champaign the num- 
ber of credit hours taught per FTE faculty member has 
increased more than five per cent since 1970. That state- 
ment is a rather complicated way of saying that we are 
teaching more students with fewer faculty. The same 
situation applies at Chicago Circle this year with respect 
to upper division students. So by this particular measure, 
our productivity is good. But what is so much more im- 
portant is what we teach, and how well we teach it. 
Faculty members whose research interests lag so that they 
become unaware of the most recent developments in 
their fields or who fail to take advantage of useful devel- 
opments in instructional methods are neither as effective 
nor as productive as we desire no matter how many 
student credit hours they may generate. These deficien- 
cies will be passed on to their students, and by them to 
our society in general. 

Rather than describe further evidence of productivity 
broadly across our entire faculty', as I have done in die 



past, I prefer this year to center my discussion upon the 
accomplishments of two specific programs which together 
in\ol\e the cooperative efforts of faculty, staff, and stu- 
dents on all of our campuses. The first concerns our 
eff'orts to reduce both the time and the expense required 
in the medical education of physicians through tlie pro- 
grams offered in the University's School of Basic Medical 
Sciences at Urbana-Champaign (SBMS-UC). Students 
in the School essentially complete in one year the equiva- 
lent of a two-year program for most medical schools. 
This achievement is made possible by allowing students 
to proceed at their ovra pace through a carefully con- 
structed curriculum designed to take maximum advan- 
tage of the student's academic background and of recent 
advances in instructional technology involving compu- 
terized instruction. The curriculum incorp)orates over 350 
specific learning units in eleven basic science disciplines 
and provides the beginning doctor with skills necessary 
for clinical training. 

At the present time the enrollment of first-year 
medical students has grown from sixteen in 1971-72 to 
sixty-four in the current academic year, and it will be 
approximately 100 in 1975-76. A full complement of 
128 first-year students should be achieved by the fall of 
1976. Following completion of their year at Urbana- 
Champaign, students continue their programs at our 
Medical Center Campus in Chicago or in our Schools 
of Medicine in Peoria and Rockford. 

The Basic Medical Sciences program provides a high 
quality educational experience for students and is cost- 
effective. Because the students proceed through a cur- 
riculum with built-in evaluation instruments to help 
measure their progress, the faculty can devote a large 
proportion of teaching time to direct instruction and to 
personal interaction with students. This procedure in- 
creases both the quality of the program and the produc- 
tivity of faculty members and students. 

To realize additional dollar savings, we rely upon the 
interest and cooperation of local area physicians who 
volunteer to work with the School in various ways. Many 
physicians serve as curriculum advisers and developers, 
working with the basic science faculty in devising and 
continually revising the unique basic-science, clinical- 
problem-structured foiTnat in which the curriculum is 
presented. Other physicians volunteer to devote time 
each week to advise or evaluate SBMS-UC students. One 
physician in each major urban region within a seventy- 
five-mile radius of the School serves as a regional assistant 
to the Dean. These voluntary contributions save the 
School many thousands of dollars in faculty salaries an- 
nually and also play an important role in the continuing 
professional growth of the practicing physicians who 
participate with us in medical education. In a further 
cooperative venture SBMS-UC presently sponsors one 
family practice residency program and is in the process 
of helping implement others within the east central 
region of Illinois. 

The second program I wish to mention is the doc- 
toral program in bioengineering administered jointly by 



the College of Engineering at Chicago Circle and by the 
Medical Center through the Intercanipus Hioeiigineering 
Coordinating Committee. Bioengineering applies engi- 
neering science and technolog)' to biological and medical 
problems ranging from fundamental studies in biologv' 
and physiology' to specific applications in the develop- 
ment of medical devices, such as artificial limbs. 

The program has a faculty of thirty-three which in- 
cludes twehe members from the Chicago Circle College 
of Engineering and twenty-one from the Medical Center. 

Only four members of this faculty are on the specific 
budget for bioengineering — the other twenty-nine con- 
tribute their time because of their professional interest 
in the area. Thus the program has virtually no budgetaiy 
implications. However, this fall forty-nine graduate stu- 
dents from both Chicago campuses \vere enrolled in the 
program, including thirty-five master's degree candidates 
and fourteen doctoral candidates — a 50 per cent in- 
crease o\-er last year's enrollment. 

Not only has tlie program in this field cost the Uni- 
versity very little, it has contributed to bringing more 
than one and a half million dollars in outside funding 
to the University in the form of grants and contracts. 

These and many other examples of our productivity 
and efficiency have a common theme. It is that the Uni- 
versity of Illinois is a most complex organization which 
performs a \'ast range of different — though interrelated 
— functions and services. In some respects we are simi- 



lar to other complex organizations, such as businesses, 
hospitals, go\ernment agencies. To the extent that we 
are similar to such organizations, we can judge our pro- 
ductivity against standards which apply to them. I believe 
we demonstrate that those segments of our operations 
which are comparable fare quite well when judged 
against such standards. 

But we must never lose sight of the fact that the 
university is perhaps the most complex organization in 
our society. At the very center of that complexity is our 
involvement in the creation of new knowledge, as well 
as its transmission to new generations of students and 
its application to our most pressing societal problems. 

We have been able to maintain high quality only 
through steady improvements in efficiency and produc- 
tivity. I assure you that we shall continue to search for 
additional ways in which we can become more efficient, 
always conscious that we must not sacrifice the quality 
which is at the heart of our institution. I know that the 
University can count on your continued support to sus- 
tain the high degree of excellence which you have come 
to expect from the University of Illinois. 



Inquiries to the Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 364 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 



i 



I 



ri(ji^-^f'^ 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 






0fC4 



Tl/g 



No. 257, April 9, 1975 



ua-,. 



/975 



Statement re Governor's Recommendations fm^ FT 1976 Budget 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLV TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MARCH 19, 1975 



On March 5, 1975, Governor Walker presented to a 
joint session of the Illinois General Assembly his budget 
recommendations for fiscal year 1976 (July 1, 1975-June 
30, 1976). In general, the Governor supported the rec- 
ommendations presented to him by the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education for the funding of higher education 
in FY 1976. 

As we analyze the entire budget proposed for the 
State of Illinois for the coming year, it is clear that the 
Governor and the Bureau of the Budget ha\'e given 
special and favorable attention to the needs of education 
at all levels. \Vhile we are and must be strong advocates 
of our sector of the education system, as responsible 
people we must also recognize the needs of other sectors 
of this system and the needs in other areas of State ser- 
vice such as welfare, mental health, transportation, and 
criminal justice. We cannot retain either leadership or 
credibilit)' if we pursue our owii goals in the absence of 
an honest recognition of the totality of State goals and of 
the totalit-y of demands upon State revenues. 

As you know, the recommendations of the Governor 
include the following: 

1. Funds equal to 10 per cent of 90 per cent of our 
personal services base offset by several deductions 
from that base related primarily to studies of program 
cost effectiveness and to nonrecurring funds appro- 
priated for the current year. 

2. Calculated amounts in support of the increased costs 
of goods and contract services and of utilities. 

3. Funds in support of the continuation of the planned 
enrollment increases in the health professions. 

4. Funds in support of the commercial operations at tlic 
University of Illinois- Willard Airport. 

5. Funds in support of increased needs of the Division 
of Services to Crippled Children. 

6. Funds in support of the calculated increases in opera- 
tion and maintenance funds due to the opening of 
new buildings. 

7. Funds in support of the calculated "payout" require- 
ment of the State Universities Retirement System. 



I will comment only upon the first and last of those 
recommendations. With your firm support, we have 
stated consistently that the salary needs of all University 
personnel represent our first priority need for 1975-76. 
We have calculated that increases averaging 12 per cent 
represent the dimension of that need. Through careful 
management of the funds recommended by Governor 
Walker including some reallocations of funds internally, 
we believe that we can accomplish salary increases aver- 
aging 9.5 per cent for 1975-76 within that recommenda- 
tion. Included within that accomplishment will be the 
achievement of the step-pay plan for so-called open- 
range employees which you have twice reviewed and en- 
dorsed. I want to emphasize one point so that I am not 
misunderstood. We will be able within the recommended 
funds to achieve the step-pay plan with average increases 
for open-range employees of 9.5 per cent; we will not 
achieve the step-pay plan in addition to such average 
increases. 

In my view and in the view of my administrative 
colleagues, the ability to achieve salary increases of this 
magnitude in today's uncertain economic climate repre- 
sents a major step forward toward regaining the eco- 
nomic status of our personnel and toward regaining our 
traditional competitive position vis a vis institutions and 
other employers of comparable stature. It would, in our 
view, be the worst sort of "dog in the manger" approach 
to greet the recommendations of the Governor with any- 
thing other than support. I know from conversations with 
his representatives and with representatives of the Board 
of Higher Education, that the proposed increases in 
salary for our personnel were made with care and with 
support for the high priority of our salary needs. While 
some would wish that you and I continue to argue that 
"this amount is not enough," I cannot recommend that 
course of action. Accordingly, unless directed otherwise, 
it is my intention to support the recommendation of the 
Governor and to ask my colleagues to turn their attention 
to the important questions of salary policy for 1975-76 
within the amounts available in the Governor's budget. 

The other matter I would mention is the perennial 



question of support for the State Universities Retirement 
System. Several of you, through service on the SURS 
Board, are aware of the controversy surrounding the 
adequacy and, indeed, the legality of tlie levels of support 
provided SURS throughout its histor)'. The only things 
of which I am certain in this situation are that it is a 
problem which cannot be solved unilaterally by any single 
university, that it is a problem whose magnitude is sub- 
ject to great disagreement among experts, that it is a 
matter currently under litigation, and that it is a prob- 



lem of real concern to all of us who are members of 
SURS. We shall continue to press for some resolution of 
this matter, but we intend to deal with this problem as a 
matter which must be separate from the operating budget 
for any given year. The solution must be long-range, it 
must have strong support from a number of elements of 
State government, and it can only be developed through 
special attention separate from normal budgetary con- 
siderations. ^Ve shall continue to call for and to partici- 
pate in efforts to provide diat needed special attention. 



Board of Trustees Holds Annual Meeting 



The University of Illinois Board of Trustees held its 
annual meeting on the Urbana-Champaign Campus 
March 19. Elected president was Earl L. Neal; Secretary, 
Earl W. Porter; Comptroller, Ronald W. Brady; and 
University Counsel, James J. Costello. 

Mr. Neal, a member of the Board since 1971, is a 
Chicago attorney and a member of the University of 
Illinois Class of 1949. Three new members took seats at 
the meeting: Robert J. Lenz, Bloomington attorney and 
member of the Class of 1959, Law 1963; Mrs. Nina 
Temple Shepherd, Winnetka, Class of 1955; and Arthur 
R. Velasquez, President of Azteca Com Products Corpo- 



ration, Chicago, and a 1960 graduate of the University 
of Notre Dame. 

Other members of the Board include \ViUiam D. 
Forsyth, Jr., Springfield; Ralph C. Hahn, Springfield; 
George W. Howard III, Mt. \'ernon; Park Livingston, 
LaGrange; and Mrs. Jane Hayes Rader, Cobden. Gov- 
ernor Daniel Walker is an ex officio member. 

Student members who do not vote are Michael Lee 
Conlon, Medical Center Campus; Terry P. Cosgrove, 
Urbana-Champaign Campus; and Kim Gilbertsen, Chi- 
cago Circle Campus. 



Trustees Adopt Resolution re Faculty Promotion and Tenure 



In response to requests from students related to a 
specific nonreappointment case, the Board of Trustees at 
its March 19 meeting approved the following resolution: 
Resolved, 

That the Board of Trustees desires to determine the 
nature and extent of concern among faculty, staff, and 
students about promotion and tenure policies, and related 
issues; 

That the purpose of this effort shall be to reaffirm the 
promotion and tenure policies vvliich contribute to the 
academic distinction of the University of Illinois, and to 
consider such changes as may be needed to more effec- 
tively build and maintain a great university; 

That the Board of Trustees is cognizant of the special 
role of the Senates on these issues and states that par- 
ticular care shall be employed to obtain the consultation 
of the faculty throughout this study; 



That the University President is hereby requested to 
consult with appropriate parties at the campuses of the 
University to determine whether and to what extent 
changes should be considered in the policies, practices, 
procedures, guidelines, and Statutes pertaining to pro- 
motion and tenure; 

That, following a presentation by students and others 
at an informal conversation yesterday with some members 
of the Board of Trustees and an analysis of an admin- 
istrator's report on the so-called "Byars case," the Board 
of Trustees resolves further that it will not intervene in 
this case. Inter\ention by the Board in a case of non- 
reappointment of a non-tenured faculty member would 
only be done upon compelling reasons which are absent 
in this case. 

As of this writing, President Corbally is de\eloping 
plans for the study requested by the Board. 



Application for Retirement 

Faculty and staff who are planning to retire this year 
are reminded they must file an application for retirement 
with the State Universities Retirement System. Failure 
to file before the date the annuity is to become effective 
can result, and in some cases has resulted, in delay of 
payment and even loss of benefits. 

Since the Retirement Office has no way of knowing 
when faculty and staff members plan to retire, especially 
those who retire before the mandatory age, it is up to the 



member to notify the Retirement Office sometime before 
the date of retirement. 

Write to the State Universities Retirement System, 50 
Gerty Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820. 



Inquiries to tlie Faculty Letter may be directed to the 
editor, Lucille Turigliatto, 364 Administration Building, 
Urbana. Telephone 333-6502. 




220g Librai'y- 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 258, August 20, 1975 



UNIVERSITY OF Illi 

Presidents Statement on University's FY 19/0 "Elu^^f^* 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES JULY 16, 1975 



lilEiWHARyOEIKg 

OCT 21 1975 

UNIVERSITY OF Illinois 



Under normal circumstances, I would today be pre- 
senting to you a final budget proposal for fiscal year 
1976 and a preliminary' budget request for fiscal year 
1977. Those normal circumstances have not prevailed 
this year as they have not for several years. On June 1 1 , 
1975 — only a little more than a month ago — Governor 
\Valker announced that due to a fiscal crisis in Illinois 
all operating budgets of State agencies were to be re- 
duced by 6 per cent of the proposed 1976 base. Since 
that date, little has been done with regard to 1977 bud- 
gets as efforts have been undertaken to respond to and 
to make adjustments required by the new budget mes- 
sage of the Governor. And in spite of my statement made 
at our meeting last month that a per capita contribution 
of $280 from 10 per cent of Illinois taxpayers would solve 
the crisis without budget reductions, I must report to 
you today that it is reductions rather than my proposed 
solution which have prevailed. 

I can report, however, that with a high degree of 
cooperation among the four senior university systems, 
the stafT of the Board of Higher Education, the staff of 
the Bureau of the Budget, and representatives of the 
Governor's Office, we have been able to ease the impact 
of these reductions upon our proposed salary increases. 
We have been unable to sustain the average 9.5 per cent 
increases which were called for in our original appropria- 
tions bill, but neither have we had to fall back to the 
4 to 5 per cent increases which could have resulted from 
a strict application of the Governor's reduction message. 

Each university system first sustained cuts in new 
programs (in our case the elimination of prior deficien- 
cies in such areas as equipment, library support, and 
operation and maintenance) . Through rapid action on 
the part of the Medical Center Campus, we were able 
to slow down the planned rate of expansion in the health 
professions for 1975-76 and thus reduce the new program 
funds in that area. 

Each university system then reviewed capital pro- 
grams which were to be funded from general revenue 



funds and each system contributed some of those funds 
to a "pool" by agreeing to eliminate or defer some gen- 
eral revenue capital projects. Each system reviewed again 
its anticipated income fund receipts for 1975-76 and sev- 
eral systems with unanticipated enrollment increases were 
able to "release" general revenue funds to the "pool" by 
offsetting these funds with new income fund receipts. 

This "pool" was then allocated among the systems to 
provide personal service funds to permit average salary 
increases of 7 per cent for personnel in all senior univer- 
sity systems. I cannot overemphasize the significance of 
this cooperation among the four systems, for without 
such cooperation a number of inequities could have been 
created by "temporary" or serendipitous windfalls for 
one campus or another. We agreed to pool and share such 
windfalls and I find that agreement most heartening. 

We are now in the process of redoing our 1975-76 
budgets within the new 7 per cent average salary increase 
guideline. We are preserving the step-pay plan for open- 
range employees; we are honoring our legal requirements 
for prevailing rate employees and our contracts with 
negotiated employees, but to do so within the funds avail- 
able will require reductions in work force in these cate- 
gories; and we are making proportional reductions in 
increases proposed for faculty and administrative staff 
to maintain with the 7 per cent increase the same rela- 
tive increases proposed earlier with the 9.5 per cent 
increase. While the 9.5 per cent increase was clearly 
warranted, current forecasts of the inflation rate indi- 
cate that we will restore some of our losses to inflation 
with the amount still available. 

I want to make it clear that the reductions we have 
made in order to preserve reasonable salary increases 
have been difficult to achieve and have hurt our ability 
to maintain our programs at the level we are expected 
to maintain. Over $12 million have been taken from the 
amount originally endorsed by the Board of Higher Edu- 
cation and by Governor Walker. This amount is nearly 
half of our original increase. In order to support salary 



increases we have developed procedures on each campus 
and within the divisions at the General University level 
to insure that all personnel replacements and new ap- 
pointments are made only after careful review and a 
finding of the necessity of the replacement or new ap- 
pointment. Dr. Brady and his people along with the 
Chancellors and their staff members, including certainly 
the Deans and Directors of our colleges and other units, 
have worked long and hard and imaginatively to bring 
order out of chaos and to create only austerity where 
disaster threatened. I am proud both of the solutions they 
have developed and of the spirit with which they sought 
those solutions. 

On the capital side, we fared well. Turner Hall has 
finally made it; the new University Hospital is well 
funded for 1975-76 although agreement was reached to 
stretch out the funding over two fiscal years rather than 
to put the full amount in one year; our other projects 
have all been approved. In spite of the controversy over 
the so-called supplemental capital program, higher edu- 
cation projects were supported strongly by the General 
Assembly. 

It is clear that 1977 will be another difficult fiscal 
year. Only during the next few weeks can we complete 
the task of recasting our 1977 needs in the light of the 
new 1976 base. We will bring to you in September a 
final 1976 budget and a tentative 1977 budget. The 1976 
budget will be based upon the specifics I have just 



briefly described. We will seek action on 1977 budget 
requests at the October meeting of the Board. In view 
of the fiscal condition of the State, I can see no way to 
avoid recommending a tuition increase for 1976-77. It 
is illogical to assume that the taxpayers of Illinois will 
continue to bear the full share of the increased costs of 
higher education and our user fee (tuition) must be in- 
creased, in my view, to bear some part of that burden. 
Our people, our libraries, our laboratories, our grounds, 
our buildings have been carrying more than their share 
of these increased costs and the taxpayers have carried 
their share. The time has come to reassess the appropriate 
share which must be borne by those enrolled in our pro- 
grams, and our 1977 budget recommendations to you 
v^all contain the results of that reassessment. 

Finally, let me close this report with a note of opti- 
mism. ^Vhile the last few weeks have been traumatic, no 
one can deny that Illinois faces serious financial prob- 
lems. Recognizing that fact, it is clear that higher edu- 
cation did receive strong support from the General As- 
sembly and from the Governor. Rather than concentrate 
upon our losses, we need to recognize our gains. Many 
jjeople have worked very hard to insure that the fiscal 
problems of our State did not lead to fiscal disaster for 
higher education. We have a strong base of support and 
I cannot feel that despair is a proper feeling in recogni- 
tion of that support. 



Summary of Final Action 

on University'' s FY 1976 Capital Appropriations Request 



UNrVERSITY OFFICE FOR PLANNING 
OVERVIEW 

The interim between the tentative request of $50,- 
329,500 for the FY1976 capital appropriations presented 
to the Board of Trustees on July 17, 1974 (reported in 
Faculty Letter No. 248) and the approval of the projects 
by the Governor in July 1975 was quite a turbulent 
period. When the tentative request was made in July 
1974, it was assumed that the projects approved by the 
General Assembly for FY1975 (SB1424 and HB2274) 
would be approved by the Governor. However, the Gov- 
ernor vetoed the Turner Hall Addition and when the 
budget request for the FY1976 capital appropriations 
was submitted to the Board of Trustees, the Turner Hall 
Addition was included, plus an adjustment to the Library 
Addition at Chicago Circle. The total amount approved 
on September 18, 1974, was $89,526,100. Of this re- 
quest, the Illinois Board of Higher Education approved 
$73,953,420 on January- 7, 1975. The Board of Higher 
Education approved $7,500,000 more for the University 
Replacement Hospital in FY1976 than was requested, 
as it was desired to approve the total project at one time 
and develop a financing arrangement whereby the State 
would bond the entire project and the amortization of 
the project would be accomplished by the State paying 



$30,000,000 and the remaining $30,000,000 plus financ- 
ing charge would be provided from Hospital Income over 
the repayment period. 

In January of 1975, the Governor proposed an ac- 
celerated building program for the State and the Board 
of Trustees approved an additional amount of $9,125,520 
in capital projects for FY1976. The Board of Higher 
Education approved $8,598,000 of these projects and 
the original amount requested in September 1975. In 
total, the Board of Trustees approved $98,651,620 for 
FY1976 and the Board of Higher Education approved 
$82,551,420. 

In June of 1975, two amendments were proposed to 
the 79th General Assembly which involved capital proj- 
ects for the University. One amendment was made to 
House Bill 802 to provide ( 1 ) a new building for Veter- 
inary Medicine Research Animal Facility, (2) remodel- 
ing of the Small Animal Clinic, Surgery and Obstetrics 
Laboratory, and Basic Sciences Building of the College 
of Veterinary Medicine, (3) conversion of old Large 
Animal Clinic to a Meats Laboratory, (4) planning a 
new building for Agricultural Engineering Sciences, and 
(5) planning Phase I of the Veterinary' Basic Sciences 
Building. Another amendment was made to House Bill 



289 to provide for air conditioning the Terminal Building 
at Willard Airport. 

On June 11, 1975, tlie Governor requested that all 
State agencies reduce the General Revenue portion of the 
budget request by 6 per cent. During the negotiations by 
the Board of Higher Education with the Bureau of the 
Budget, it \vas agreed to defer some of the FY1976 Gen- 
eral Revenue Funds for capital projects (mainly funds 
to complete projects and for non-bondable equipment) 
in order to provide funds to allow an average 7 per cent 
salary- increase for all continuing employees. 



The total capital projects for the University of Illinois 
presented to the 79th General Assembly for action were 
$84,707,420. Of this amount, $84,201,420 was in House 
Bill 289 and House Bill 802, and $506,000 in Senate 
Bill 468. Of this total request, $68,675,020 was authorized 
by the Governor. A summary of the recjuest by major 
project categoiy and campus with the amount authorized 
is shown in Table 1 and a complete description of all 
projects requested and the action taken throughout the 
history of the FY76 capital request is shown in Table 2. 



TABLE 1 — COMPARISON OF FY 1976 CAPITAL REQUESTS BY CATEGORY AND CAMPUS 
WITH FINAL AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNOR 



Tcltil Capital ProjrcH for FY 1976 



Total Capital Projects Signed by Governor in FY 1976 



Chicago Medical Urbana- 

Project Calf gory Circle Center Champaign Total 

1. Building Projects 

MC Hospital Replacement $49,750,000 $49,750,000 

CC Library .addition S 5,828,700 5,828,700 

MC Liquid Gas Storage Facility 50,000 50,000 

UC Speech and Hearing Clinic $ 62,000 62,000 

UC Turner Hall .•\ddiuon 7,933,200 7,933,200 

UC Law Building .\ddilion 5,783,200 5,783,200 

UC Librar\- North Court Addition ... . 1,471,400 1,471,400 
UC Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition, 

Phase II 1,659,600 1,659,600 

UC .\irport Crash Rescue Facility 275,800 275,800 

Subtotal ( 5,828,700) (49,800,000) (17,185,200) (72,813,900) ( 

2. Funds to Complete Bond-Eligible Build- 

ings -O- 235,300 57,600 292,900 

3. Land -O- -O- 200,000 200,000 

4. E<iuipment 571,600 1,567,000 455,000 2,593,600 

5. UtiUtics... 1,174,000 37,800 2,120,000 3,331,800 

6. Remodeling and Rehabilitation 2,294,820 9,221,800 5,284,700 16,801,320 

7. Site Improvements 280,500 1,225,900 506,000 2,012,400 

8. Planning 

CC .\cademic Building 195,000 195,000 

MC School of Public Health 159,000 159,000 

UC Life Sciences Teaching Lab 93,600 93,600 

UC Engineering Library Addition 41,200 41,200 

UC Botany Greenhouse 29,000 29,000 

Subtotal ( 195,000) ( 159,000) ( 163,800) ( 517,800) ( 

9. Cooperative Improvements -0- -0- 187,900 187,900 

7"Or.4i $10,344,620 $62,246,800 $26,160,200 $98,751,620 



Chicago 


Afedical 


Urbana- 




Circle 


Center 


Cbampaign 


Total 




$51,250,000 




$51,250,000 


-0- 






-0- 




50,000 




50,000 






% 62,000 


62,000 






7,933,200 


7,933,200 






-0- 


-0- 






-0- 


-0- 






-0- 


-0- 






-0- 


-0- 


-0- ) 


( 51,300,000) 


( 7,995,200) 


( 59,295,200) 


-0- 


70,600 


-0- 


70,600 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


200,100 


1,511,700' 


313,000 


2,024,800 


375,000 


37,800 


386,000 


798,800 


829,820 


2,161,200 


2,265,200! 


5,256,220 


100,000 


1,075,900 


-0- 


1,175,900 



-0- 

-0- ) ( 
23,500 



$1,504,920 $56,157,200 $10,982,900 $68,645,020 



' Includes $159,000 in Equipment for the School of Public Health. 

•Includes $1,086,000 in additional appropriations. ($66,000 for AC Terminal Building at Willard Airport, and $600,000 for re- 
modeling old Large Animal Clinic into a Meats Laboratory and $420,000 for remodeling College of Veterinary Medicine space.) 



DETAILED FY 1976 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST AND FINAL APPROPRIATIONS 

Otiginal Rfquest Supplemental Request Additions 



Project Category 

Chicago Circle 

Library Addition Buildings 

Library Addition Utiliiies 

Science and Engineering Laboratory Remodeling 

Science and En^necring Laboratory Equipment 

Academic Buildmg PlanDing 

Stack Emission Ck>ntroI System Utilities 

Building Equipment Automation Utiiitief 

Space Realignment, Plan — for FY77 Projects RemodeliDg 

EJctcrior Campus Lighting, Phase II Site Improvements 

Campus Graphics Exterior Site Improvements 

Campus Security Remodeling 

Rooocvelt Road Building Remodeling 

Subtotal, Chicago CirrU 

Medical Center 

University Replacement Hospital Buildings 

Peoria School of Medicine Site Improvements 

Peoria School of Medicine Funds to Complete 

9th Floor SUDMP Remodeling 

Peoria School of Medicine Funds to Complete 

Peoria School of Medicine Equipment 

Rockford School of Medirine Equipment 

E>cntisiry Building. Phase II Equipment 

Rockford School of Medidne Utilities 

Rockford School of Mediane Funds to Complete 



ApproDed 
BOT 

9/18/74 



Approved 
BHE 

1/7,75 



Approved 

BOT 
2/19/75 



Approved 
BHE 
2/7/75 



Signed by Governor 



,828,700 
115,000 
929,800 
571,600 
195,000 
375,000 
309,000 
50,000 
60,000 
43,000 



-0- 

-0- 
412,020 
222,300 

-0- 
375,000 

-0- 

-0- 
100,000 

-0- 



840,220 
-O- 
-O- 



-0- 

-0- 

850,000 



-0- 

-0- 

-O- 

177,500 



($ 8,477,100) ($ 1,109,320) ($1,867,520) ($1,502,300) ( $1,504,920) 



49,750,000 
793,400 
164,700 
210,000 

19,000 
926,000 
491,000 
150,000 

37,800 



57,250,000 
793,400 
164,700 
210,000 

19,000 
862,000 
491,000 
150,000 

37,800 



-0- 
-O- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-O- 
-O- 
-O- 
-0- 
-0- 



-0- 

-o- 

-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

-o- 
-o- 

-0- 

-o- 
-o- 



51,250,000 
793,400 

-0- 
210,000 

-O- 
775,800 
441,900 
135,000 
37,800 

-O- 



TABLE 2 — DETAILED FY 1976 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST AND FINAL APPROPRIATIONS (Cent.) 

Original Reijuest Supplemental Request Additions 






Category 



Approved 

BOT 
9.118/74 



Approved 
BHE 

1/7/75 



Approved 

BOT 
2/19/75 



Approved 
BHE 
2/7/75 



Signed by Governor 



School of Public Health Planning/Equipment 159,000 

College of Medicine Space Vacated by 

Dentistryifl Remodeling 2,461,100 

College of Medicine Space Vacated by 

Dentistry #2 Remodeling 827,200 

Pharmacognosy & Pharmacology Lab Remodeling 270,000 

Instntment Shop Laboratory Remodeling 22,000 

Basement & First Floor SUDMP Remodeling 60,000 

Research and Library Remodeling 23 ,000 

Second Floor Old mini Union Remodeling 26,000 

Air Condition Pharmacy Remodeling 63,000 

Fifth Floor General Hospital Remodeling 10 ,000 

General Services Building Remodeling 22,000 

University Scctiritv and Fire Alarm Remodeling 175,000 

Rockford School of Medicine Site Improvements 282,500 

Interconnect Chilled Water Lines Remodeling 207,000 

Pharmacy Laboratories — Room 200 Remodeling 140,000 

OSHA Corrections Remodeling 100,000 

Building Equipment Automation Remodeling 105,000 

Liquid Storage Facility Buildings 50,000 

Air Condition 3rd Floor FUDMP Remodeling 100,000 

Correct Building Code Violations Remodeling 100,000 

Pharmacy Offices Remodeling 100,000 

Exterior Lighting Graphics & Landscape. . . . Site Improvements 

Elevator Renovation-General Hospital Remodeling 

Elevator Renovation ISI Remodeling 

Chiller in FUDMP Remodeling 

Elevator Renovation-FUDMP Remodeling -O- 

Elevator Renovation-SUDMP Remodeling -O- 

Elevator Renovation-General Services Remodeling -0- 

Elevator Renovation-Research & Library. . . Remodeling -0- 

Elevator Renovation-General Hospital Remodeling -0- 

Install Electric Hand Driers Remodeling -0- 

Subtotal, Medical Center ($57,896,300) 

Urbana-Champaign 

Airport Crash Rescue Facihty Buildings 275,800 

Airport Crash Rescue Facihty Utilities 14,000 

Turner Hall Addition Buildings 7,933,200 

Turner Hall Addition Utilities 86,000 

Turner Hall Addition Funds to Complete 17,400 

Speech and Hearing Clinic Funds to Complete 40,200 

Speech and Hearing Clinic Equipment 250,000 

Law Building Addition Buildings 5,783,200 

Law Building Addition Utilities 498,000 

Life Sciences Teaching Laboratory Planning 93,600 

Solid Waste Disposal Landfill Co-op Improvements 100,000 

Airport Sewage Treatment Utilities 56,000 

Architecture Building Safety Remodeling 262,500 

English Building Renovation Remodeling 250,000 

Visual Arts Laboratory Remodeling 162,200 

College of Engineering Remodeling 250,000 

Central Supervisory Control Center Utilities 300,000 

Tennis Court Improvements. Site Improvements 44,000 

Library North Court Addition Buildings 1,471,400 

Engineering Library Addition Planning 41 ,200 

Veterinary Medicine Remodeling 200 ,000 

Energy Conservation Heating Controls Remodeling 105,000 

Residence Hall Conversion Remodeling 20,000 

English Building Renovation Remodeling 20,000 

College of Engineering Remodeling 20,000 

Auditorium Rool Replacement Remodeling 45,000 

Veterinary Medicine Remodeling 20,000 

Freer Gym Remodeling 150,000 

Abbott Power Plant Chimney Utilities 565,000 

Visual Arts Laboratory Equipment 160,000 

Morrill Hall Animal Room Equipment 20,000 

Residence Hall Conversion Equipment 25,000 

Agriculture Replacement Land Land 200,000 

Boneyard Creek Channel Co-op Improvements 60,000 

Campus Landscape Improvements Site Improvements 75,000 

Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition, I Buildings 1,659,600 

Nuclear Reactor Lab Addition, I Utilities 1 75,500 

Botany Greenhouse Planning 29,000 

Animal Room Improvements Remodeling 245,000 

Electrical Modernization Remodeling 65,000 

Residence Hall Conversion/Memorial 

Stadium Remodeling 400,000 

Campus Water Main Extension-Planning UtiUties 25,500 

PeabodySt Pennsylvania Street Improvements Site Improvements 274,000 

Coble Hall Improvements Remodeling 125,000 

Steam Tunnel Improvements Utilities 50,000 

Mathews Street Improvements Go-op Improvements 27,900 

Volatile Storage Improvements Remodeling 50,000 

Gregory Hall — lournalism Remodeling 40,000 

Horticulture Field Laboratory Remodeling 25,000 

Davenport Hall — Geography Remodeling 50,000 

" ' " " search Laboratory Remodeling 44,900 

: Offices Remodeling 25,200 

Library Reference Room Remodeling 31 ,500 

Airport Main Hangar Remodeling 90,900 

Advanced Computation Building Remodeling 25,000 

Campus Emergency Warning System Remodeling 80,000 



-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0~ 
77,000 
282,500 
-O- 



100,000 

-O- 
50,000 

-0- 
100,000 

-0- 



-O- 
-0- 
-0- 



178,000 
546,100 

-0- 
240,400 

-0- 
90,000 
303.000 
298,000 

-0- 
235,000 

-0- 
120,000 
290,000 

-0- 



130,000 
275,000 
150,000 
400,000 
300,000 
350,000 
75,000 
100,000 
150,000 
100,000 



827,200 
270,000 
200,000 



120,000 
395,000 

-0- 
100,000 

-O- 
100,000 
150,000 
275.000 
150.000 

-0- 

-O- 



-0- 
77,000 
282,500 
-O- 
-0- 
100,000 
-0- 
50,000 



(162,890,000) ($4,350,500) ($3,642,200) ($55,086,600) 



7,933,200 
86,000 

-0- 
40,200 



100,000 

-O- 
262,500 
250,000 
162,200 
250,000 



-0- 
-O- 
-0- 
-O- 
-0- 



-O- 

-0- 

-O- 

-0- 
500,000 
300,000 
58,000 

-0- 

-0- 



280,000 
-O- 
-0- 



-0- 
-0- 



-O- 

-O- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 
500,000 
300,000 

-0- 

-O- 

-O- 
200,000 
102,000 

-0- 
250,000 

-0- 
550,000 
300.000 



7.933.200 
86,000 
-0- 
-0- 



23,500 

-0- 
262,500 
250.000 
162.200 
270.000 
300,000 

-0- 

-fl- 

-0- 
14,500 



-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-o- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


245,000 


-0- 


-0- 


65,000 


-0- 


500,000 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


274,000 


-0- 


100,000 


225,000 


-0- 


50,000 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


50,000 


-0- 


-0- 


40,000 


-0- 


-0- 


25,000 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


35,000 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 



-0- 

-o- 

-0- 



-0- 
50,000 
40,000 

-O- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-o- 

-0- 
-0- 



TABLE 7 — DETAILED FY 1976 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST AND FINAL APPROPRIATIONS (Cont.) 



Project CaUgory 

Speech and Hearing Clinic Buildings 

Grcgor>' Hall Stair Improvement Remodeling 

Building Safely Improvements Remode!ing 

Lighting ImprovemeJits Remodeling 

Stadium Drive Resurfacing Site Improvei 

Terminal Building, Willard Airport Remodeling 

Veterinary Medicine Research Animal 

FacUiiy ($300.000) Buildings 

Veterinary Medicine Small Animal Clinic 

Surger>* & Obstetrics Lab and Basic 

Sciences Building Remodeling 

Conversion of Old Large Animal Clinic into 

Nfeats Laboratory Remodeling 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences Building 

($350,000) Planning 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences Phase I 

($420,000) Planning 

Subtotal Urbana-Chamfiaign 

TOTAL 



Origt 


nal Ri^ueit 


Supplementat R 

Approved 

bOT 

2/19/75 


qufst Addttions 
Approved 
2/7/75 


Sigrted by Governor 




''Tot' 

9/18/74 


ApprovtJ 
BHE 
1/7/75 




HB2S9 


HR802 


SB46S 


-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 


-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 


62,000 
102,000 
67,000 
61,500 
55.000 


62,000 
102,000 
67,000 
61,500 
-0- 


62,000 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 






-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


66,000 


-0- 




-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 




-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


420,000 




-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


600,000 




-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 




-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 





(»23, 152,700) (19,954,100) ($3,007,500) (53,453,500) (J 9.855,900) (51,020,000) (5 41,000) 
589,526,100 573,953.420 59.125,520 58,598,000 567,513,420 51,020,000 5111,600 



In general, the projects approved by the Board of 
Higher Education in January of 1975 were approved by 
tlie General Assembly and signed by the Governor. In 
addition, during the period from the presentation of the 
capital request to the completion of the legislative session, 
agreements were made to permit the use of the unfinished 
portion of the Public Health Laboratories at 2121 West 
Taylor to be used as a permanent headquarters of the 
School of Public Health at the Medical Center. The 



General Assembly appropriated $3,795,300 to the Gen- 
eral Services Administration for the remodeling of this 
facility and the Governor has signed the bill. 



House Bills 289 and 802 and Senate Bill 468, ap- 
proved by the General Assembly and signed by the Gov- 
ernor, now await action by the University's Board of 
Trustees. 



Reorganization of General University Structure 



When Dr. Barry Munitz, Vice President for Aca- 
demic Development and Coordination, indicated in the 
spring that he did not wish to be reappointed to that 
post at the end of this appointment year, it was decided 
a change in the general University organization was in 
order. Instead of three vice presidents, there would be 
Uvo — one in academic affairs and the other in adminis- 
trative affairs, effective August 21, 1975. Currently, the 
three vice presidencies are for planning and allocation, 
academic development and coordination, and govern- 
mental relations and public service. 

Consequently, the Office of Vice President for Aca- 
demic Development and Coordination is to be phased 
out and its functions combined with those of Vice Presi- 
dent for Governmental Relations and Public Service 
Eldon L. Johnson. His new title will be Vice President 
for Academic .\ffairs. 

The general responsibilities of the Office of Vice 
President for Academic Development and Coordination 
to be assigned to the Office of Vice President for Aca- 
demic Affairs include responsibility (with the involve- 
ment of other personnel and of the chancellors and the 
president on policy matters) for the development of aca- 



demic relationships, coordination of the operation of 
various academic components of the University, and 
administration of University-wide educational programs. 

Vice President Johnson has been at the University 
since 1966 when he was named vice president after serv- 
ing as president of the Great Lakes Colleges Association 
in Detroit for four years. His title became Vice President 
of Governmental Relations and Public Service in 1973. 
He holds degrees from Indiana State University and the 
University of Wisconsin and honoraiy degrees from Dart- 
mouth College, Indiana State, and the Universities of 
Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. A former 
president of the University of New Hampshire, he also 
has worked for the United States Department of Agri- 
culture in Washington, at the University of Chicago, and 
the University of Oregon. He is a member of the Over- 
seas Liaison Committee of the American Council on 
Education, and is a consultant for African universities. 

Also effective August 21, 1975, the title of Vice 
President for Planning and Allocation will become Vice 
President for Administration. Dr. Ronald W. Brady holds 
that position. The change in title involves no change in 
functional responsibilities. 



rxC^--'c if^^ 



220a Library 
3 ' copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 259, October 29, 1975 



Operating and Capital Budget Requests for' FT 1977 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OCTOBER 15, l^Ty'^Y JQp -f^ ■ 



At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees held 
on October 15, 1975, President John E. Corbally pre- 
sented the fiscal year 1977 (July 1, 1976, to June 30, 
1977) operating and capital budget requests of the 
Universit)-. 

A description of the request items was presented in 
the report titled "Budget Request for Operating and 
Capital Funds" which was prepared by the Vice Presi- 
dent for Administration with concurrence of the Uni- 
versits' Planning Council, the University Budget Com- 
mittee, and the three Chancellors. 

The request, which has been approved by the Board 
of Trustees, will be forwarded to the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education. 

OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST 

The operating budget request is divided into three 
components totaling $29,276,300 : ( 1 ) Continuing Com- 
ponents ($20,158,200), (2) Programmatic Components 
($7,595,600), and (3) Special Services and Special 
Funding Components ($1,522,500). The first two com- 
prise the mainstream of the University's operating re- 
quest ; the third contains the request for essential services 
pro\ided to the State by the University. 

Continuing Components 

SAURY INCREASES 

The administration is requesting sufficient funds to 
annualize the 7 per cent increase in FY 1976 and to grant 
7.5 per cent average raises in FY 1977. This request has 
taken into account comparative market analyses of 
wages and purchasing power in Urbana-Champaign and 
in Chicago, and estimates of inflation rates projected to 
occur between June 1975 and September 1977, as well 
as the fiscal realities within the State of Illinois. 

GENERAL PRICE INCREASES 

A 7 per cent general price increase is requested for FY 
1977 to partially offset the declining purchasing power 
which the University, as a consumer, has incurred. The 
inflation increase from June 1974 to June 1975 was 



10.8 per cent for all products and services (excluding 
utilities) purchased by the University. The University is 
presently examining its method of purchasing services 
and products to more efficiently analyze the use of funds 
at its disposal. However, regardless of the sophistication 
of the system, the University has not been able to keep 
pace with inflation. The 7 per cent figure was arrived 
at from analysis of the past effect of inflation and was 
based on the parallel between the purchasing power of 
the University and the individual. 

UTILITY PRICE INCREASES 

Determination of the 20 per cent requested increase 
for utilities for FY 1977 took careful consideration of 
many factors which afTect utility prices. Historical trends 
show that approximately 45 per cent of the University's 
utility bill is spent on fuel oil for heating, 40 per cent on 
electricity, 9 per cent on steam, 2 per cent on natural gas, 
and 4 per cent on water. It is difficult to predict accu- 
rately what will happen to the prices of these utilities; 
however, there are indications that these costs will go 
up in the future. The following summarizes these indi- 
cations: 

1. On November 15, 1975, the present control on do- 
mestic oil produced from wells before May 15, 1973, 
will expire under an agreement between President 
Ford and Congress. Without the control authority, 
the price of oil per barrel could approach the world 
market level. 

2. The oil exporting countries agreed to raise prices by 
10 per cent on October 1, 1975. 

3. Electricity provided by Commonwealth Edison in 
Chicago is produced from low sulphur coal from the 
western states; because the costs of mining and trans- 
porting coal are increasing, electricity costs will also 
rise. 

4. Electrical companies pass their increased costs to the 
consumer. 

5. The production of steam, high temperature hot water, 
and chilled water require the inputs of water, natural 



gas and/or fuel oil, and electricity; these costs have 
risen 30 per cent in the jiast twelve months. 

Over the past year, steps have been taken to con- 
ser\e energy where possible. At Urbana-Champaign, ap- 
proximately $90,000 in electricity charges were saved 
through the telephone energy alert program. During 
peak load periods, about ten days during the summer 
months between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., offices were 
called and requested to turn off air conditioners and 
other electrical appliances for short periods of time. At 
the Chicago campuses, significant savings were achieved 
by balancing hydronic systems, reducing lighting loads, 
and more efficiently using refrigeration equipment. 

To achieve further savings, two types of capital im- 
provements are needed. First, to control the transfer of 
heat the following should be added: weather stripping 
and caulking, translucent insulating panels in place of 
glass, and storm windows. Additionally, Central Super- 
visory Control Centers at Urbana-Champaign and Build- 
ing Equipment Automation at the Chicago campuses, 
which \vould allow O&M personnel to routinely shut off 
energi,' consuming devices when an area is not in use, are 
in the initial phases and are estimated to achieve a sav- 
ings of 15 per cent of the energ)' used in any building 
connected. Other additions include air-to-air heat ex- 
changers in exhaust stacks and "free-cooling" coil ar- 
rangements for areas which must be cooled twelve 
months. 

The second type of improvement is ventilation re- 
duction in existing buildings. Nationwide, universities are 
beginning to reduce ventilation from the original design 
conditions to those consistent with use and occupancy of 
the building. 

However, even with these attempts to conserve en- 
ergy consumption, an increase of 20 per cent is still 
needed to offset the effects of rising costs and inflation. 

OPERATING COSTS FOR NEW FACILITIES 

Operating funds for new facilities in FY 1977 are 
requested for : ( 1 ) recently constructed buildings ; ( 2 ) 
University buildings which have not been operated by 
the University in the past; and (3) private hospitals 
which are affiliated with the University's medical edu- 
cation program. Eleven facilities are included in this 
category: four at the Medical Center, four at Urbana- 
Champaign, and three at affiliated hospitals. The request 
for the affiliated hospitals is made in concurrence with a 
recommendation by the Board of Higher Education 
Commission that the State fund the operations and 
maintenance costs of space in affiliated hospitals for 
which capital grants have been given and that these 
funds be part of the annual operating request. 

Programmatic Components 

CONTINUING EDUCATION 

As a statewide resource, the University serves the 
citizens through its public service mission. The University 



extends its knowledge to the public through continuing 
education for the professions, agriculture, and other 
varied audiences. Public demand for genuine "alterna- 
tive education" off-campus has been rising at a time 
when on-campus enrollments are tapering off. Thus, 
reaching the new audiences has been added to the 
University's public sei-vice mission. To meet these obliga- 
tions, $1,595,000 for continuing education is requested 
for FY 1977. 

In addition, $45,000 for FY 1977 is requested for 
the development of studio facilities, acquiring needed 
equipment, and hiring of a core staff for a public radio 
station in the Chicago area to be operated by the Uni- 
versity. Presently, the Chicago area has the dubious dis- 
tinction of being the largest metropolitan area without 
a public AM radio station. A license application would be 
filed during FY 1976 to the Federal Communications 
Commission, and if approved, the abo\e funding would 
be required for FY 1977. The AM facility in question is 
currendy under the call letters \V\^ON, 1450 KHZ. 

EXTENDED DAY AT CHICAGO CIRCLE 

The Chicago Circle campus is seeking to extend its 
hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday 
through Friday to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday 
through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. 
The objective of this program is to provide increased 
educational opportunity and access to residents of the 
Chicago metropolitan area who have not been able to 
pursue educational endeavors for a variety of reasons. It 
is anticipated that 1,700 students would be enrolled dur- 
ing the extended hours, 1,200 of which would be in- 
cremental to the campus. Additionally, it is expected 
that the extension of hours will achieve a greater utiliza- 
tion of the campus' physical facilities and faculty and 
achieve a reduction of costs per FTE student from 
$2,808 to $2,750 in FY 1977. This cost is expected to 
continue to fall with each year of operation. To begin 
this program, intended for degree candidates who will 
be taught by the same faculty as day students, $1,650,000 
is requested for FY 1977. 

EXPANSION IN HEALTH RELATED FIELDS 

Health related expansion pertains to both the Medi- 
cal Center and the College of Veterinary Medicine at 
Urbana-Champaign. Funding at the Medical Center is 
requested for the continued planned enrollment expan- 
sion of 350 students during FY 1976 and FY 1977. The 
amount required for this continued development is 
$3,955,600. To improve and expand the programs offered 
by the College of \'eterinary Medicine, $350,000 is re- 
quested for FY 1977. 

Special Service and Special Funding Components 

These components of the University's operating 
budget request provide essential services to Illinois resi- 
dents. The programs are managed by the University but 
remain outside of its instruction, research, and public 



service programs. Funding for each program is requcsteil 
based on need and should not be in competition with ed- 
ucational funds requested. The following summarizes 
the University's operating request for these programs. 

1. Special Ser\ice Components 

\'eterinar\^ Diagnostic Laboraton,-. . . ($ 280.900) 
Division of Ser\-ices 

for Crippled Children ( 300,000) 

Police Training Institute ( 343,000) 

\Villard Airport-Commercial 

Operations ( 237,100) 

TOTAL $1,161,000 

2. Special Funding Components 

Cooperative Extension SeiA'ice ($ 183,000) 

County Board Matching Funds ( 178,500) 

TOTAL $ 361,500 

Total Increment $1,522,500 



Summary of New Funds Requested 

FY 1977 OPERATING BUDGET 
(Thousands of Dollars) 

Percent of 
Request 
I. Continuing Components 

A. Salary Increases (7.5%) $14,035.4 50.57 

B. General Price Increases (7.0%) 2,096.3 7.55 

C. Utility Price Increases (20.0%) 2,331.0 8.40 

D. Operating Costs for 

New Faciliues 1,695.5 6.1 1 

(Subtotal) $20,158.2 72.63 

II. Programmatic Components 

A. Continuing Education $ 1,610.0 5.91 

B. E.\tended Day 1,650.0 5.95 

C. Expansion in the Health 

Related Fields 4,305.6 15.5 1 

(Subtotal) $ 7,595.6 27.30 

FY 1977 Request — Total $27,753.8 100.00 



Capital Budget Request 

SUMMARY OF THE FY 1977 CAPITAL REQUEST 

The total capital program requested from State 
funds for FY 1977 is $36,989,500 exclusive of reappro- 
priations. Table 1 provides a listing of the estimated 
State funds required in FY 1977 for the building projects 
and budget categories by campus. 

This Capital Budget Request recognizes the need to 
preserve and remodel existing buildings for more effi- 
cient and more effective utilization. The new buildings 
which are requested are library additions, replacement 
buildings, special purpose buildings, and minor additions 
which are closer in scope to remodeling projects than to 
building requests. 

The major requests for the Chicago Circle campus 



are for ( 1 ) a library addition for which planning funds 
were appropriated in FY 1975, (2) continuation of re- 
modeling in the Roosevelt Road Building and the Science 
and Engineering Laboratory, and (3) continuation of 
the Building Equipment Automation Program. The 
thrust of the capital program at Chicago Circle is to 
coinplete the library addition which will accommodate 
the projected enrollments for several years and to begin 
remodeling the campus space to reflect the changing 
mission of that campus. 

The Medical Center request includes no new build- 
ings but continues the trend of the past several years of 
upgrading space and remodeling vacated areas for ex- 
panding programs. The next five years will see the com- 
pletion of the replacement hospital and the conversion 
of the old hospital space into academic space for the 
colleges at the Medical Center. 

The Urbana-Champaign campus is comprised of 
some of the oldest buildings of all of the public uni- 
versities in Illinois. Over one-third of the space on this 
campus was built before 1930 and much of it is in old 
houses and wood frame structures. It is the University's 
intention to replace or remodel much of this space in the 
next ten years. The Urbana-Champaign campus also has 
the responsibility for expanding some special purpose 
buildings during this period, e.g.. Library Stacks, Law 
Building, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory. The FY 1977 
capital request is composed of three buildings (Library 
Sixth Stack Addition, Botany Greenhouse, and Nuclear 
Reactor Laboratory Phase II) and planning funds for 
five buildings for FY 1978 in addition to the remodeling 
projects. 

The Scope and Mission of the University of Illinois 
1974-80 lists seven major buildings which will be re- 
quired by the University. Of the seven, two buildings, 
both libraries, are requested for FY 1977; the Replace- 
ment Hospital was approved for FY 1976; the Law 
Building Addition will be requested in FY 1978; an office 
building at Chicago Circle has been deferred pending 
the development of a campus plan, and the remaining 
two buildings are future library additions at Urbana- 
Champaign. 

The remainder of the decade will see continuous re- 
modeling at the Chicago campuses — to accommodate 
the shifting enrollments at Chicago Circle and to pro- 
\ide for program expansion at the Medical Center. At 
the Urbana-Champaign campus the needs are for re- 
placement buildings, special purpose buildings, and re- 
modeling for space realignment and rehabilitation. 

The University estimates it will require approximately 
25 to 30 million dollars per year over the next five years 
to replace buildings and to maintain the present build- 
ings. It is planned for 6 million dollars to be requested for 
space realignment, remodeling, and replacement in the 
capital budget; 6 million dollars to be requested for ma- 
jor remodeling in the capital budget; and 10 to 15 mil- 
lion dollars to be requested for new buildings. Table 2 
shows the proposed building requests for the next five 
years. 



TABLE 1 — SUMMARY OF FY 1977 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS 
(Total Dollars Requested by Each Campus) 

Chicago Medical Urbana- 

Circle Center Champaign Total 

Buildings, Additions, and/or Structures $ 7,375,100 -0- $ 7,793,200 $15,168,300 

Library Addition ( 7,375,100) 

Vet Med Research Buildings ( 366,400) 

Physics Lab Research Addition ( 1 19,800) ' 

Ornamental Horticulture Addition ( 29,700) 

Library Sixth Stack Addition ( 3,978,900) 

Nuclear Reactor Lab, Phase II ( 1,955,600) 

Botany Greenhouse ( 1,342,800) 

Funds to Complete Bond-Eligible Buildings 43,000 213,700 45,100 301,800 

Land -0- -0- 350,000 350,000 

Equipment 690,500 4,003,400 730,000 5,423,900 

Utilities 221,000 -0- 1,147,500 1,368,500 

Remodeling and Rehabilitation 2,150,600 7,204,400 3,039,300 12,394,300 

Site Improvements 350,500 -0- 546,500 897,000 

Planning -0- 182,000 730,800 912,800 

Cooperative Improvements 110,000 -0- 62,900 172,900 

TOTAL $10,940,700 $1 1,603,500 $14,445,300 $36,989,500 

' $100,000 available from federal funds in addition to $1 19,800 from State funds. 

TABLE 2 — PROPOSED PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUESTS FOR MAJOR BUILDINGS FY 77-81 
(In Thousand Dollars! 

Campus Project FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 

CC Library Addition $7,808.6 $ 107.8 

MC University Replacement Hospital 3,000.0 4,000.0 

MC Rockford School of Medicine 49.1 

MC Peoria School of Medicine 314.9 

UC Turner Hall Addition 400.0 655.5 

UC Speech and Hearing Clinic 215.1 

UC Library Si.xth Stack Addition 4,408.9 67.6 

UC Nuclear Reactor Phase II 2,150.1 200.0 $ 209.3 

UC Botany Greenhouse 1,695.3 115.1 

UC Life Sciences Teaching Lab ( 141.8) 6,669.6 150.0 $ 353.7 

UC Vet Med Basic Sciences Phase I ( 200.5) 9,535.1 160.0 389.1 

UC Law Building Addition ( 126.0) 5,539.1 464.0 

UC Engineering Library Stack ( 50.9) 2,255.5 175.0 87.0 

UC Agricultural Engineering Building ( 156.6) 7,950.4 100.0 340.0 

UC Research Animal Facility ( 18.1) 699.7 200.0 $ 63.8 

UC Library North Court Addition ( 40.4) 1,758.0 130.0 122.4 

UC Architecture Building ( 148.8) 8,234.9 160.0 185.0 

UC Pilot Training Facility ( 17.2) 619.5 

UC Fire and Police Station ( 38.5 ) 1 ,533.6 

UC Library South Wing { 1 13.6) 4,987.8 100.0 

UC Nuclear Reactor Lab III ( 35.9) 1,388.7 135.0 

UC Aviation Research Lab ( 57.2) 2,307.6 

UC Car Pool Maintenance ( 27.4) 1,380.4 

UC Medical Life Science Library ( 1 1 1 .5 ) 4,930.8 

UC Swine Research Complex ( 49.7) 1,967.7 

UC Vet Med Basic Science Phase II ( 88.5 ) 

UC Geology Building ( 125.0) 

UC Krannert Art Museum Addition ( 25.0) 

TOTAL BUILDING $19,682.0 $37,095.7 $11,951.8 $10,189.4 $11,192.7 

TOTAL PLANNING ($ 675.8) ($ 207.3) ($ 205.2) ($ 245.8) ($ 238.5) 

Building costs include fimds to complete, utilities, and equipment. All cost estimates are in FY 1977 dollars. Planning requests are 
shown in parentheses. 



President's Statement on Non-Discmnination, Equal Opportimity Compliance 



President John E. Corbally sent the following letter 
on September 15, 1975, to die three Chancellors in re- 
gard to the Univereity being in full compliance with all 
Federal and State Non-Discrimination and Equal Op- 
portunity Laws, Orders, and Regulations, including the 
more recent Title IX of the Education Amendment ; 

In 1973, I wrote: "Progress for these employees (minor- 
ities and women), and for those who come to the University 
seeking jobs, will not result from just having an Affirmative 
Action Plan, or by just reading an AfTirmative Action Plan." 
I called upon supervisors to work to achieve the University's 
equal opportunity objecti\es in the areas of hiring, training, 
and promoting. 

Since then, efforts have been made to eliminate any sal- 
ary differentials between male and female staff members hav- 
ing the same qualifications, responsibilities, and merit, a com- 
mitment made in the Affirmative Action Plan. To avoid the 
possibility of inequities developing in the future, male and 
female salaries are regularly monitored. 

Also as pledged in the Affirmative Action Plan, there has 
been added emphasis on recruiting, training, and upgrading 
nonacademic women and minority employees. Special affir- 
mative action procedures have been established for the recruit- 
ment, appointment, and promotion of academic staff members. 

While many persons, either individually or as members 
of committees concerned with affirmative action, play an ac- 
tive role in assuring that equal opportunity is provided in the 
hiring, retention, training, transfer, promotion, and upgrading 
of all employees, without regard to race, age, religion, color, 
national origin, or sex, there is at the University administra- 
uon level, a University Council on Equal Opportunity. Among 
other concerns, this Council keeps abreast of Federal and State 
legislation having affirmative action implications, such as Title 
IX of the Education Amendments. 



The University of Illinois is in full compliance with all 
Federal and State Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportu- 
nity Laws, Orders and Regulations, and will not discriminate 
against any person because of race, color, sex, religion, or 
national origin in any of its educational programs and activi- 
ties. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and 
regulations issued thereunder require the University of Illinois 
not to discriminate on the basis of sex in its educational pro- 
grams and activities, including the areas of employment and 
admissions. 

For additional information on the equal opportunity and 
affirmative action policies of the University, please contact 
on the Urbana-Champaign campus Walter Strong in the Office 
of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at 201 Coble 
Hall for academic personnel and James Ransom, Jr. in the 
Office of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action for Non- 
academic Personnel at 52 East Gregory; nn the Chicago 
Circle Campus, Nan McGehee in the Chancellor's Office, 
2801 University Hall; and on the Medical Center Campus, 
Anthony Diekema in the Office of the Chancellor, 414 Ad- 
ministrative Office Building, 1737 West Polk Street. 

While we are doing what is required by Federal and State 
laws, I ask each of you, supervisors and supervised, to walk 
that extra mile and make the University of Illinois as dis- 
tinguished and respected for its affirmative action and equal 
opportunity conduct and achievement as it is for its excellence 
in academic disciplines. 

While by law the University is obligated to carry out 
affirmative action and equal opportunity objectives, I still feel 
in 1975 as I did in 1973 when I wrote, "Real progress cannot 
be made on paper alone. Help take affirmative action off paper 
and put it into daily practice. It's the RIGHT THING TO 
DO." 

John E. Corbally 
President 



President's Statement on Reorganization of OJfice of Acade?nic Affairs 

SENT BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO GENERAL OFFICERS OCTOBER 2, 1975 



Recent reorganization is designed to consolidate and 
strengthen the academic dimension of University admin- 
istration. For this purpose, some steps have already been 
taken and others are hereby authorized. 

Matters of general University administration will 
henceforth flow to the President in two streams, 
through two Vice Presidents: one for Administration 
and one for Academic Affairs. The President and Chan- 
cellors, with other general officers, meet monthly as the 
University Policy Council. 

Assisting the \'ice President for Academic Affairs are 
two Associate Vice Presidents, representing the public 
service functions and academic affairs generally, and the 
Director of Federal Relations and Special Projects (Mi- 
chael O'Keefe). The Associate Vice President for Public 
Sen-ice (John B. Claar, who is also Director of the Coop- 
erative Extension Service) deals with continuing educa- 
tion and direct off-campus services, including a state- 
wide field network and certain University-wide units 



(Police Training Institute, Visual Aids Service, and 
Firemanship Training). The Associate Vice President 
for Academic Affairs (Victor J. Stone) deals with other 
academic affairs involving teaching and research, in- 
cluding certain University-wide units (University Press, 
Survey Research Laboratory, Institute of Government 
and Public Affairs, Robert Allerton Park, and the Uni- 
versity Office of School and College Relations) . 

I ha\e officially created (in place of the previous 
larger, unofficial body) a University Academic Council, 
to consist of five members: the Vice President for Aca- 
demic Affairs, who shall be Chairman, and the campus 
chief academic officers at or above the Vice Chancellor 
level. In terms of incumbents, the Council will, therefore, 
currently consist of: 

Eldon L. Johnson, Vice President for Academic Af- 
fairs (Chairman) 

Joseph S. Begando, Chancellor, Medical Center 
Campus (The new position of Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Aflfairs at the Medical Center has not 
yet been filled. ) 

George W. Magner, Acting Vice Chancellor for Aca- 
demic Affairs, Chicago Circle 

George A. Russell, Vice Chancellor for Research, 
Urbana 

Morton W. Weir, Vice Chancellor for Academic 
Affairs, Urbana 

While the Council itself will not exceed this small 
number for effective working relations and direct oper- 
ating responsibility, its consultation and cooperation with 
resource personnel on special issues will be expected. 

The University Academic Council will have these 
major responsibilities: 

1 . To help articulate the academic point of view in the 
administration of the University's affairs. 

2. To recommend academic policy to the Chancellors 
and President. 

3. To facilitate the exchange of information among 
academic officers. 

4. To facilitate the administration of common policy and 
procedure when arrived at. 

5. To monitor intercampus academic relations with a 
view to realizing the benefits of a single University 
"system." 

In view of my own ultimate responsibility for aca- 
demic affairs and for administration in general, I am 
also seeking further coordination by asking the aca- 
demically oriented University Councils to make their 
recommendations to me through the University Aca- 
demic Council. The purpose is to have all such recom- 
mendations sent on to me with such observations as the 
University Academic Council shall see fit to make. 

As a companion piece, to produce more participation 
"closer to the action," chairmanships of the University- 
wide Councils will be more widely distributed, .'^s a first 
step, the pattern for 1975-76 will be as follows: 

University Council on Libraries (chaired by a li- 
brarian, rotating among campuses) 
University Council for Environmental Studies 
(chaired by a faculty member, rotating among 
campuses) 
University Council on Federal Relations (chaired by 
the Director of Federal Relations and Special 
Projects) 



University Council on Health Affairs (chaired by the 
Chancellor of the Medical Center Campus) 

University Council on Public Sei^ice (chaired by the 
Vice President for Academic Affairs) 

University Council on Graduate Education and Re- 
search (chaired by the Vice President for Aca- 
demic Affairs) 

I am also instructing the University Academic Coun- 
cil to promulgate concrete procedures for eliciting the 
points of view of the other named Councils and for maxi- 
mizing two-way communication on matters of intersect- 
ing interests. 



The University of Illinois policy is to be in full 
c nipliance with all Federal and .State Non-Discrimina- 
tion and Equal Opportunity Laws, Orders and Regula- 
tions, and it will not discriminate against any persons 
liccause of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin 
in any of its educational programs and activities. Title 
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and regula- 
tions issued thereunder require the University of Illinois 
not to discriminate on the basis of sex in its educational 
|irograms and activities, including the areas of employ- 
ment and admissions. 

_ \'ice President Ronald W. Brady has been desig- 
nated as the University Equal Opportunity Officer for 
the University of Illinois. For additional information on 
the equal opportunity and affirmative action policies 
of the University, please contact: 

For the general university, Dean Barringer, 349 Ad- 
ministration Building, Urbana, 111. 61801 (217-333- 
1563). 

For the Urbana-Champaign campus, academic per- 
s mnel, Walter Strong, Office of the Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs, 201 Coble Hall, Champaign, 111. 
til 820 (217-333-0389); and for nonacademic personnel, 
James Ransom, Jr., Office of Equal Opportunity, Af- 
firmati\e .*\ction for Nonacademic Personnel, 52 East 
Gregory, Champaign, III. 61820 (217-333-2147). 

For the Chicago Circle campus. Nan McGehee, 
Office of the Chancellor, 2801 University Hall, P.O. Box 
4318, Chicago, 111. 60680 (312-996-4878). 

For the Medical Center campus, .Anthony Diekema, 
Office of the Chancellor, 414 Administrative Office 
Building, 1737 West Polk St., P.O. Box 6998, Chicago. 
Ill, 60680 (312-996-8060). 




3 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 260, February 11, 1976 



State t?ient on IBHE Budget Recommendations for FY 1977 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES JANUARY 21, 1976 

OPERATING BUDGETS fallen short of inflation rates have required enormous 

The ad\ice which the Illinois Board of Higher Edu- efiforts in productivity and reallocation on the part of 

cation will provide to the General Assembly and to the Public universities, and that these efforts have enabled 

governor concerning appropriations in support of higher "^ only to lose ground slowly rather than to create new 

education in Illinois for Fiscal Year 1977 was approved i"0"ey for new eff«|te. I will not burden you again today 

bv the IBHE on Januan' 6, 1976. Following this action ^'th a recitation 2@h^ays jn which inadequate ap- 

of the IBHE there was the usual confusion in the press, propnations hav^^igo erode our quality — both m 

which re?ularlv fails to differentiate among the advising terms of our abiHw to^ay competitive salaries and of 

function of the IBHE in budgetary' matters, the appropri- our ability to provSe support services to our faculty and 

ations functions of the General Assembly and of the ^taff. We are not^ thtoyear faced with IBHE budget 

governor, and the governing and allocating functions of documents which-; pretend ^at we can support millions 

the governing boards of the svstems of public higher edu- of dollars worth of sa^ increases or of other cost factors 

cation. Thus we read headlines such as "IBHE Raises by consuming our own b^ies through a process called 

Tuition" or "Student Tuition to Support Salary In- productivity. We are highly productive; we shall remain 

creases" as if IBHE advice represents some sort of final so; and we are pleased that this fact has been recognized, 

decision. Reports of IBHE advice also fail to recognize Second, while I, my administrative colleagues, and 

the authorit^' of this Board of Trustees to allocate all Y^" ^re being criticized m some quarters for our failure 

University- funds among the campuses and other func- to match other institutions in developing massive budget 

tional units of the UniversitN' of Illinois. The University request figures, I am not yet prepared to state that the 

is recognized bv the General Assembly and by the execu- General Assembly and the governor will find our bud- 

tive branch of government as a single university, and g^tary restraint either poor tactics or poor advocacy. The 

IBHE data on a campus-bv-campus basis are for pur- Board of Higher Education budget documents support 

poses of calculation rather than of allocation. These con- ^n increase in our appropriations of $21,233,300 as 

cepts should be kept firmlv in mind by all who read re- opposed to our request for $29,276,300. However, the 

ports of so-called IBHE "budget actions." ^^^'^ documents calculate tlie support of the contmua- 

,,,, ., , , , .. . T-r,T»T^ , , tion of our expansion of proarrams in health professions 

While most of the public attention to IBHE bud- . V^r r ijttj j 

1 • r T-<r ^r^^■^ i r , ■ • lu a manner dinerent irom our method. Had we used 

getar\' ad\ace for lY 1977 has focused upon tuition rec- ^, tt>tti- .u j . r r j u i 

° ■ , . ,, 1-11 T . 11 the IBHL method, our request for new funds would have 

ommendations 'a locus which has been strensthened by ^ ^ i j e.nc -ion mn t-i .i tt>ttt- j ^• 

... Ill TT^TTT- r .1-1 • totaled $2o,7oO,400. thus the IBHE recommendation 

the simultaneous conduct bv the IBHL oi public hearinsrs ,.„ , . r mc r .-, ir,r, t-i • 

1 i-.rr.TtT- ' I- , ■• . . dmers from our request in an amount OI $5,547,100. 1 his 

on the proposed MP IV in which tuition proposals have ,.„ . , ^ r i r n - 

, , ' . .... . , '. .' . ditterence is made up ot the tollowinff components: 

been the major topic ot discussion i , the tuition question 

is not the maj'or item upon which either we or the IBHE 

/-, 1 A ui J ii, 1. ij ^ i Item Request Support Difference 

General Assembly and the governor should concentrate. ^ . » „ ,.. „, „„, 

D ., ,. , ' . c A J . r .u J Salary $14,035,400 $13,060,600 $ 974,800 

Rather, the statement of and endorsement of the needs PHce Increases ... . 4,427,300 4,259,900 ( 167,400) 

of public higher education as presented in the IBHE New Expanded 

documents are the crucial elements. Programs 6,622,200 3,076,500 (3,545,700) 

For the first time since I have been involved with °^^ , kqc =nn q^k ctnn i h";q 9nn^ 

T-TiTTT^ 1 J 1 - - - ,r,-^, . (New Bldgs.) ... 1,695,500 836,300 ( 859,200) 

IBHL budget recommendations starting in 1971, the so- 

called "new money gained through productivity or real- ^'"«' $26,780,400 $21,233,300 ($5,547,100) 

location" has been eliminated. The IBHE has finally The major difference between the IBHE budget ad- 
recognized that appropriations which have consistently vice and our request is in the area of new programs. We 



find this difference regrettable because we can find no 
rationale which leads us to believe that our very few 
program proposals deserved such rejection. If we ■ — ■ and 
you — are to be faulted in our advocacy on behalf of 
the University of Illinois, it is in this area of new pro- 
grams that we are most vulnerable and it is in this area 
that we are currently reviewing our relationships with 
the IBHE most vigorously. In a period, for example, 
when continuing education is viewed as a major need of 
society we find it impossible to understand the basis for 
the total rejection by the IBHE of our program requests 
in this field. 

With regard to salaries, our request for funds to sup- 
port increases averaging 7.5 percent was cut to funds 
to support increases averaging 7 percent using a formula 
which provides 7 percent of 95 percent of our personal 
services base — a formula which creates considerable dif- 
ficulty in achieving increases averaging 7 percent. Other 
systems which recommended increases as high as 20 per- 
cent were also reduced to increases at this 7 percent level. 
I find much more merit in arguing on behalf of the 
realistic and of the possible than in playing games which 
lead people to believe that the impossible is possible. I 
know how our salaries have lagged and I intend to work 
as hard as possible to preserve our ability to grant salary 
increases which will average about 7 percent. Even if 
all of us involved can get together and work together to 
achieve that level of increase, it is entirely possible that 
we will achieve less. Today's climate is not one in which 
we should make great claims to overcome losses ; we must 
work hard to avoid new losses and the more united our 
voice can be, the better our slim chances of success. 

All in all, it seems to me that the crucial factor is to 
recognize that the "bottom-line" increase recommended 
by the IBHE for the University of Illinois is a serious 



attempt by the IBHE, based upon a similar attempt by 
our Board of Trustees, to recognize legitimate and es- 
sential needs during a time of constrained resources. We 
must not permit debate about tuition policy, about ac- 
cess, and about aid to other components of higher educa- 
tion in Illinois to divert our attention and the attention of 
the General Assembly, of the governor, and of the people 
of Illinois from the fact that we and the IBHE are in 
reasonable agreement concerning the minimum funding 
necessary to maintain the quality and the service of the 
University of Illinois. 

CAPITAL BUDGETS 

The University of Illinois submitted capital budget 
requests for FY 1977 in the amount of $37,168,361 and 
the IBHE documents support an amount of $22,131,950. 
Within a framework of funds available for capital de- 
velopment, the IBHE had to reduce requests from the 
systems totaling $247,857,117 to recommendations total- 
ing $97,929,769, or a reduction to about 40 percent of 
requests. In this process, several projects of major im- 
portance to the University of Illinois have been deferred, 
including particularly a $4,000,000 addition to the li- 
brary stacks at Urbana-Champaign, over $2,000,000 for 
phase two of the nuclear reactor laboratory at Urbana- 
Champaign, and about $1,700,000 for botany green- 
houses at Urbana-Champaign. On the positive side, how- 
ever, and of crucial importance is IBHE approval of 
$4,360,250 for space realignment, remodeling, and re- 
placement on our three campuses. This program will 
permit the timely and efficient preservation of physical 
plants in which the people of Illinois have a major in- 
vestment, and will enable us to adapt old space for new 
uses at great savings in time and in money. 



Detailed Comparison: UI Budget Request, IBHE Recommendations 



OPERATING BUDGET 



Table 1 shows the detailed comparison of the Uni- 
versity's operating budget request with the Board of 
Higher Education's recommendations. 

General Price Increases 

The IBHE recommended a 7 percent increase for 
expense items and a 10 percent increase for equipment. 
The increased amount for equipment was recommended 
because appropriations in recent years have not been 
sufficient to replace equipment and library books. 

Utility Price Increoses 

The recommendation of a 15 percent increment in- 
stead of the 20 percent requested on the FY 1976 utility 
base was made on the assumption that, while utility 
prices would continue to rise faster than other prices, they 
were not increasing as fast as in recent years and that 



the University would continue to show savings in the 
amount of energy consumed. 

Operating Funds for New Buildings 

The new buildings to be opened in FY 1977 were 
uniformly funded at $2.10 per gross square foot with 
the exception of the Veterinary' Medicine Feed and 
Storage Building at Urbana-Champaign and the Liquid 
Storage Facility at the Medical Center; these buildings 
\vere funded at a lesser amount. The request to fund the 
operation and maintenance of Memorial Stadium and 
the University Ice Rink was not approved. 

Continuing Education and Extended Day 

The request for funds for continuing education was 
not approved and the request for the Extended Day pro- 
gram at Chicago Circle was reduced by $850,000 (ap- 
proximately 50 percent). The IBHE recommended that 
the development of the Extended Day program be de- 



veloped over a period of five years instead of three years 
as proposed by the University. 

Expansion in Health Related Fields 

The IBIIE recommended that the University recei\e 
an additional $1,000,000 for health-related expansion at 
the Nfedical Center and $200,000 for expansion of the 
College of \"eterinar)' Medicine at Urbana-Champaign. 
The IBHE also recommended that a nonrecurring appro- 
priation of $2,495,900 from FY 1976 for operation of 
1919 West Taylor be reallocated to health expansion for 
FY 1977. This amount will allow the University to ad- 
mit an additional 109 students in health-related cur- 
ricula, bringing the number of additional students to 
350 during tlie Fiscal Years 1976 and 1977. 

Special Services and Special Funding Components 

Tlie IBHE recommended $150,000 for the Division 
of Ser\ices for Crippled Children, $83,000 for the Police 
Training Institute, $15,000 for the Cooperative Extension 
Serv-ice, and $178,500 for county board matching funds. 
No recommendation was made on the commercial opera- 
tions of Willard ."Mrport. The University will negotiate 
this request ($237,100) with the Bureau of the Budget 
and the staffs of the General Assembly Appropriation 
Committees. 

Other Recommendations 

The board made recommendations for some funds 
which were not requested directly by the University. The 
funds for equipment mentioned earlier were part of the 
general price increases request; in addition to these 
funds, the IBHE recommended an additional $250,000 
for equipment at Urbana-Champaign based on need 
shown in special analytical studies submitted in the past 
two years. 

An additional $650,000 was recommended for Ur- 
bana-Champaign for space realignment, remodeling, 
and replacement, the concept which prescribes funding 
levels needed at each campus to prevent deterioration of 
the physical facilities. This amount is for those space 
realignment, remodeling, and replacement (SR^) proj- 
ects which cannot be funded from Capital Development 
Bond Funds in the capital budget. 



The IBIIE recommended $18,664,300 for retirement 
to allow for the annual payout. The University requested 
the minimum statutory requirement of $33,966,100. 



CAPITAL BUDGET 

The capital budget request of the University of Illi- 
nois for FY 1977 was $36,989,500 as reported in Faculty 
Letter no. 259, October 29, 1975. The total capital bud- 
get request was increased to $37,168,361 as a result of the 
Board of Higher Education's acceptance of the space 
realignment, remodeling, and replacement (SR^) con- 
cept. The University proposed that, if the SR^ concept 
was approved, the request of $6,041,261 would replace 
projects totaling $5,862,400. Table 2 shows the request 
(including SR^) and the recommendations of the Board 
of Higher Education by campus and by budget category. 

No new building projects were approved, although 
building projects with prior appropriations (such as the 
Library .Addition at Chicago Circle, the Speech and 
Hearing Clinic at Urbana-Champaign, the Peoria School 
of Medicine, and the School of Public Health at the 
Medical Center) were continued. In keeping with the 
stated guidelines, the major emphasis of the IBHE rec- 
ommendations was on remodeling and rehabilitation, 
funded both as major remodeling and as space realign- 
ment, remodeling, and replacement. Funds were also 
recommended for equipment associated with ongoing 
building projects and ongoing and new remodeling proj- 
ects. Central supervisory control at Urbana-Champaign 
was the only utility request approved in the utility cate- 
gory, although some other utility projects were approved 
as part of SR^. The only site improvement approved was 
security lighting at Chicago Circle. No requests for land 
or cooperative improvements were approved. Planning 
funds were approved for three buildings at Urbana- 
Champaign (Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences Phase 
I, Law Building Addition, and Engineering Library 
Stack Addition) and two major remodeling projects 
(ventilating and air conditioning of the Pharmacy Build- 
ing at the Medical Center and Auditorium roof replace- 
ment at Urbana-Champaign). Planning funds for the 
Life Sciences Teaching Laboratory and the Agricultural 
Engineering Building were not approved. 



TABLE 1 — COMPARISON OF Ul OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 1977 WITH IBHE RECOMMENDATIONS (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS! 



UI Request 

Salary Increases (7.5%) $14,033.4 

General Price Increases (7.0%) 2,0%.3 

Equipment 

Utilitiej (20.0%) 

O&M New Buildings 

Conlinuiog Education 

Extended Day 

Health Expansion 

Veterinarv Medicine 

SR> — LC 



2,331.0 
1,695.5 
1,&40.0 
1,650.0 
1,459.7* 
350.0 



(7.0%) $13,060.6 
(7.0%) 1,833.4 



(10.0%) 
(15.0%) 



405.9 
1,770.6 
836.3 
-0- 
800.0 
1,000.0* 
200.0 
650.0 



* The IBHE recommended $1,OCIO,000 for health expansion, but agreed to 
adjust the FY 1976 base by $2,495,900 which had the same effect as recom- 
mending a $3,495,900 increment for health expansion. 



Equipment — UC 

DSCC 

Veterinary Diagnostic 

Laboratory 

Police Training 

Cooperative Extension . . . 
County Board Matching 

Funds 

Willard Airport 



280.9 
343.0 
183.0 

178.5 
237.1 
Total (11.3%) $26,780.4 



IBHE 

Recommendations 

$ 250.0 

150.0 

-0- 
83.0 
15.0 



(9.0%) $21,233.3 



■ No recommendation; this will be negotiated with the Bu 



TABLE 2 — DETAILED FY 1977 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST AS APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION 



BOT 
Category and Project 10/15/75 

Chicago Circle 

Buildings, Additions, and/or Structures 

Library Addition $ 7.375,100 

Subtotal ( 7,375,100) 

Funds to Complete Bond-Eligible Buildings 

Library Addition 43,000 

Subtotal ( 43,000) 

Land -0- 

Equipment 

Library Addition 390,500 

SEL-Engineering 300,000 

Subtotal ( 690,500) 

Utilities -0- 

Remodeling and Rehabilitation 

SEL-Engineering 300,000 

Roosevelt Road Building 600,000 

Building Equipment Automation 300,000 

Subtotal ( 1,200,000) 

Site Improvements 

Exterior Lighting 177,500 

Exterior Campus Graphics 43,000 

Bus Stop Shelters 35,000 

Changes to Accommodate Handicapped 95,000 

Subtotal ( 350,500) 

Planning -0- 

Cooperative Improvements 

Pedestrian Traffic Control — Morgan 55.000 

Pedestrian Traffic Control — Polk 55,000 

Subtotal ( 110,000) 

Space Realignment, Remodeling, 

and Replacement 1,170,013 

Campus Security ( 95,600) 

ECB & FEB Interior Graphics ( 35,000) 

UH First Floor Security Doors ( 34.000) 

Fire Alarm Modification ( 96,500) 

Service Building ( 32,000) 

BSB Acoustical Treatment Room 4113A ( 18,500) 

OSHA Phase I ( 57.000) 

Lecture Center 12KV Duct Corrections ( 72.500) 

Lecture Center Air Intake ( 52,000) 

Lecture Center Lighting Correction ( 45,000) 

Safety Valve for Heating System ( 70.000) 

Repair Roofs (Library, A&A, BSB) ( 100,000) 

Switch Gear Maintenance Program ( 30,000) 

Ventilation Changes in Service Building ( 10,000) 

Vibration Eliminators (PEB & ECB) ( 3,500) 

Sump Pump Rehabihtation Program { 20,000) 

Rehabilitate Exterior Doors to Clsrm Bldgs..( 15,000) 

Exterior Wall Repairs ECB ( 39,413) 

Repair Seating in Classroom Bldgs ( 10,000) 

Pigeon Control ( 30,000) 

Elevator Rehabilitation ( 10,000) 

Exterior Masonry Repair ( 40,000) 

Repair Insulation in Heating & Cooling Sys..( 25,000) 

Valve Replacement for Heating System ( 10,000) 

Rehabilitate Fresh Air Dampers ( 10,000) 

Rehabilitate Ventilation System in Lecture 

Center ( 5,000) 

Rehabilitate Upper Walkway & Stairs, Phl..{ 100,000) 
Rehabilitate Lectiure Center Roof and 

Drainage, Phi ( 100,000) 

Rehabilitate S-4 Fan System in SEL ( 4,000) 

Architecture and Engineering Fees -0- 

Total, Chicago Circle Campus $10,939,113 

Medical Center Campus 

Buildings, Additions, and/or Structures ~0~ 

Funds to Complete Bond-Eligible Buildings 

Peoria School of Medicine 164,700 

School of Public Health 49,000 

Subtotal ( 213,700) 

Land -n- 

Equipment 

Replacement Hospital 3,000,000 

College of Medicine, Project 1 707,300 

School of Public Health 96,800 

Rockford School of Medicine 49,100 

Peoria School of Medicine 150,200 

Subtotal { 4,003,400) 

Utilities -0- 



Funds ' 



provided from a federal grant. 



Approved 
IBHE 
1/6/76 



$ 7,375,100 
( 7,375,100) 

43,000 
( 43,000) 
-0- 

240,500 
150,000 
( 390,500) 
-&- 

250,000 

350,000 

300,000 

( 900,000) 

177,500 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
( 177,500) 
-f>- 

-0- 
-ft- 
-0- 

813,328 
( 95,600) 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 
( 32,000) 
( 18,500) 
( 57,000) 
( 72,500) 

-0- 
( 45,000) 

-0- 
( 100,000) 

-0- 
( 10,000) 

-0- 
( 20,000) 

-0- 
( 57,500) 

-0- 

-0- 

-O- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 



{ 100,000) 

-0- 
( 105,228) 
$ 9,699,428 



-0- 

164,700 
49,000 
( 213,700) 
-0- 

3,000,000 
707,300 
96,800 
49,100 
-0-» 
( 3,853,200) 
-O- 



Category and Project 
Remodeling and Rehabilitation 

Complete College of Medicine Project 1 . . , 

College of Medicine Project II 

1919 West Taylor 

College of Medicine, Complete SUDMP. . . 

Ventilate Pharmacy Building** 

College of Pharmacy, Pharmacognosy, and 

Pharmacology 

Elevator Renovation SUDMP 

Basement. R&L Instrument Shop 

Building Equipment Automation. 



Subtotal ( 4,526,900) 

Site Improvements. 



Plan 



ung 



Study of Space in Areas Vacated in Hosp. . . . 
Renovation of FUDMP Mechanical & Elec. 
Ventilate and AC Pharmacy** 

Subtotal 

Space Realignment, Remodeling, 

and Replacement 

Masoiu-y Repair 

Roof and Gutter Repair 

General Hospital — Third Floor 

Elevator Renovation — General Hospital.... 

— Research and Library. 

— NPI 



— ISI 

Biologic Resource Lab — Cage Washing . 

Pharmacy Room 200 

Pharmacy Offices 

Window Renovation (NPI, FUDMP).... 

General Services Building 

Pigeon Control 

Replace Chilled Water and Steam Coils. . 

Building Code Violations*** 

Architecture and Engineering Fees 

Total, Medical Center Campus 



Approved 


Approved 


BOT 


IBHE 


10/15/75 


1/6/76 


$ 417,800 


$ 1,065,200 


827,200 


-0- 


900,000 


900,000 


666,900 


-0- 


625,000 


-0- 


270,000 


-0- 


450,000 


-0- 


220,000 


-0- 


150,000 


150,000 


( 4,526,900) 


( 2,115,200) 


-0- 


-0- 


100,000 


-0- 


82,000 


-0- 


-0- 


120,000 


( 182,000) 


( 120,000) 


1,301,319 


926,242 


( 25,000) 


-0- 


( 30,319) 


-0- 


( 175,000) 


( 175,000) 


( 100,000) 


( 100,000) 


{ 100,000) 


-0- 


( 125,000) 


( 125,000) 


( 150,000) 


( 150,000) 


( 101,000) 


( 101,000) 


( 140,000) 


-0- 


( 100,000) 


-0- 


( 50,000) 


( 55,319) 


( 100,000) 


-0- 


{ 30,000) 


-0- 


( 75,000) 


-0- 


-0- 


( 100,000) 


-0- 


( 119,923) 


$10,227,319 


$ 7,228,342 



Urbana-Champaign Campus 

Buildings, Additions and/or Structures 

Vet Med Research Buildings 

Physics Research Lab Addition 

Ornamental Horticuhure Addition 

Library Sixth Stack Addition 

Nuclear Reactor Lab, Phase II 

Botany Greenhouse 

Subtotal 

Funds to Complete Bond Eligible Buildings 

Speech and Hearing Clinic 

Subtotal 

Land 

Life Sciences Teaching Lab 

Agricultural Replacement Land 

Subtotal 

Equipment 

Speech and Hearing Clinic 

College of Engineering 

English Building Renovation 

Animal Room Improvements 

Turner Hall Addition 

Subtotal 

UtiHties 

Central Supervisory Control 

Library Sixth Stack Addition 



Condensate Reli 
Nuclear Reacto 
Watermain ExK 



Pha 



Systei 



II. 
SE.. 



Botany Greenhouse 

Subtotal 

RemodeUng and Rehabilitation 

College of Engineering 

Enghsh Building Renovation... 
Morrill Hall Ventilation Plan.. 
Animal Room Improvements. . . 
Coble Hall Improvements 

Subtotal 

Site Improvements 

Tennis Court Improvements.... 

Peabody and Pennsylvania 

Landscape Impro\'ements 

Intramural Field Improvements. 

Subtotal 



366.400 


-0- 


119,800 


-0- 


29,700 


-0- 


3,978,900 


-0- 


1,955,600 


-0- 


1,342,800 


-0- 


7,793,200) 


-0- 


45,100 


45,100 


45,100) 


( 45,100) 


100,000 


-0- 


250,000 


-0- 


350,000) 


-0- 


187,000 


187,000 


25,000 


25,000 


25,000 


25,000 


20,000 


20,000 


400,000 


400,000 


657,000) 


( 657,000) 


300,000 


300,000 


70,000 


-0- 


155,000 


-0- 


194,500 


-0- 


25,500 


-0- 


352,500 


-0- 


1,097,500) 


( 300,000) 


275,000 


275,000 


285,000 


285,000 


35,000 


35,000 


279,000 


279,000 


275,000 


275,000 


1,149,000) 


( 1,149,000) 


161,500 


-0- 


274,000 


-0- 


75,000 


-0- 


36,000 


-0- 


546,500) 


-0- 



■ Project changed from Remodeling to Planni 
^ Project changed from RemodeUng to SR^ : 



g in negotiations with IBHE. 
negotiations with IBHE. 



TABLE 2 (Conlinuedl 



ApproLfd 
BOT 

Category and Project 10/15/75 

Planning 

Law Building Addition 126,000 

Engineering Librari' Stack Addition 50,900 

Vet Med Basic Science Phase 1 200,500 

Life Sciences Teaching Lab 141,8(K) 

.\uditorium Roof Replacement 55,000 

.\gricullural Engineering Bldg 156.600 

Subtotal ( 730,800) 

Cooperative Improvements 

Sanitary District Improvement 35,000 

Mathews Avenue Resurfacing 27,900 

Subtotal ( 62,900) 

Space Realignment, Remodeling, 

and Replacement 3,569,929 

GregorN- Hall Journalism — Remodeling ( 28,000) 

Gregor>- Hall Journalism — Equipment ( 60,000) 

Energy Conser\aiion Heat Control ( 150,000) 

.-Vrchitecture Building — Roof and Gutters ( 75,000) 

Morrill Hall — Masonry Repair ( 20,000) 

Freer Gtoi Remodeling ( 171,000) 

Library Fire Protection ( 88,000) 

Memorial Stadium — Remodeling ( 440,000) 

Lincoln Hall Remodeling ( 64,000) 

Natural History — Heating Sj-stcm Replace... ( 150,000) 

Exterior Painting { 135,000) 

Environmental Research Lab ( 70,000) 

Electrical Modernization ( 70.000) 

Building Safety Improvements ( 88,500) 

Building Safetv- Improvements ( 86,000) 

.Architecture Building — Flooring ( 15,000) 

Agronomy Seed House — Windows ( 40,000) 



Approred 
IBHE 
1/6/76 

126,000 

50.900 
200,500 

-0- 

55.000 

-O- 
432,400) 

-0- 
-0- 
-O- 

2,620.680 

28,000) 

60,000) 
150.000) 

75,000) 

-0- 
171,000) 

88,000) 

-O- 

64,000) 
150,000) 

-0- 

70,000) 

70,000) 

-0- 

-0- 

15,000) 

40,000) 



Apprortd 
BOT 

Category and Project 10/15/75 

Davenport Hall — Geography ( 93.000) 

Commerce Offices ( 28,000) 

Huff Gym Roof and Gutters ( 80,000) 

Geological Survey — Masonry ( 20,000) 

Natural History Building Sprinklers ( 95,000) 

David Kinley Hall — Room 114 Remodeling. . ( 95,000) 

David Kinley Hall — Room 114 Equipment..! 5,000) 

Airport Hangar Improvement ( 97,000) 

Architecture Building Heating System ( 150,000) 

Interior Painting ( 150,000) 

Steam Tunnel Improvement ( 50.000) 

Lincoln Hall Stair Enclosure ( 132,000) 

Lincoln Hall Elevator Replacement ( 70,000) 

Krannert Performing Arts ( 50,500) 

Mumford Hall Basement — Remodeling ( 74.800) 

Library Reference Room — Remodeling ( 25,000) 

Library Reference Room — Equipment ( 8.000) 

Library — Flooring Replacement ( 8.400) 

Coble Hall — Plumbing ( 7,000) 

Armory — Roof and Gutters ( 94.000) 

Physics Building Remodeling ( 40,000) 

East Chemistry — Masonry Repair ( 10,000) 

Gregory Hall Stair Enclosure ( 1 16.500) 

Interior Painting ( 129.929) 

Exterior Painting ( 112,300) 

Altgeld Hall ~ Elevator Replacement ( 72,000) 

Condensate Return System -0- 

Architecture and Engineering Fees -0- 

Total, Urbana-Champaign Campus $16,001,929 

UNIVERSITY TOTAL $37,168,361 



Approved 
IISHE 

1/6/76 

93,000) 

28,000) 

80,000) 

-0- 

95,000) 

95,000) 
5,000) 

67,000) 
150,000) 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 
( 70,000) 
( 56,500) 
( 74,800) 
( 25,000) 
( 8,000) 
( 8,400) 
( 7,000) 

{ 94,000) 

-0- 

-0- 
( 116,500) 

-0- 

-0- 
{ 72,000) 
( 155,000) 
( 339,480) 
$ 5,204,180 
$22,131,950 



UI Intercampiis Relations Topic of Concern 



President John E. Corbally sent the following letter 
to Vice President Eldon L. Johnson December 10, 1975, 
in regard to intercampus relations within the University 
of Illinois: 

Vice President Eldon L. Johnson : 

As a result of discussions which I ha\-e had with you and 
with others, I have developed a list of problems or concerns 
in the area of intercampus relations within the University of 
Illinois. As you and I have mentioned, these relations are 
crucial to the effectiveness of a multicampus university and 
can either be beneficial or injurious to the achievement of 
our purposes, depending upon the degree of skill with which 
they are managed. 

Without attempting to outline either the details of these 
areas of concern or the procedures through which they might 
be approached, I am hereby requesting that you and the Uni- 
versity Academic Council provide the leadership for exam- 
ining these areas and for developing reports which recommend 
how the University and the campus together can understand 
and deal with these areas. 

The topics of concern are as follows : 

1. Graduate Degree Programs: The University's clarification 
of its total graduate education role in Illinois higher educa- 
tion in view of the spirit of Master Plan, Phase IV, through 
reexamination and "recodification" of all its graduate pro- 
grams on the three campuses, with the derivative considera- 
tion of 

a. the intercampus imphcations; 

b. the relevant experience in other multicampus university 
systems; 

c. the probable curricular areas, if any, in which new grad- 
uate programs will or ought to be proposed in the next 



quinquennium as collaborative between campuses or 
Universitywide. 

2. Internal Evaluation: establishment or continuation of sys- 
tematic campus plans for periodic program evaluation (e.g., 
the existing COPE plan for the Urbana-Champaign cam- 
pus) and the dovetailing of these with the experimental 
Administrator Evaluation Project for maximum economy 
of time and effort. 

3. Library Resources: the immediate practicable means of im- 
proving library services to students and faculty by inter- 
library collaboration. 

4. Transfer of Students: the facilitation of intercampus rela- 
tionships among faculty and students which would be 
mutually advantageous to faculty members, students, and 
the University itself. While "transfer" matters are a part 
of this area of concern, other matters including intercam- 
pus use of faculty and support resources are equally im- 
portant. 

,5. Educational Services Off-Campus: those additional inter- 
campus relations, beyond the present statewide and inter- 
campus efforts, which will strengthen the campus capacities 
to extend their knowledge-based resources to appropriate 
off-campus needs, both individual and societal. 

It would be my hope that studies in these areas might 
produce reports and recommendations by mid-September 1976 
so that we can incorporate these results into campus and inter- 
campus planning and action as well as into long-range Uni- 
versity academic planning. I am most appreciative of the 
work which you and the Academic Council have undertaken 
to date and I thank you in advance for your willingness to add 
these items to your agenda. 

Sincerely, 

John E. Corbally 

President 



Vice President Johnson made the following response 
in his letter of Januaiy 5, 1976 : 

President John E. Corbally : 

In consultation with the University Academic Council, I 
have allocated responsibility for all the intercampus studies 
mentioned in your letter of December 10. When the results 
are available in September, I hope to incorporate them in a 
composite document dealing with intercampus academic re- 
lations generally. 

Considering the problem of intercampus relations, already 
dealt with, there are six areas of study, with assignments as 
follows : 

1. Research Relations. This research-related matter has al- 
ready been extensively considered by the University Aca- 
demic Council, which adopted on November 21 two policy 
and operational statements. [See statement below.] If addi- 
tional effort seems necessary in the light of experience, the 
UAC will proceed further. 

2. Graduate Degree Programs. This instruction-related mat- 
ter has been assigned to the University Council on Gradu- 
ate Education and Research, working closely with the 
graduate deans and their campus colleagues. 

3. Educational Services Off-Campus. This service-related mat- 
ter has been assigned to the University Council on Public 
Service, which has a series of related studies and reports 
now before it. 

4. Internal Evaluation. My own Office of Academic Affairs 
will retain responsibility for this task, which has two key 
parts. First, the office will encourage and review the estab- 
lishment and operation on each campus of a prescribed 
system of academic-program evaluation, recognizing that 
campus systems may be quite different, that the Urbana- 
Champaign campus has a comprehensive formal system 
now, and that the other campuses have much more in- 
formal methods which, by already-expressed intention, 
ought to be made more systematic. Second, this task will 
involve coordination of the campus systems with the Uni- 
versitywide Administrator Evaluation Project \vhich is 
now proceeding experimentally with Trustee authorization, 
to provide integration rather than duplication and to mini- 
mize time demands on all participants. 

5. Library Services. I had already talked to Chairperson Irwin 
Pizer about this assignment for the University Council on 
Libraries and have now made it a formal request. The 
several existing reports and memoranda bearing on the 
need for improved intercampus library services will be 
utilized. 

6. Intercampus Services to Students and Faculty. We are 
using this broader rubric implied in your description under 
"Transfer of Students," because more than transfers and 
more than students are involved, plus the fact that study 
of the student-transfer problem is already well advanced. 
This assignment has been made to Director Eugene E. 
Oliver, to capitalize on his past and present involvement. 
He will use, at his discretion, existing or ad hoc commit- 
tees or task forces. 

I share your hope and confidence that these combined 
efforts will have a self-educative effect on those of us in- 
volved and will yield results beneficial both in management 
and academic planning. 

Sincerely yours, 
Eldon L. Joluison 
Vice President 



STATEMENT ON INTERCAMPUS RELATIONS ADOPTED 
BY THE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 
27, 7975 

Intercampus relations are an important part of the or- 
ganization and effectiveness of a multicampus university. Ob- 
viously, the quality of these relations can be either beneficial 
and supportive or debilitating and injurious to the University 
as a whole. 

In a multicampus university it is inevitable that pursuit 
of a campus interest may have an unanticipated or unex- 
amined impact on the interests of another campus. The Uni- 
versity of Illinois has experienced this problem at certain 
growth points, particularly in those research initiatives which 
are significant enough to require organizational embodiment. 

In assessing the problem and its possible amelioration, the 
University Academic Council has sought to strike a balance 
between encouragement of research initiatives and the har- 
monization of intercampus interests. For that purpose, the 
Council has adopted two systems of facilitation, an Early 
Notification System and an Encouragement System, as 
follows : 



EARLY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM 

1. Each campus officer holding membership on the University 
Academic Council will undertake to alert the council 
chairperson (the vice president for academic affairs) at the 
outset of all initiatives for the establishment of a campus 
unit which must go before the Board of Higher Education, 
the Board of Trustees, or the Executive Committee of the 
Graduate College and is to be called an "office," "center," 
"institute," or equivalent. By "outset" is meant as early 
as possible in the formulation of plans for such a unit, in- 
cluding the preparatory stages of a grant or contract pro- 
posal which would include the establishment of such an 
organizational unit. 

2. The vice president for academic affairs will inform/consult 
others as need be or involve others having sufficient stake 
(e.g., the University Council on Graduate Education and 
Research ) . 

3. The objective is the establishment of a continuing, well- 
known, and well-accepted intercampus forum for careful 
exploration and debate and the reaching of either agree- 
ment or full understanding of the bases of disagreement. 



ENCOURAGEMENT SYSTEM 

To encourage scholarship through shared intercampus 
awareness, the University Academic Council collectively, and ^^k 
its campus-based members individually, utilizing a central fi- ^0 
nancial pool, will take responsibility for: 

1. Two experimental intercampus workshops, one disciplinary ^^ 
and one problem-oriented, in each of the next two years ^H 
(1975-76 and 1976-77), emphasizing current and proposed 
research, plus promising new efforts, with heavy faculty 
consultation and participation. 

2. The systematic fostering of other intercampus professional, 
research-level activities, including occasional joint project 
planning, to supplement the campus-based activities which 
are recognized as central and preponderant. 



a 



■CO 



i, 



Estela Refdovajncev 
220 S Llbraryl 
/serials Dept 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 261, April 15, 1976 



Statement on Fiscal Year 1977 Budgets 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES MARCH 17, 1976 



The Ubrary of the 
at Orbana- Champaign 



On March 3, 1976, in his annual budget message 
Governor \Valker recommended total appropriations of 
$817,559,200 for higher education for fiscal year 1977. 
This recommendation for FY 1977 operating funds refj- 
resents increases of $43,352,300 in total resources and 
$40,108,200 in general revenue funds for FY 1977 over 
FY 1976 for all of higher education. The increases rec- 
ommended in the governor's budget message contrast 
with the Illinois Board of Higher Education recommen- 
dations of increases of $90,447,400 (with tuition in- 
creases) and of $85,556,300 in general revenue funds. 

The impact of potential reductions to the Univer- 
sit)''s budget request in terms of this budget message is 
major. The budget increment for FY 1977 of $26,780,- 
400* appro\ed by the Board of Trustees was described 
as a ". . . set of items and programs which are needed to 
continue the scope and mission of the University of 
Illinois — tempered by the awareness of restricted re- 
sources." Yet, significant reductions to the University's 
request beyond IBHE recommendations may take place 
in the state's legislative and executive budgetary decision- 
making process. 

In view of the numerous budget-related uncertainties 
facing the University for the next few months, a set of 
decisions must be made now, based on the governor's 
budget message, to allow the internal campus budget 
process to continue. These decisions should not be con- 
strued as the final set of recommendations, which I will 
bring to you in September, but rather should be treated 
as the minimum maintenance continuation elements to 
which we must commit now. 

TTie following budget allocations for FY 1977 are 
necessary merely to continue the operations of the Uni- 
versity : 
I. Salaries— 2.5% ($6,218,200). First priority will be 
given to the annualization of salary increases which 

•Adjusted by inclusion in FY 1976 base of Chicago Public 
Health Hospitals and Clinics — $2,495,900. 



were granted in FY 1976 ($2,238,600) . The remain- 
ing funds ($3,979,600) will be sufficient to provide 
periodic and superior performance increases to open- 
range nonacademic personnel and to grant an aver- 
age 2.5% merit increase to all other employees. 
II. General Price Increases — 7% ($2,239,300). Con- 
sistent with the original philosophy of the University 
and reinforced by the recommendations of the 
IBHE, the loss of purchasing power for e.xpense and 
equipment items cannot be allowed to continue. 

III. Utility Price Increases — 15% ($1,770,600). Cur- 
rent trend data indicate that the 15% increase may 
be reasonable. Obviously, if utility prices were to 
increase beyond these estimates, funds to pay for 
the additional costs would have to be reallocated 
from other expense items. 

IV. O&M for New Buildings — the IBHE has recom- 
mended $836,300 or $1.40 per gross square foot 
(GSF). This allocation is below the University's 
estimated needs of $1,695,500 or $2.60 per GSF. 

The following comparisons illustrate the continuing 
decline in our potential resources for FY 1977, and the 
attached letter [below] to Mr. Furman summarizes my 
current posture related to this decline. 

Obviously, there is no certainty concerning the rec- 
ommendations which the Board of Higher Education will 
make related to the allocation of the amounts recom- 
mended by Governor Walker. It is clear that the IBHE 
staff stands firmly in support of its original recom- 
mendations as the amounts necessary to maintain the 
system of higher education in Illinois. Our appropriations 
bill will be introduced in terms of those original recom- 
mendations and this action has full IBHE staff support. 
We shall continue to work on behalf of those recommen- 
dations and shall keep the members of the Board of 
Trustees informed regularly concerning both legislative 
and executive actions related to the support of higher 
education in Illinois. 



Comparison of FY77 BOT Request 
and IBHE Recommendations 

Approved Recommended 

by BOT by IBHE 

Salary Increases $14,035.4 $13,060.6 

General and Utility 

Price Increases 4,427.3 4,259.9 

O&M for New Buildings.. 1,695.5 836.3 

Continuing Education .... 1,640.0 -0- 

Extended Day 1,650.0 800.0 

Health Professions 1,809.7* 1,200.0 

DSCC 300.0 150.0 

PTI 343.0 83.0 

Willard — Commercial... 237.1 — 

Cooperative Extension . . . 183.0 15.0 

County Board Matching. . 178.5 178.5 

Vet. Diagnostic Lab 280.9 Removed bv 

U of I** ' 

SR^ — UC — 650.0 

Total $26,780.4* $21,233.3 

* Adjusted by inclusion in FY76 base of Chicago Public Health 
Hospital and CHnics ($2,495.9)_. 

** Vet. Diagnostic Laboratory is to be funded in Department of 
Agriculture budget at $261,600. This is same as FY76. 



Commitment Plan for FY 1977 Allocations 

MINIMUM MAINTENANCE CONTINUATION ELEMENTS 

Salary Increases ($6,218.2) 

Annualization $2,238.6 

2.5% Increase 3,979.6 

General Price Increases 2,239.3 

Utility Price Increases 1,770.6 

O&M New Buildings 836.3 

Subtotal $11,064.4 

BALANCE OF MINIMUM NEEDS 

Salary Increases (4.5%) $6,842.4 

Health Professions 1,200.0 

Extended Day 800.0 

SR^ 650.0 

Equipment 250.0 

DSCC 150.0 

PTI 83.0 

Coop. Extension 15.0 

County Board Matching 178.5 

Subtotal $10,168.9 

Total New Resources 

(Legislative Bill) $21,233.3 



Evolution of Major Features of the FY77 
Budget Request 



Approved 
by BOT 
Salary Increases. . 7.5% 

General Price 

Increases 7.0% 

Utility Price 

Increases 20.0% 

O&M for New 

Buildings $2.60/GSF 

Extended Day . . . 1200 new 
students 
Health Professions 

Expansion .... 125 new 
students 
Continuing 

Education .... 21 new and 
expanded 
programs 
New individ- 
uals served 
Percent of 

FY76Base .... 11.38 





Absolute 




Minimum 




within 


Recom- 


Governor's 


mended 


Budget 


by IBHE 


Message 


7.0% 


2.5% 


7.0% 


7.0% 


15.0% 


15.0% 


$1.40/GSF 


$1.40/GSF 


600 new 




students 


-0- 


125 new 




students 


-0- 



-0- 



-0- 



9.02 



-0- 



-0- 



4.70 



LETTER TO JAMES M. FURMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS 
BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DATED MARCH 11, 1976 

In response to your request during the last System Heads 
meeting (March 5), the following represents my current think- 
ing about FY 1977 budgets after brief consultation with mem- 
bers of the administration, but without review by the Board of 
Trustees of the University. 

First, we continue to believe that the existing IBHE rec- 
ommendations (including the amount represented by a tuition 
increase shifted to GRF) represent the absolute minimum to 
continue the programs of the University and to give equitable 
salary increases. To that end we anticipate introducing our 
FY 1977 operating appropriations bill at that level • — approxi- 
mately $21.0 million in additional funds. I believe it is neces- 
sary to strive for this amount through all the processes avail- 
able in the General Assembly and with the Governor. 

We recognize that at this time the funds recommended for 
higher education by the Governor would provide far less than 
the amount recommended by IBHE. We also recognize the 
requirement that the IBHE give advice about allocations of 
these lesser amounts. Our position at this time about the allo- 
cation of lesser amounts is as follows. 

Our first priority continues to be the salary increases re- 
quired to maintain a quality faculty and a quality work force. 
We have now lagged behind e\en the "cost of living" for two 
years. Our faculty salaries are not in the top 50 universities in 
the country (AAUP comparisons), and our nonacademic pay 
scales are becoming so uncompetitive that we cannot recruit 
to provide essential services. However, almost of equal con- 
cern and of equal importance are the general areas of ma- 
terials, supplies, utilities, and the costs of opening new facili- 
ties. Because these nonpersonal resource items have become 
critical and because the financial limitations that we may have 
to sustain may be insurmountable, we have conceptualized the 
salary increases into two components. First is an absolute mini- 
mum of 2.5 percent (after annualization of the 7 percent in- 



creases granted in September for July and August 1976). This 
amount provides only enough funds to maintain the "pay 
plan" for nonacademic employees and to provide a token in- 
crease for faculty. A second component of 4.5 percent is to 
adjust the "ranges" for market movement for the nonacademic 
and to provide a "purchasing power maintenance program" 
for the faculty. 

Therefore, our first set of minimum maintenance continu- 
ation elements consists of: 

1. Salar>' Increases (2.5% -f annualization) $ 6,218,200 

2. Price Increases 2,239,300 

3. Utility Increases 1,770,600 

4. Opening new facilities 836,300 

Subtotal $11,064,400 

The balance of our minimum needs consists of: 

1. Additional Salary Increases (4.5%) $ 6,842,400 

2. Health Related Expansion 1,200,000 

3. SR3 and Equipment — Urbana 900,000 

4. Extended Day 800,000 

5. Other 426,500 

Subtotal $10,168,900 

Total $21,233,300 



These items are all significant, important, worthwhile, and 
necessary, but the first set must be guaranteed. We are not 
prepared to develop an infinite list of incremental budgets 
based upon "what if" questions of small amounts between the 
$11.1 and the $21.2 million. Our response would be different 
based on the magnitude of "what if." Clearly we must achieve 
some movement beyond the first 2.5 percent for salaries — but 
just as clearly we need to fund the health fields expansion al- 
ready under way. We will not be prepared to finalize our inter- 
nal recommendations to our Board of Trustees, beyond the first- 
set level of $11.1 million as shown, until we know finally the 
outcome of the legislative and executive review and action pro- 
cesses. It is, however, our considered opinion that since $11.1 
million represents a 4.7 percent increase on our appropriated 
funds base as compared to the Governor's recommendation of 
about 5.6 percent additional funds for higher education, there 
should be no circumstance under which the IBHE recommen- 
dation related to the reduced budget would be less than the 
$11.1 million for the University of Illinois. 

Sincerely, 

John E. Corbally 

President 



Policy on International Activities 

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT ITS MEETING MARCH 17, 1976 



During the past several years, some problems have 
arisen in the international activities of universities — oc- 
casioned by staffing criteria not in keeping with universit)' 
standards being imposed by foreign governments. Al- 
though the University of Illinois has not experienced such 
problems directly, it seems appropriate to forestall their 
occurrence by adopting a policy position which makes 
the University's standards and obligations clear. The fol- 
lo%ving statement has been adopted as policy of the Uni- 
versit)- of Illinois. 

I. Preamble 

The growing interdependencies among the world's peoples and 
institutions increase the need for identifying appropriate pro- 
cesses to enable groups with different heritages, cultures, 
values, and styles of behavior to ^vork effectively together to 
solve mutual problems, to leam from each other, and to join 
in cooperative programs. 

The University of Illinois, as one of the world's major 
imiversiues, attaches high priority to encouraging its staff to 
participate in international activities generally recognized by 
academic institutions as beneficial to the teaching, research, 
and public service needs within the state and throughout the 
world. 

A key element in the process of enabling the University 
of Illinois to make its contribution to our international needs 
is to recognize and develop ways of meeting the special respon- 
sibilities required for cooperation with scholars and institutions 
throughout the world. One responsibility is our obligation not 
to impose our political, social, or other values on others 
abroad. At the same time we expect others not to impose their 
values on us. Accordingly, a second responsibility is to reject 
requests or agreements which commit the University of Illinois 
to actions that conflict with our fundamental values. A third 
responsibility is to take adequate steps to insure the high aca- 



demic quality of specific activities and to avoid nonacademic 
tests for programs and participating program personnel. 

To satisfy these responsibilities, in the operation of agreed- 
upon joint programs the University of Illinois will propose for 
participation in such programs only those individuals who 
possess special competence and qualifications for the tasks. 
Likewise, it expects that the criteria of competence and qual- 
ifications will be employed by other groups when evaluating 
University of Illinois personnel for participation in a project. 
Adherence to these criteria implies that neither the University 
of Illinois nor any cooperating institution will discriminate 
against University of Illinois project personnel because of race, 
color, religion, sex, or ethnic origin, nor will political tests be 
applied. 

II. Statement of Policy 

In entering into collaborative arrangements (agreements, con- 
tracts, or other such arrangements) with foreign countries or 
institutions, international agencies, or their representatives, and 
in negotiating for grants from such countries or organizations, 
the University of Illinois, its constituent units, and those act- 
ing on its behalf should not knowingly enter into any agree- 
ment which contravenes any of the following principles : 

1. The particular program, project, or other undertaking 
should be judged by appropriate officers and staff members 
of the University who are most directly concerned to have 
academic merit and to contribute to the established pur- 
poses of the University.! 

2. Nothing in the contract, letter of agreement, or other docu- 
ment, or in understandings not committed to print, may be 
(a) in violation of the pertinent state or federal laws re- 
garding discrimination, use of human subjects, or other 
relevant issues, or (b) contrary to the generally prevailing 

' Under current practices, this is accomplished by the proposal 
approval process. 



ethics of the disciplines or professions involved, or those 
principles of conduct generally shared by members of aca- 
demic institutions.' 
III. Remedy When Integrity of Activities Is Challenged 
If a formal allegation is made by an aggrieved party that the 
University of Illinois has engaged in illegal or unprofessional 
conduct or has contravened the above principles either by (a) 
entering into a particular collaborative relationship with a 

' Under current practices, this is accomplished by the proposal 
approval process. 



foreign country, a foreign institution, an international agency, 
or their representatives, or (b) the conduct of any collabora- 
tive activity, project, or program, then such allegation will be 
reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Chan- 
cellor. If the review sustains the allegation, the Committee 
shall advise the Chancellor to recommend to the President 
appropriate remedial steps, including suspension of work, re- 
fusal to renew or extend the contract, or outright termination 
imless the University obtains assurances from the other con- 
tracting party that such practices will not occur in the future. 



Graduate Work of Academic Staff Members 



REVISION TO STATUTES APPROVED BY BOARD AT MARCH 1 7 MEETING 



On July 17, 1974, the Board approved provisionally 
an amendment to the University Statutes to permit a 
professorial staff member to pursue an advanced degree 
in a department on another campus of the University. 

The revision of Article IX, Section 7, of the Statutes 
is as follows (new language is italicized; deletions are in 
parentheses) : 

No person shall be admitted to candidacy for an advanced 
degree (who) on a campus of the University if he holds an 
appointment as professor, associate professor, or assistant pro- 
fessor in any department or division of tliat campus of the 



University. Any person engaged in graduate study who accepts 
an appointment with the rank of assistant professor or higher 
at a campus of the University will be dropped as a degree can- 
didate at (this) that campus of the University. 

The revision was approved by the Senates of the three 
campuses and by the University Senates Conference. The 
Chancellors at the three campuses and the Vice President 
for Academic Afifairs concurred in the proposal and the 
Trustees gave final approval to the amendment at the 
March 1 7 meeting. 



Changes in Nonacademic Employee Holidays 

REVISION OF POLICY AND RULES NONACADEMIC APPROVED BY BOARD 



Policy and Rules — Nonacademic has been revised 
to conform with House Bill 3093 efTective July 1, 1976, 
which amends "An Act to create the University Civil 
Service System of Illinois and to define its powers and 
duties." 

The new policy recognizes eleven holidays for non- 
academic employees and specifies that, to the extent fea- 



sible, University facilities will be closed on those holidays. 
Previously, only nine holidays were recognized. 

Eligible employees will be excused with full pay, ex- 
cept for necessary operations, on New Year's Day, Me- 
morial Day as determined by state law, Independence 
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and 
five other holidays designated by the president. 



i^^^r 



220a Library 
3 copies) 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



That Vital Margin of Greatness 

ANNUAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLV TO CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS 



No. 262, May 10, 1976 

The Library of the 

JUL 1 3 1976 

University of mnois 
at Urbana-Champafgn 



This is my fifth annual report to you, Illinois citizens, 
on behalf of your University of Illinois. I cannot over- 
emphasize the fact that it is your University — a great, 
public university- which serves you every day. 

You benefit even- day from your University of Illinois 
and the cost is only $20 per year per person. In an age 
of high prices and often inferior products, we are perhaps 
the greatest bargain you have. 

You may not think about it, but the University of 
Illinois and its faculty-, staff, and students play an impor- 
tant role in your daily lives. Our work at the University 
has afTected the food you eat and the clothes you wear; 
it has afTected the buses you ride and the cars you drive. 

The University- of Illinois has probably played a role 
in developing the health seivices you take for granted for 
yourself, your family, and even your pets. 

Your schools, and your libraries, the power plant 
which provides you \\ith energ)', and the roads you 
travel on - — all these aspects of your lives have benefited 
from efforts at the University of Illinois. 

And w-e are working as hard as we can to insure that 
your support of the University' of Illinois remains among 
the best investments you can make in a period of insta- 
bilitv' and of inflation. 

Of course, there are many public universities — 552, 
in fact, in the United States — and most of them are 
good and solid and useful. What makes a public univer- 
sity good? Ideas, faculty, staff, students, facilities. These 
products cost money. And where does the money come 
from? Primarily from state legislatures, counties, or cities. 
And, since no government really has money or earns 
money, it really comes from the people; not just tax- 
payers, but citizens who give us their support in many 
ways as individuals. 

The people of Illinois have built a university with 
more than 60,000 students on three campuses at Urbana- 
Champaign, Chicago Circle, and the Medical Center in 
Chicago. The people have invested more than $680 mil- 
lion in our physical plant over the past 108 years, and it 
would cost many, many times that to replace these struc- 
tures todav. 



And the people of Illinois have built a university 
which has attracted some of the finest minds in the nation 
to the heartland of our country. More than 2,500 of our 
faculty members hold doctoral degrees — and that is 
more than any other .\merican university save one. 

From my vantage point, I can observe many concrete 
examples of evidence that the University of Illinois does, 
indeed, possess greatness. 

• There are such things as the recorded judgments of 
scholars and professionals. 

• There are the rankings the University of Illinois re- 
ceives from academic and professional associations. 

• There are the many, many honors which our faculty 
and staff and students receive, and the many state, na- 
tional, and international offices to which they are elected 
by their colleagues. 

• There are the pressures from prospective students who 
wish to enroll in our programs, at every level and on each 
campus — students not only from the state of Illinois, 
but prospective students, literally, from throughout the 
world. 

• And certainly as I travel around this state and this 
country and occasionally outside this country, the great- 
ness of this University is shown throughout the world by 
the accomplishments of the graduates of this institution. 

So that is why I am persuaded and why I can say 
with comfort that by any measure the University of 
Illinois has achieved a stature enjoyed by very few aca- 
demic institutions in the world. 

But it has been increasingly difficult, in some ways 
seemingly impossible, to maintain our stature. That vital 
margin of greatness which we have always prized be- 
comes increasingly difficult to maintain. We have de- 
clining support of research at the federal level in terms 
of net dollars. The federal government appears to have 
adopted the plan that the old joke describes for the 
small grocerjman. He was losing a nickel on every can 
of peas he sold, so he decided to make up for the losses 
by selling more peas. We seem to lose a little bit of 



money on each student, so the federal government is 
making it possible for us to have an increased volume of 
students. 

We are losing general support at the state level. Cer- 
tainly we are receiving more dollars from the state, but 
in terms of real dollars — dollars uninfluenced by infla- 
tion — and in terms of dollars as they relate to such 
fixed problems as energy, our ability to support our edu- 
cational and our general and research programs is declin- 
ing. As a people we seem to be more willing to support 
cures — prisons, public aid, mental health, law enforce- 
ment ■ — than we are to support the greatest preventive 
mechanism of all — public education. As we allocate 
our public funds — your tax dollars and mine — we dis- 
tribute funds by formula to all manner of public services 
and we distribute what is left to education. We demand 
more and better public ser\'ices and we insist that we not 
pay the price in support of these demands. 

While I receive letters from many people indicating 
that they believe the University is receiving too much 
money, I receive even more letters from students, from 
parents, from grandparents, who report to me that they 
are upset that their youngsters needed to get into certain 
courses and found these courses closed; that they at- 
tempted to get into the library and look at various kinds 
of volumes, and they discovered that we were way be- 
hind in cataloging and shelving — or a host of other 
complaints. Many complaints, incidentally, come from 
the same people who indicate that we are receiving too 
much money — people who wonder why we don't do 
something to try to save money. 

Each of those complaints relates to the hard and real 
fact that we have cut staff in almost every area of this 
University. We have fewer classes, we have larger classes, 
we have fewer counselors, we have fewer policemen, we 
have fewer people to catalog and shelve library books, 
we have fewer people to keep our buildings clean and 
in good repair and to mow our lawns and paint our 
buildings. We simply have less ability to maintain the 
kind of quality which we all expect. 

So, what we need to maintain our vital margin of 
greatness is money. We are in jeopardy of losing our 
greatness not because of a lack of talented, caring per- 
sonnel, but because of a simple lack of funds. 

What are our options? We have a certain income 
from tuition and student fees. But this income is far 
below the actual cost of putting the student in a chair 
and putting a qualified faculty member in front of him, 
of heating the building and making sure the library has 
the books he needs and the laboratories have the test 
tubes and microscopes. But even at these bargain rates, an 
education is expensive, and we must try to avoid pricing 
a public education out of the reach of many citizens. We 
have tax resources from the state which meet about 50 
percent of our needs. We have a certain small income 
from federal appropriations. Our auxiliary enterprises, 
such as the Assembly Hall, the Illini Union, the dormi- 
tories, and so forth, bring in as income just about what 



is necessary in order for them to offer the services which 
they provide. 

But we do not content ourselves with simply sitting 
back and waiting for tax or tuition funds to flow our 
way. We believe in the University of Illinois, and our 
faculty and staff and many of you work hard to attract 
private support for University programs. We depend 
heavily upon our friends to provide us, not with frills, 
but with the support to create our margin of greatness 
— those funds which outstanding personnel can turn 
into outstanding projects. It takes money to bring ideas 
to life, and the key is extra funds. Private gifts, bequests, 
research grants — these funds make possible the pro- 
grams and services that contribute to our vital margin 
of greatness. 

At our Chicago Circle campus, which celebrated its 
tenth birthday in 1975, we serve some 20,000 students in 
an urban setting. This campus came into being because 
the University recognized the need to bring quality 
higher education to one of the nation's greatest metro- 
politan areas. In bringing the University to the city, the 
University of Illinois has not limited its purpose to the 
geographic boundaries of the Chicago Circle campus. 
The campus is only the nucleus of the University in the 
city. Reaching out from the campus, the University 
meets with and interacts with the city and with its peo- 
ple through educational resource centers in the commu- 
nities, counseling, tutoring, summer programs for ele- 
mentary and high school students, and the community 
recreation program. And, on the campus, a trust to serve 
the people and the state has led us to develop innovative 
programs related to the people and their heritage, as 
well as programs related to the people and their govern- 
ment. We have the Native American Studies Program, 
the Black Studies Program, the Latin American Studies 
Program, the College of Urban Sciences with its master's 
program in urban policy and planning, and numerous 
internship programs in education, social work, political 
science, architecture, and business administration. 

These kinds of programs have broadened the con- 
cept of the comprehensive university beyond its tradi- 
tional definition. They cost as much as the traditional 
programs because they are of tlie same high quality as 
all of the University's programs. And they are as impor- 
tant as the traditional programs. Many have been fully 
or partially funded from various sources outside the 
University. But there is less and less money forthcoming 
from granting agencies, including the federal govern- 
ment, to support programs such as these. The University 
of Illinois needs these programs to maintain its margin 
of greatness. 

The importance of private gifts and bequests to the 
Urbana-Champaign campus can be graphically illus- 
trated. The campus looks one way today, but it would 
look quite different if there had been no gifts or be- 
quests. A few examples of facilities we simply would not 
have if we were forced to depend solely upon tax funds 
for our income: the Krannert Center for the Performing 



Arts, a unique cultural facilit\- which adds distinction to 
teaching in drama, in music, in the arts, made possible 
by a gift of $13 million from Herman and Ellnora Kran- 
nert; the Krannert Art Museum, also made possible by 
a large gift from the Krnnnerts : Burnsides Laboratoiy, 
devoted to research in diet and in geriatrics, made pos- 
sible by a $250,000 contribution from Miss Ethel Bum- 
sides: Smith Memorial Hall, a gift to the University 
from Captain Thomas J. Smith as a memorial to his 
wife, Tina; Allerton Park and Allerton House, with its 
incomparable formal gardens and with 1,700 acres of 
forest and park land ; and, of course, the Assembly Hall, 
Memorial Stadium, and the Illini Union. 

So you can see that much of our physical plant was 
a direct result of outside support. But it is also true that 
many of the works of art and artifacts in our museums, 
many of the books in our librar\', and even the bells in 
the tower of Altgeld Hall are gifts to the University 
from its friends. These things are so much a part of the 
University of Illinois, but they would have been beyond 
our means if we had not had extra support. 

Nontax funds are also extremely important to the 
Medical Center campus. The U.S. Public Health Service 
alone granted nearly $8.5 million for research and equip- 
ment at the campus in 1975. The campus depends on 
funds from the .American Cancer Society, the Muscular 
Dystrophy Association, the Heart and Lung associations, 
service groups such as Kiwanis and the Lions, to provide 
it with funds for research ; and of course, these organiza- 
tions also are dependent upon the University for the 
execution of this research. 

One alumnus. Dr. Sol Maizus, class of 1922, left a 
bequest of $372,000 to the College of Medicine for the 
establishment of a scholarship fund, and another alum- 
nus. Dr. Benjamin Goldberg of the class of 1916, made 
f)ossible construction of the $2.7 million Benjamin Gold- 
berg Research Center which will be devoted to biomedi- 
cal research, including some cooperative programs with 
Chicago Circle. 

These grants and many others like them are what we 
call restricted in nature — they are designed to fill spe- 
cific needs, and we depend upon them to allow our 
research and development to go forward. Sometimes, 
however, our most pressing needs are not directly sup- 
ported by the granting agencies. In those cases, we must 
depend upon unrestricted gifts to help us maintain our 
margin of greatness. When we receive an unrestricted 
gift, we are free to decide how it can best be used to 
maintain or improve the quality of an education at the 
University of Illinois. 

The University of Illinois Library is the nation's 
largest public university library and fifth largest librarv' 
of any kind. Only the Library of Congress, the New York 
Public Library', and the libraries of Harvard and Yale 
are more extensive. Seldom does the day go by when 
some individual or group of individuals from some part 
of this countn- or from some part of the world fails to 
arrive on one of our campuses to make use of the col- 



lections in our libraries. .\nd these facilities are available 
each and every day, to our students, to our faculty, and 
to our staff. But the collections and their usefulness are 
in trouble because of the deadly combination of rising 
costs and decreasing support. Our libraries lack the funds 
to get ahead and are struggling hard just to keep up. 

In 1975, no state funds were allocated directly to 
research titles for the main library at Urbana-Cham- 
paign. We had to make massive cancellations of periodi- 
cals, particularly foreign periodicals. This decision is an 
extremely difficult one for a library whose importance 
rests on its large research collections. The deficiencies 
sufTered in the research areas over the last four years 
can never be rectified without special money above and 
beyond the regular budget. 

In areas such as this, unrestricted gifts can be life- 
savers. The Joyce Foundation of Chicago made an un- 
restricted gift of $200,000 to the University of Illinois 
in December. Every penny was allocated to our libraries, 
to try to repair some of the damage which has been suf- 
fered during recent years. 

It is not just the large bequests from friends and 
alumni or the massive funding of research from federal 
agencies which keep the University going and which 
enable it to pursue the goal of continued greatness. 

As I have said, many of those who make contribu- 
tions to the University have rather firm ideas on how 
they wish their contributions to be used. Of course, we 
honor such wishes. But those who make unrestricted 
contributions permit us to make decisions about the way 
funds can be used to contribute to our mission of service 
and to the cause of greatness. Those who make such un- 
restricted contributions are aware that each and e\ery 
decision about the use of the funds that they have given 
to us will not be precisely the decision they would have 
made. But a few dollars of discretionaiy funds frequently 
can make that elusive margin of greatness more acces- 
sible to us. 

Let me give you just one example of what the avail- 
ability of just $75 in discretionary funds has meant to 
the University and to the world. In 1925, Professor W. C. 
Rose v/as given $75 to support his research on a project 
which was then "way out" — he was examining the nu- 
tritive value of two amino acids of the protein molecule. 
From that initial work in a new, uncharted area, Rose 
developed a program of research that involved a number 
of his doctoral students, including three who went on to 
win Nobel Prizes. That initial research project, the one 
that cost $75, has proven to be basic to the developments 
in plant genetics which, according to the dean of our 
graduate school, give us a chance to successfully cope 
with the hunger problems of the world. All of that began 
with $75. 

From our beginning in 1867, when we had seventy- 
seven students, one building, and an annual budget of 
$36,000, until 1935, private giving to the University 
totalled about $3 million. Some of the bequests in the 
early years included a prize bull and a lot of trees and 



shrubs. The first recorded cash gift, back in 1895, was 
$100. But let us take a look at our more recent history. 
From 1935 to 1955, private gifts totalled about $15 mil- 
lion, and from 1955 to 1975, such gifts totalled $111 
million. 

In 1955, the state gave us $34 million; for fiscal year 
year 1976 $219 million were appropriated. Student fees 
in 1955 brought in $2 million; the amount is up to $28 
million this year. Income from research grants and other 
sources was about $8 million twenty years ago, and totals 
$100 million this year. And private gifts, grants, and 
contracts, at the $2 million level in 1955, rose to $11.5 
million this year. So our income from these sources rose 
considerably during this period. 

However, during those same twenty years, the cost 
of living more than doubled, as measured either by the 
consumer price index, which rose from 80.2 to 161.5, or 
by the implicit price deflater of the gross national prod- 
uct, which went from 90.86 to 185. 

So in 1976 we would have needed more than twice 
as much money as we had in 1955 simply to maintain 
the status quo. 

But, in fact, we did not maintain the status quo. Our 
enrollment rose from 24,036 in tlie first semester of 1955- 
56 to 60,347 in the first semester of 1975-76 — an in- 
crease of more than 250 percent. Our physical plant 
investment grew from $128 million in 1955 to $685 mil- 
lion in 1975. 

The "information explosion" gave rise to greater and 
greater volumes of knowledge to fill our libraries, and 
sophisticated new equipment like computers became es- 
sential to our teaching, to our research, and to the 
efficient management of our institution. 

In 1955, there was one home-made computer on 
campus — ILLIAC I. It was a phenomenon in its time, 
as very few institutions even had computers. It cost us 
about a quarter of a million dollare to build, and $50,000 
to $100,000 per year to run. Today, major universities 
need to budget in the millions of dollars per year for 
computers. 

These figures and cost factors do not include the 
salaries paid the people of the University of Illinois. 
Our faculty and our staff consist of dedicated men and 



women, people who work hard and people of great abil- 
ity. When someone casually suggests that we trim more 
''fat" from our budget after four years of trimming, he 
or she is really suggesting that we get rid of people or 
that we permit the salaries of our people to lose more 
and more ground to inflation and to salaries paid com- 
parable people elsewhere. If we are to save real amounts 
of money in the years ahead, we must cut our services; 
we must reduce our enrollments — close our doors to 
even more qualified young men and women than is now 
necessary; we must reduce our public service efforts and 
stop making our resources available to you in your home 
or on your farm; and we must cut back on our research 
efforts and leave to others — if they are available — the 
search for solutions to problems in our communities, our 
schools, our businesses. We can trim our budget, but 
what a horrible alternative for a state such as ours which 
rightfully is proud of its leadership role in our nation. 

The time has come for you to speak out on behalf of 
the quality of Illinois — a quality which has in many 
ways been demonstrated to the world by the University 
of Illinois. We are told by some that the people of Illinois 
no longer wish to support quality; that the support of 
one of the truly great universities in the world is too ex- 
pensive for the people of Illinois; that the people do not 
care if the University of Illinois slips from greatness to 
mediocrity. I do not believe that to be true and I know 
that most of you do not believe it to be tnie. For the vital 
margin of greatness which characterizes your University 
of Illinois also characterizes the people of Illinois. You 
are our greatest resource and in this bicentennial year 
of a nation founded in part upon a belief in education 
we need your help and your action on behalf of that 
belief. 

We have a great University: at $20 per citizen per 
year, it is a tax bargain. It is a good investment, even 
an essential investment in the future, and it brings the 
citizens of Illinois many returns each day. 

The president's annual message was released March 28 
and was carried by twenty-nine television stations in Illi- 
nois, Indiana, and Missouri and by seventy-six radio 
stations, including forty-three in Illinois and thirty-three 
elsewhere around the nation. 



r'l6^^lf^^ 



''t H ^/I'Snia i V 1 r c V 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



_, No. 263, June 9, 1976 

^ "frary Of the 



Statement on Current Status of the FT 1977 Budget 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES MAY 19, 1976 



•'^^ 1 3 1976 



It is an interesting commentary upon the current 
financing of public higher education in Illinois that an 
action by the Senate Appropriations Committee last 
Friday to approve appropriations bills for higher educa- 
tion for fiscal year 1977 in a total amount some $35 
million less than the amount supported by the institu- 
tions and by the Board of Higher Education (BHE) is 
hailed as at least a minor victory by those institutions. 
.\ headline in a Champaign-Urbana newspaper even 
described this action with the words "Panel Raises Edu- 
cation Outlay." The fact, of course, is that these appro- 
priations bills as amended by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee total about $20 million more than had been 
recommended for higher education by Governor Walker, 
and the rumor mills p>ersisted in reporting that it was 
this lower level which would pre\ail in the General 
Assembly. There is still a long road for these appropria- 
tions bills to travel, and our efforts to sustain at least 
the level of funding recommended by the Senate Appro- 
priations Committee must continue unabated. 

I want to comment upon two general aspects of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee meeting last Friday. 
First, several members — Senator Hynes, Senator Weaver, 
Senator Buzbee, Senator \^ada]abene, and Senator Rock 
— spoke on behalf of the legitimacy of the requests sup- 
ported by the institutions and by the BHE. Each of th^.Le 
senators indicated that it was only the serious financial 
condition of Illinois which made it impossible for him 
to support the funding of these legitimate requests. All 
of us in higher education appreciated their comments 
and their support even though some of us believe that 
Illinois does have the resources to maintain its traditional 
excellence in higher education if only minor increases in 
revenue programs were to be adopted. 

Others on the committee, however, continued what I 
believe to be outworn and unfair attacks upon higher 
education and particularly upon faculty and administra- 
tive costs. Time and time again our studies have shown 
that faculty members average more than fifty hours per 
week of effort on behalf of their responsibilities. Few 
would deny that the selection and retention policies and 



procedures of the University of Illinois bring to the 
University and to Illinois a faculty of unequalled back- 
ground and ability in higher education. Our faculty 
deser\'es first-rate compensation because it is made up of 
first-rate people giving first-rate service to students and 
to citizens in the conduct of our programs of teaching, 
research, and public senice. And without dwelling on 
the point, we seek the same qualities in our administra- 
tors, require the same kinds of work loads, and devote 
only about 2 percent of our funds to so-called adminis- 
trative personnel. As Mr. Furman of the BHE has pointed 
out so clearly and so vigorously, we are in 1976 providing 
the state of Illinois with more and broader services in 
higher education than ever before with fewer dollars 
per student, a smaller share of the General Revenue 
Fund, and fewer dollars in per capita support than be- 
fore. We are as productive and as efficient as any uni- 
versity system I know of, and I know of no other state 
agencies which have maintained quality to the extent 
we have in the face of declining support and of the 
pressures of inflation. 

What would be the results for the University of 
Illinois if funding were to be approved finally at the 
level approved last Friday by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee? On the negative side, our new program 
efforts to extend operating hours at Chicago Circle and 
to continue the expansion programs in the health pro- 
fessions probably could not be undertaken. Our ability 
to take steps to make up for deficiencies in library and 
equipment purchases would be gone. 

On the positive side, our ability to keep pace with 
inflationary pressures upon our purchases would be 
protected, and a propo.sed 2.5 percent average salary 
increase at the governor's budget level would increase to 
about 4.5 percent. New proposals inserted into our bill 
would permit the University to use its own work force 
in space remodeling, renovation, and repair projects 
funded through capital development bond funds which 
would lead to efficiencies and to greater stability in our 
operation and maintenance staffing. 

Even with these positive impacts, our salary patterns 



will continue to fail to represent the quality of our 
people. From data supplied to us by other Big Ten uni- 
versities, for example, it is clear that if we achieve faculty 
salary increases of 4.5 percent for fiscal year 1977, our 
salaries for next year will place the Urbana-Champaign 
campus salaries at fourth place for professors, eighth 
place for associate professors, and eighth place for assis- 
tant professors in the Big Ten. Contrary to rumors, our 
competition is not standing still. Those institutions which 
have traditionally had lower salary ranges than ours have 
made major and successful efforts to overtake us — one 
such institution accomplished a 14 percent increase this 
year and will accomplish an 8 percent increase next year 
and in those two jumps will have gone from a tie for 
eighth rank for professors to third ; from seventh to first 
for associate professors : and from a tie for eighth to first 
for assistant professors. We, meanwhile, during that same 
period, will have gone from third to fourth for profes- 
sors; from a tie for fifth to eighth for associate profes- 
sors; and the same dip for assistant professors. And all of 
this will be true only if the action of the Senate Appro- 
priations Committee prevails. 

But one point must not be overlooked. Part of this 
progress on the part of our competition has been sup- 
ported by increases in tuition — these institutions have 
not attempted to rely upon the taxpayer alone to meet 
the demands of inflation. If we do achieve the increases 
approved last Friday, we would be only $1,717,000 short 
of being able to bring all of our faculty ranks at all of 
our campuses up to at least the midpoint of salaries at 
Big Ten universities. That amount represents about 
another 2.4 percent increase for faculty members. To 
provide a similar increase above the 4.5 percent range 
for all other personnel would require about another $2.9 
million. To achieve at least average parity for our faculty 
and to provide similar increases for all other personnel 
requires, then, about $4,617,000 — the proceeds of a 
tuition increase of about $100 per student per year. Of 
course, parity with the average salaries of Big Ten uni- 
versities is not, in my view, the kind of parity our people 
deserve. I can find no logic to support our being at less 
than third place among these institutions and compelling 



logic to argue that we should be in first place in salaries 
as we are in so many other areas of academic quality. 
Had tuition over the past three years increased at about 
$35 per year (an increase of about 7 percent per year), 
we would at least have maintained salaries at a Big Ten 
average level, would not now have tuition levels as high 
as several in the Big Ten, and would not be faced with 
legislative arguments which now, ironically, are claiming 
that we are unwilling to ask students to share increases 
with the General Revenue Fund. 

It is clear to me from discussions with legislators, 
with gubernatorial candidates, and with legislative and 
executive branch staff personnel, and from a review of 
data relating to comparable institutions, that our tuition 
level must go up in 1977-78. In fact, conditions dictate 
consideration of tuition increases for midfiscal 1977 as 
we continue to gather data concerning the salary status 
of our people. I believe that most students and most 
parents understand that it is better to pay slightly more 
for quality than to pay the same rate and receive de- 
clining quality. Recent Illinois State Scholarship Com- 
mission (ISSC) data reveal that families in Illinois with 
incomes up to $23,000 per year can receive financial aid 
up to one-half of tuition and fees. No Big Ten state offers 
university students the kind of financial aid offered in 
Illinois, and Illinois has reconfirmed its support of ISSC 
programs through recent legislative and gubernatorial 
action to approve supplemental appropriations to ISSC 
for this year to meet obligations in full. 

To summarize — predictions that fiscal year 1977 
would be a difficult year for higher education in Illinois 
are proving to be correct although the action of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee last week may indicate 
that the year will not be as disastrous as \vas feared. As 
we continue to seek our fair share of Illinois tax revenue, 
we must face the virtual inevitability of tuition increases 
for 1977-78 and even the possibility of increases in mid 
1976-77. We obviously must continue to strive to do an 
always better job in describing and demonstrating the 
quality of our faculty and staff and the contributions 
they make through hard and dedicated work to the 
quality and to the strength of Illinois. 



Resolution on Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures 

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT ITS MEETING MAY 19, 1976 



On March 18, 1975, the Board of Trustees requested 
the president of the University to consult with appropri- 
ate parties at the campuses of the University to deter- 
mine whether and to what extent changes should be 
considered in the policies, practices, procedures, guide- 
lines, and Statutes pertaining to promotion and tenure. 
On behalf of the full Board of Trustees, the General 
Policy Committee has heard two presentations related 
to this study, and all members of the Board have received 



written reports from faculty groups, students, and ad- 
ministrators concerning the topic. 

As a result of these activities conducted in response 
to its resolution of March 18, 1975, the Board of Trustees 
adopts the following recommendations submitted by the 
president of the Uni\ersity: 

1. Because tenure and promotion policies and procedures 
contribute in a major way to the academic distinction 
of the University, the administration of the University 



and of the campuses and the appropriate facuUy and 
campus Senate bodies should continue the practice of 
annual review and evaluation of such policies to In- 
sure that they ser%-e the University, the faculty, and 
the students in achieving academic distinction. 

2. Changes in tenure procedures which result from this 
regular review and evaluation and which do not 
result in policy changes requiring Board approval 
should be reported to the Board by the president. 

3. Studies of current tenure and promotion procedures 
and policies within the University reveal that the 
following areas of concern should be given special 
consideration in the ongoing re\iew of such proce- 
dures and policies : 

a. the manner in which faculty members are made 
aware of tenure and promotion policies and proce- 
dures to insure full understanding of those poli- 
cies and procedures; 

b. the degree to which University and campus tenure 
and promotion policies and procedures are followed 
at the departmental level; 

c. the degree to which evaluations of teaching gath- 
ered for tenure and promotion decisions are used 
in in-ser\ice programs with faculty members to 
assist in improving teaching performance; 

d. the degree to which instruments used for evaluating 
teaching performance are valid and reliable and 



enjoy the confidence of both those evaluated and 
those evaluating. 
4. While the University system does recognize the legiti- 
macy of variations in procedures among its campuses, 
the University administration through the vice-presi- 
dent for academic affairs and the faculty through the 
University Senates Conference or through a procedure 
developed by the conference should conduct regular 
rexiews of tenure procedures to insure that procedural 
variations among the campuses do not reflect differing 
standards of excellence nor differing interpretations 
of University policies. 

As it has done consistently, the Board of Trustees re- 
affirms its support of the principles of academic tenure 
and promotion as reflected in the University Statutes. 
The Board also reaffirms its commitment to the concept 
that the principle of tenure is designed to insure the 
attainment of the highest standards of excellence in both 
teaching and scholarship. The Board also commends the 
faculty members who have developed at the University 
of Illinois a system of tenure and promotion which is 
viewed as generally satisfactory and thanks those students 
and faculty members who have assisted in this study of 
tenure and promotion policies and procedures. The 
Board believes that the studies resulting from the resolu- 
tion of March 18, 1975, have been both useful and pro- 
ductive in focusing attention upon and in enhancing 
sensitivity to the important area of tenure and promo- 
tion policies and procedures. 



Guidelines on Grievance Procedures for Complaints of Discrimination 



TRUSTEES ADOPT MEANS OF HANDLING ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION 



These guidelines are designed to cover grievance pro- 
cedures for complaints by faculty, academic/profession- 
als, students, and nonacademic staff concerning alleged 
discrimination by the University on the basis of race, 
sex, national origin, religion, age, or handicap. 

Each campus is responsible for developing and im- 
plementing its own grievance procedures in such matters, 
within these guidelines. A separate procedure will be 
established for general University staff, also within these 
guidelines. When developed, all campus and general 
University grie\-ance procedures are to be presented to 
the president of the University for approval prior to 
implementation. 

A distinction is recognized between a complaint and 
a grievance. An employee may be said to ha\e a com- 
plaint when some situation or event related to the em- 
plo\Tnent is viewed as unsatisfactory. Employees and 
sujservisors are exf)ected and encouraged to make every 
effort to resolve complaints informally as they arise. If 
a complaint cannot be satisfactorily resolved between 
the complainant and the immediate supervisor through 
informal discussion, the complainant may reduce the 



matter to writing and file it promptly as a formal 
grievance. 

To be effective, a grievance procedure must provide 
for a prompt, fair, and definitive resolution of the matter. 
Under these guidelines the chancellor is designated as 
the final decisional point on grievances by campus staff 
and students, subject only to an appeal to the president 
of the University on the question of whether or not 
established campus grievance procedures have been fol- 
lowed. Campus procedures must provide for a final 
University decision, including any presidential review, 
within 180 days of the filing of a formal grievance. 

The following guidelines are applicable to formal 

grievance procedures relating to complaints based on 

alleged discrimination : 

1. Final decisional authority on the substance of a 

grievance initiated by campus employees or students 

shall reside with the chancellor, subject only to an 

appeal to the president of the University on the 

question of whether or not established campus 

grievance procedures have been followed in the 

specific case. Final decisional authority on both sub- 



stance and procedure shall reside with the president 
of the University with respect to grievances filed by- 
general University staff. 

2. Each campus may establish separate grievance pro- 
cedures, within these guidelines, for different classes 
of employees, students, and applicants (students and 
employees ) . 

3. A time limit for filing a formal grievance shall be 
established, related to a specified number of days 
after the occurrence leading to the grievance or after 
the grievant was reasonably able to determine that 
the occurrence might affect the grievant's status. 

4. Grievance procedures shall require formal grievances 
to be in writing. Management decisions thereon, at 
all levels, shall also be reduced to writing. 

5. Grievance procedures shall provide for a hierarchical 
consideration, decision, and apjjeal, through estab- 
lished channels, with a minimum of two separate 
tiers, except when the chancellor or the president is 
the first tier in the hierarchical channel. 

6. At least one opportunity for hearing must be pro- 
vided to the grievant. Subsequent hearings, if any, 



afforded the grievant may, but are not required to, 
be de novo hearings. Nothing in the grievance pro- 
cedures shall preclude receipt of additional informa- 
tion relating to the grievance at any level of con- 
sideration. 

7. At each level of decision the individual or panel 
charged with responsibility for the decision shall be 
provided the existing record of the matter, including 
a copy of the written grievance, the resolution sought 
by the employee, and the written disposition at all 
preceding levels. The individual or panel responsible 
for a decision may make such further investigation 
as is deemed appropriate and, for that purpose, may 
seek assistance or information from other personnel. 

8. Grievance procedures shall provide that a grievant 
shall be permitted to have a representative at each 
stage. 

9. Final disposition of a grievance must occur within a 
maximum of 180 days from the time of filing, but 
final resolution within a much shorter period is 
strongly encouraged. 

10. The record-keeping aspects of the grievance proce- 
dures should be adequate to insure proper monitor- 
ing and reporting. 



m Lx^ -i /-^ 



Gift and Exchange Division 
220a Library 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Operating and Capital Budget Requests for FY 1978 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO TRUSTEES, SEPT. 15, 1976 



No. 265, October 22, 1976 



APR 1.^1977 



OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FY 1978 

At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees held 
on September 15, 1976, President John E. Corbally pre- 
sented the FY 1978 (July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978) oper- 
ating and capital budget requests of the University. 

A description of the request items was presented in 
the report titled "Budget Request for Operating and 
Capital Funds — FY 1978" which was prepared by the 
Vice President for Administration with concurrence of 
the Universit)' Planning Council, the University Budget 
Committee, and the three Chancellors. 

The request, which has been approved by the Board 
of Trustees, will be forwarded to the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education. .\ summary of the three sections of 
the request — (1) operating request, (2) capital request, 
and (3) a food production and research complex (Food 
for Century Three) request follows : 

SUMMARY OF THE FY 1978 OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST 

The operating budget request is divided into three 
sections — (1) Continuing Components — $19,455,000, 
(2) Programmatic Components — $9,913,000, and (3) 
Sf)ecial Service and Special Funding Components • — 
$1,668,400 for a total of $31,036,400. The first two com- 
ponents comprise the bulk of the University's operating 
request and the third contains the request for other es- 
sential services provided to the state by the University. 

Continuing Components 

Salary Increases ($14,646,100) — The University has 
requested sufficient funds to ( 1 ) annualize the increase 
granted in FY 1977, (2) to grant an 8% average in- 
crease to all employees and (3) to grant an additional 
2% increase to the open range civil service employees. 
This request is based upon competitive market studies 
conducted by the University during FY 1976. It has been 
documented that the average salaries of the University's 
academic employees are less than the average salaries at 
the Big Ten universities and that the non-academic 



employees are paid less than those who do similar work 
in the same geographical area as their campus. The 8% 
increase is based on an estimated 5.5% normal market 
increase and 2.5% for market recovery. This request is 
based on the assumption that the effort to restore the 
funds reduced by the Governor in FY 1977 will be 
successful. 

General Price Increases ($2,240,900) ~ A. 7% gen- 
eral price increase has been requested. The request is 
comprised of an estimated 5% price increase in the mar- 
ket and 2% to begin to recover lost purchasing power. 
Inflation studies have shown that prices have increased 
approximately three times faster than appropriations 
from FY 1972 to FY 1977. Obviously, if market increases 
are more than 5% in FY 1978, the University will re- 
cover less than the additional 2% purchasing power. 

Utility Price Increases ($1,723,100) — Budgeting for 
the University's utility needs refers specifically to the 
purchase of components necessary to provide heat, light, 
air conditioning, laboratory gas, water, and occasionally 
power (from the Abbot Power Plant at Urbana-Cham- 
paign). These components, which must be purchased at 
market prices, include fuel oil, electricity, steam, natural 
gas, and water. 

Beginning with the fuel oil crisis in 1974, the Univer-.- 
sity utility costs have increased faster than any compo- 
nent in the budget. The utility budget increased 34% in 
FY 1975, 20% in FY 1976 and it is estimated at 15% 
in FY 1977. During this period many cost reducing and 
energy conservation measures have been instituted and 
the cost of utilities, although continuing to rise, appears 
to be leveling at 10 to 15% per year. The University has 
requested a 12V2% increment for utilities. 

Operating Costs for New Facilities ($772,900) — The 
three types of facilities for which operating funds have 
been requested in FY 1978 are: (1) Recently con- 
structed buildings; (2) Space created by remodeling; and 
(3) Private hospitals which are affiliated with the Uni- 
versity's medical education program. The Board of Edu- 



cation has adopted the recommendation of tlie Health 
Education Commission that the state fund the operations 
and maintenance costs of space in afSHated hospitals for 
which capital grants have been made. The board has 
directed that the University request these funds as part 
of the annual operating request. Therefore, funds are 
requested to: (1) annualize the operating costs of build- 
ings partially opened in FY 1977, and (2) for new fa- 
cilities opened in FY 1978. The University buildings for 
which funds are requested are: Medical Center; Peoria 
School of Medicine and Goldberg Research Facility', 
Urbana-Champaign ; Speech and Hearing Clinic, Physics 
Research Lab Addition, Visual Aids Addition, Mechani- 
cal Engineering Lab (Remodeling) , Turner Hall Addi- 
tion, and the Veterinary Medicine Clinic (Remodeling). 

Programmatic Componenfs ($9,913,000) 

An incremental funding request for $7,595,600 was 
submitted in FY 1977 for programmatic components in 
Extended Education ($3,290,000) and Expansion in 
Health Related Fields ($4,305,600). The needs of the 
state and hence the University to fund these programs 
were recognized in FY 1977, but the funds were not pro- 
vided because of fiscal constraints. The year's delay in 
implementing these programs amplifies their need and 
increases their costs due to inflation. Thus, the FY 1978 
request for $7,789,200 in incremental funds for Extended 
Education and Expansion in Health Related Fields essen- 
tially represents a reiteration of the FY 1977 request up- 
dated for minor changes in program content and infla- 
tion. A third component ($1,223,800) containing several 
high priority new programs consistent with the scope and 
mission of the University has been added to the FY 1978 
programmatic request. 

The new programs, in addition to continuing educa- 
tion and medical expansion, for which funds are re- 
quested in FY 1978 include a Center for Bilingual-Bi- 
cultural Education at Chicago Circle, an Institute for 
Environmental Studies at Urbana-Champaign, an Insti- 
tute for the Study of Developmental Disabilities at Chi- 
cago Circle, Expansion and Maintenance of the Coopera- 
tive Extension Service Program in Urbana-Champaign, a 
Library Automation Program at Urbana-Champaign and 
a program to reduce the deficiencies in equipment re- 
placement and building maintenance at Urbana-Cham- 
paign. 

The Center for Bilingual-Bicultural Education ($75,- 
000) — Will be particularly concerned with the coordi- 
nation of existing academic resources (and identification 
of new resources), the preparation of bilingual-bicultural 
education programs, and the development of related 
community resources in adult education programs. In 
addition, the center will coordinate all research activities 
in bilingual-bicultural education. 

Reflecting specific areas of faculty strength and in- 
terests, as well as important ethnic linguistic demographic 
concentrations in Chicago, the center will initially focus 
on Spanish-English and Polish-English programs at the 
elementary and secondary school levels. 



The Institute for Environmental Studies ($153,300) 
— Currently has active programs centered in the natural 
sciences such as the metals task force and the toxic sub- 
stances task force and has recently established a new task 
force concerned with the environmental effects of wastes 
from coal conversion plants. A partial measure of the 
success of this relatively new institute is its proven ability 
to attract other sources of funds that are projected to 
exceed $1 million in FY 1977 as compared to its state 
funds of approximately $300,000 in the same year. The 
objective of the FY 1978 request for $153,300 is to ex- 
pand the core of the institute to develop ne^^' task forces 
which can respond further to the needs of the people of 
the state. In particular, the institute recognizes the need 
to further develop research, education, and public service 
activities in four important areas : social sciences, air and 
water resources, environmental trade-offs in energy pro- 
duction and consumption systems, and environmental 
effects of alternative transportation systems. 

The Institute for the Study of Developmental Dis- 
abilities ($218,800) — ^Vill be operated cooperatively by 
the Departments of Biological Sciences and Psychology 
at Chicago Circle and the Illinois Department of Mental 
Health and Developmental Disabilities. The State of Illi- 
nois has mandated that the Department of Mental 
Health and Developmental Disabilities provide through 
such an institute services for some 200,000 developmen- 
tally disabled persons not presently served by existing 
programs. The institute and participating faculty will 
sponsor seminars and lectures, coordinate courses, pro- 
mote cooperative research and combine practicum and 
laboratory' facilities for specialized training for service 
and research personnel in areas related to mental retar- 
dation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy and autism. 

Cooperative Extension Service ($188,400) — In or- 
der to carry out the mission of the Cooperative Extension 
Ser\'ice to provide expertise in areas directly affecting 
Illinois agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Ser\'ice 
of the University of Illinois will require new funds to 
support necessary program expansion and to allow main- 
tenance of the current level of state-wide contact. Addi- 
tional funds are required to support the preparation of 
4-H literature. Enrollment in the 4-H program has in- 
creased by 46% in the last four years and there has been 
a comparable increase in the cost of providing support 
literature. Furthermore, paper and printing costs have 
risen 30-40% compounding the cost increases. 

Area extension advisers are needed as back-up to 
county ad\-isers to pro\'ide more specific knowledge in 
livestock production, business and marketing and agri- 
cultural engineering. The lack of area advisers to provide 
back-up is seriously hampering efforts to implement the 
state-^vide plan for agricultural growth and development. 

The Library Sharing Program ($588,300) — At Ur- 
bana-Champaign involves the implementation of a com- 
puterized circulation system at the Urbana-Champaign 
Library which will also provide state-wide access to this 
collection. The proposed system is currently operational 
at Ohio State University where it was developed by Pro- 



TABLE 1 
FY 1978 OPERATING BUDGET COMPONENTS 



I. Continuing Components 

A. Salary Increases (8.4%) $14. 

9, 
4, 



1. Regular Market (5.5%) 

2. Market Recovery (2.5%) 

3. Open Range Adjustments (2.0%) . . . 

B. General Price Increases 

1. Regular Increase (5.0%) 

2. Purchasing Power Recovery (2.0%). 

C. Utility Price Increases (12.5%) 1 

Subtotal $18, 

D. Operating Funds for New Facilities 

E. Workmen's Compensation Increase 

Subtotal (Part I) $19 

% Increase over FY 1977 Base* 



,646.1 

864.8) 

103.8) 

677.5) 

,240.9 

600.6) 

&i0.3) 

,723.1 

,610.1 

772.9 

72.0 
,455.0 

7.92 



II. ProErrammatic Components 

A. Extended Education 

1. Continuing Education 

2. Extended Day 

B. Health Professions 

1. Medical Center 

2. Veterinary Medicine 

C. Program Development 

1. Bilingual Education Center 

2. Institute for Environmental Studies. 

3. Institute for De\elopmental 
Disabilities 

4. Agriculture Cooperative Extension. . 

5. Library Sharing Program 

D. Equipment Recovery 

E. Space Realignment, Remodeling, 

& Replacement 

TOTAL (Part II) 

% Increase over FY 1977 Base* 

Total Increment (Regular) 



3,876.7 
1,989.3) 
1,887.4) 
3,912.5 
3,500.0) 

412.5) 

1,223.8 

75.0) 

153.3) 

218.8) 
188.4) 
588.3) 
250.0 

650.0 

$ 9,913.0 

4.04 

$29,368.0 



III. Special Service and Special Funding $ 1,668.4 

GRAND TOTAL $31,036.4 

% Increase over FY 1977 Base* 12.63 



* FY 1977 Base, excluding retii 



I, IBA, and GRF Capital = $245,547.6. 



fessor Hugh Atkinson, the new Director of the Urbana 
Campus Library. The new circulation system is seen to 
have benefits far in excess of its cost, since it will not only 
substantially improve library circulation and acquisition 
functions but will also provide a key role in sohing the 
state-wide library storage problem. 

Equipment and Building Maintenance ($900,000) — 
Funds are requested for elimination of equipment de- 
ficiencies at Urbana-Champaign which have occurred 
because large numbers of equipment items have become 
obsolete in a period of low state funding. There is cur- 
rendy a deficiency of over $1 million in equipment funds 
at the Urbana campus alone. For this reason $250,000 
are requested for FY 1978 to begin funding the most 
pressing equipment needs. Another program deficiency 
area is that of operation and maintenance. The 
Urbana campus currently has a $4 million deficiency in 



operation and maintenance, which has occurred due to 
inadequate funding during the past six years; therefore, 
$650,000 are requested for space realignment, remodel- 
ing, and replacement which would give the University 
the feasibility it needs to solve the most pressing problems 
in building maintenance. 

Special Service and Special Funding Components ($1,668,400) 

These components of the Uni\ersity's operating bud- 
get, although outside the main function of the Univer- 
sity, provide essential services to Illinois residents. The 
programs, although managed by the University, are out- 
side the mainstream of University instruction, research, 
and public service ; and, therefore, should not compete 
with educational funds. The special services components 
are the Division of Serv'ices for Crippled Children ($954,- 
400), Willard Airport Public Service ($254,800), and 
the Police Training Institute ($258,100). The special 
funding component ($201,100) is County Board Match- 
ing Funds for the Cooperative Extension Service and 
will be requested from the Agricultural Premium Fund. 
Table 1 summarizes the FY 1978 operating budget 
components. 

SUMMARY OF THE FY 1978 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST 

The total capital program requested from state funds 
for FY 1978 is $56,115,900 exclusive of reappropriations. 
Of this amount, $8,591,018 is a resubmission of projects 
approved by the 79th General Assembly for FY 1977 
but vetoed by the Governor. Table 2 provides a listing of 
the estimated state funds for building projects and budget 
categories by campus. 

The FY 1978 capital request for the University of 
Illinois is a reflection of two major forces — ( 1 ) the 
programmatic needs of the campuses, including new pro- 
grams and changes in existing programs which necessi- 
tate changes in space functions, and (2) the need to 
renovate space which has become obsolete both physi- 
cally and functionally. Recognizing the realities of the 
fiscal conditions in Illinois, the capital program approved 
by the Board of Trustees is a sincere effort to obtain 
maximum benefits for the University and for the state. 
In developing the FY 1978 capital budget request, the 
University has requested fimds for those projects which 
are the most urgent and most essential to the mission of 
the University of Illinois. In addition to program related 
projects, there are projects which are designed to save 
future operating costs both in terms of energy consump)- 
tion and manpower. The only new major building proj- 
ects — three library additions and a law building addi- 
tion — are required to meet needs which cannot be met 
through remodeling and/or realignment of space. Space 
realignment, remodeling, and replacement funds as well 
as major remodeling funds are requested for each cam- 
pus to continue a program of renovating and upgrading 
existing space. 

The capital program at Chicago Circle campus re- 
flects the effort toward accommodating the needs of a 



changing mix of students, the beginning of the extended 
day program (with its anticipated enrollment increases), 
and the increased emphasis on life-long learning and 
community involvement. The major projects are ( 1 ) the 
library addition for which planning funds were appro- 
priated in FY 1975, (2) continuation of remodeling in 
the Science and Engineering Library and in the Roose- 
velt Road Building, and (3) continuation of the Building 
Equipment Automation program. 

The capital program at the Medical Center campus 
reflects the effort to upgrade and remodel existing space 
to accommodate the changing needs of the expanding 
programs in the health professions. The major projects 
include the continuation of the remodeling in SUDMP, 
beginning the renovation of the building at 1919 West 
Taylor, ventilating and air conditioning the College of 
Pharmacy Building, beginning the remodeling in the 
building at 715 South Wood, and planning for use of 
the space to be vacated upon completion of the Replace- 
ment Hospital. 

The capital program at the Urbana-Champaign 
campus reflects the effort to upgrade and remodel exist- 
ing structures to accommodate changing needs for teach- 
ing and research programs and to provide new buildings 
in those cases which cannot be met by remodeling of 
existing structures. The major projects include (1) five 
new building projects — Willard Airport Crash Rescue 
Facility, Two Veterinary Research Buildings, Engineer- 
ing Library Stack Addition, Library Sixth Stack Addi- 



tion, and the Law Building Addition, (2) continuation 
of remodeling in the English Building, and the College 
of Engineering, and (3) planning for a new Life Sciences 
Teaching Laboratory, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Phase 
II and the remodeling of the space in Davenport Hall 
that will be vacated upon completion of the Turner Hall 
Addition. 

Table 3 provides a detailed listing of all capital proj- 
ects in priority order that have been requested for FY 
1978. The first 26 projects are projects from the FY 1977 
request that were vetoed by Governor Walker. If the 
override is successful, they will be removed from the FY 
1978 request. The projects listed as Space Realignment, 
Remodeling, and Replacement (SR^) are umbrella proj- 
ects that include many small projects to be accomplished 
within a total dollar amount that has been determined 
by a formula to account for the necessary space changes, 
remodeling and replacement that will occur in a building 
each year dependent upon the replacement cost of the 
building. The priority of the SR^ projects is considered 
the same among the campuses even though they are 
listed in the order of Chicago Circle, Medical Center, 
and Urbana-Champaign. 

Table 4 gives a detailed list of the projects to be in- 
cluded under each request for Space Realignment, Re- 
modeling, and Replacement. The small projects listed 
under SR^ are in priority order and will be accomplished 
in accord with the funds finally appropriated and re- 
leased. 



TABLE 2 

SUMMARY OF FY 1 978 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS 

(Total Dollars Requested by Each Campus) 

Chicago Medical Urbana- 

Circle Center Champaign Total 

Buildings, Additions, and/or Structures $ 7,562,500 -0- $11,241,400 $18,803,900 

Library Addition ( 7,562,500) 

*Willard Airport Crash Rescue Facility ( 100,000) 

*Veterinary Medicine Research Buildings ( 366,400) 

Engineering Library Stack Addition ( 2,127,500) 

Library Sixth Stack Addition ( 3,966,300) 

Law Building Addition ( 4,681,200) 

Funds to Complete Bond. Eligible Bldg 41,000 $1,000,000 65,100 1,106,100 

Land -0- -0- 148,500 148,500 

Equipment 720,500 6,421,300 1,952,960 9,094,760 

Utilities 150,000 -0- 1,498,200 1,648,200 

Remodeling and Rehabilitation 2,215,000 6,998,600 5,221,700 14,435,300 

Space Realignment, Remodeling & Replacement 1,662,828 1,976,119 4,922,283 8,561,230 

Site Improvements 278,300 85,000 414,400 777,700 

Planning -0- 250,000 808,400 1,058,400 

Cooperative Improvements 145,000 -0- 336,900 481,900 

Total $12,775,128 $16,731,019 $26,609,843 $56,1 15,990 

* This project is a resubmission of the FY 1977 project which was approved by the 79th General Assembly, but vetoed by the Governor. 

4 



TABLE 3 
DETAILED LIST OF FY 1978 CAPITAL REQUEST IN PRIORITY ORDER 

Vastly Cliuago Midical Urbana- 

"""'0' "»;«■' Caligory Cirdt Ctnltr Champaign 

•1 Rtplacimcnt Hospital Equipment ( 1 ,345,000 

•2 Continuation SUDMP Remodeling 830,200 

•3 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.> Remodeling ( 813,328 

•4 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.' Remodeling 485,842 

•3 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.' Remodeling J 1 018 288 

•6 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.' Equipment ' 65*000 

•7 English Building Renovation Remodeling 285*000 

•8 English Buildmg Renovation Equipment 23!960 

•9 .\nimal Room Improvement-Morrill Remodeling 279 000 

•10 .\nimal Room Improvement-MorriU Equipment 20*000 

•II Central Supervisory Control Center Utilities 270*000 

•12 Building Equipment Automation Remodeling 300,000 ' 

•13 Upgrade 1919 West Taylor-Ph. I Remodeling 685,000 

•14 Coble Hall Improvements Remodeling 270,000 

•15 SEL Engineermg Equipment 135,000 

•16 SEL Engineering Remodeling 250,000 

•17 College of Engineering Remodeling Remodeling 275,000 

18 College of Engineering Remodeling Equipment 25,000 

•19 Engineering Librarv Stack Planning 50*900 

•20 Roosevelt Road Building-Ph. IH Remodeling 115,000 ' 

*21 College of Medicine Project I Equipment 100,000 

■22 Law Building .\ddition Planning 126,000 

23 Veterinary* Medicine Basic Sciences Planning 200 500 

•24 Willard .\irport Crash Rescue Building ] 00 *000 

•25 Vet. Med. Research Building (2) Building 366)400 

•26 Agricultural Engineering Sciences Bldg Planning 156,600 

27 NIedical Sciences Building Land 38,500 

28 Replacement Hospital Funds to Complete 1 ,000,000 

29 Replacement Hospital Equipment 4,655,000 

30 Turner Hall .\ddinon Funds to Complete 65,100 

31 Turner Hall .\ddition Equipment 1,110,000 

32 \ et. Med Research Bldgs. (2) Equipment 75,000 

33 Library .\ddilion Building 7,562,500 

34 Librar>- .\ddition Utilities 150,000 

35 Library .\ddition Funds to Complete 41 ,000 

36 Library .addition Equipment 240,500 

37 Library .addition Site Improvements 85,300 

38 Enghsh Building Renovation Remodeling 1 ,000,000 

39 Engineermg Library Stack Building 2,127,500 

40 Engineering Library Stack Utilities 22 200 

41 College of Engineering Remodeling Remodeling 2, 177] 000 

42 College of Engineering Remodeling Equipment ' 35*000 

43 Continuation SUDMP — Part I Remodeling 1,217,400 ' 

44 SUDMP — Project II Equipment 229,300 

45 Pharmacy .\/C and Ventilate Remodeling 950,000 

46 SAMS — 1919 West Taylor Equipment 55,800 

47 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.' Remodeling 849,500 

48 Space Realignment, Remodeling & Repl.' Remodeling 1 ,490,277 

49 SR'-General Hospital Third Floor. Equipment 36,200 

50 Space Realignment. Remodeling & Repl.' Remodeling ' 3,903,995 

51 SR'-.Animal Room Improvements Equipment 85,000 

52 SR«-KCPA Remodeling Equipment 20,000 

53 SR*-Visual Arts Laboratory Equipment 310,000 

54 SR'-Library Remodeling Equipment 9,000 

55 SR'-Davenport Hall Biophysics Equipment 60,000 

56 SR'-Lincoln Hall Remodeling Equipment 15 000 

57 SR>- Veterinary Medicine Remodeling Equipment 75!oOO 

58 SR>-Huff Gvm Basement Equipment 25 000 

59 SEL Engineering Ph. Ill Equipment 345,000 

60 SEL Engineering Ph. Ill Remodeling 400,000 

61 Pedestrian Traffic Control- Morgan Cooperative Impr. 55,000 

62 Life Sciences Teaching Lab Planning 153,100 

63 Life Sciences Teaching Lab Land 1 10,000 

64 Building Equipment Automation Ph. Ill Remodeling 300,000 

65 Central Supervisory Control Utilities 330 000 

66 U.C. Sanitary District Wastewater Project Cooperative Impr. 228*, 000 

67 Library Sixth Stack Addn Building 3,966,300 

68 Library Sixth Stack Addn Utilities 90 900 

69 Coble Hall Improvements Remodeling 1I7!700 

70 Upgrade 1919\Vest Ti.ylor Ph. II Remodeling 900,000 

71 Pedestrian Traffic Control-Polk & Halsted Cooperative Impr. 55,000 

72 Continuation SUDMP — Part II Remodeling 950,000 

73 Davenport Hall Remodeling Planning 70,000 

74 Auditorium Roof Replacement Remodeling 660,000 

75 Condeiuate Return System Utilities 155,000 

76 Roosevelt Road Building Ph. IV Remodeling 850,000 

77 715 South Wood Ph. I Remodeling 1 ,225,000 

78 Law Building Addirion Building 4,681,200 

79 Law Building Addition Utilities 602,200 

80 Rockford School of Medicine Remodeling 241 ,000 

81 Exterior Campus Graphics Site Improvements 43 ,000 

82 Nuclear Reactor Lab Ph. II Planning 51,300 

83 Instructional Tennis Court Impr Remodeling 158|000 

84 Pennsylvania Avenue Street Impr Site Improvements 300,000 

85 Vacated Hospital Space Planning 250 000 

86 Bus Stop Shelters — CTA • Cooperative Impr. 35,000 

87 Campus Landscape Improvemeata Site Improvements 75,000 

88 Watermain Extension (SE) Utilities 27,900 

89 Stadium Drive Resurfacing Cooperative Impr. 96,400 

90 Urbana Signalization Program Cooperative Impr. 12,500 

91 Intramural .Vhletic Fields Site Improvements 39,400 

92 Campus Landscaping Site Improvements 150,000 

93 Demolition-General Services Bldg Site Improvements 85,000 

TOTAL BY CAMPUS 512,775,128 516,731,019 526,609,843 



* Thijproject is a resubmission of the FY 1977 project approved by the 79th General Assembly but vetoed. 
' See Table 3 for detailed listing of projects included in SR>. 



TABLE 4 

DETAILED LIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FY 1978 

CAPITAL REQUEST FOR SPACE REALIGNMENT, REMODELING, 

AND REPLACEMENT (SR") 

Chicago Circle Campus 

FY 1977 Projects „ „ 

Security System ^^^°& 

Roof Replacement, A&A, Libr. BSB, SEL 115,300 

Lecture Center Roof & Drainage. Pli. 1 115,300 

Rehabilitate Upper Walkway Ph. 1 115,300 

OSHA 65,700 

Exterior' Wail' 'eCB 66,300 

Service Building Rms. 150-156 36,900 

Service Building-Ventilation 11,500 

Sump Pump Installation Ph. II 23,100 

Lecture Center 12KV System 83,600 

Lecture Center Lighting ^^'ifS 

BSB-Acoustical-RM4113A 21,300 

FY 1978 Projects 

Code Compliance — Elevators 46,000 

OSHA — Compliance — Ph. II 100,000 

Campus Security (Ph. Ill) 95,000 

Roof Replacement — (Science & Engineering Laboratory) 280,000 

Floor Slab Room B-50D — (Science & Engineering, South) 35,000 

Rehabilitate Upper Walkway & Stairs, Ph. II 100,000 

Fire Alarm Modification 96,500 

Window Replacement — Roosevelt Road Building 45,000 

Lecture Center Air Intake 52,000 

Medical Center Campus 

FY 1977 Projects 

General Hospital Third Floor 201,700 

Elevator Renovation 'K'i99 

Window Replacement NPI, FUDMP 63,800 

Building Code Violations 115.300 

Biologic Resource Lab 116,400 

FY 1978 Projects 

Code Compliance — Elevators 103,000 

•General Hospital — Third Floor — Eciuipment 36,200 

Remodel Room 346 — Pharmacy Building 270,000 

Administrative Offices — Pharmacy Building 62,000 

Remodel Room 200 — Pharmacy Building 212,000 

Remodel Room 404 — Pharmacy Building 132,300 

Biologic Resources Lab — Cagewashing Area 160,000 

Interconnect Chilled Water Systems 173,000 

Upgrade Kiie Alarm System — Ph. 1 250,000 

Hospit.ll OSHA and Code Compliance 200,000 

Window Replacements — 715 S. Wood, Hosp. Residence, 

Illinois Surgical Institute 'l^'^S? 

Building Equipment Automation 150,000 

Elevator Renovation — Illinois Surgical 150,000 

Campus Security — Ph. Ill 95,000 

Campus OSHA Compliance 150,000 

2035 W. Tavlor — Heating and Air Conditioning 158,000 

2035 W. Taylor — Window Renovation 45,000 

Urbana-Champaign Campus 

FY 1977 Projects 

Electrical Modernization 80, /OO 

Energy Conservation Heat Control 172,900 

Natural History Bldg. — Heating Replacement 172,900 

Natural History Bldg. — Sprinklers 109,500 

Gregory Hall — Journalism 32,300 

•Gregory Hall — Journahsm Equipment 69,200 

Architecture Bldg. Roof & Gutters 86,500 

Altgeld Hall Elevator 86,500 

Environmental Research Lab 80,700 

Coble Hall Plumbing 8,100 

Librar- Fire Protection 101,400 

Freer G\-m Remodeling 197,100 

Lincoln Hall Remodeling 92,200 

David Kinley Hall — Room 114 109,500 

*David Kinlev Hall — Room 114 Equipment 5,800 

Huff Gym Roof and Gutters 92,200 

Agronomy Seed House Windows 46,100 

Condensate Return System 178,700 

Lincoln H?ll Elevator Replacement 98,000 

Krannert Center for the Performing Arts 65,100 

Library Reference Room 28,800 

*I.ibrarv Reference Room — Equipment 9,200 

Library Floor Replacement 9,700 

Gregory Hall Stair Enclosure 134,300 

Davenport Hall — Geography 107,200 

Commerce Office Remodeling 32,300 

Architecture Bldg. — Heating System 173,900 

Architecture Bldg. — Floor Replacement 17.300 

Armory-Roof & Gutter 108,300 

Mumford Hall Basement 86,200 

Airport Hangar Improvements 77,300 

FY 1978 Projects 

Animal Room Improvements — Burrill Hall, 

Animal Science Lab , 365,000 

*AnimaI Room Improvements — Equipment 85,000 

Krannert Center for the Performing Arts 275,000 

*Krannert Center for the Performing Arts — Equipment 20,000 

Visual Arts Laboratory 98,000 

•Visual Arts Laboratory — Equipment 310,000 

Elevator Replacement — Lincoln Hall, Architecture Building.... 195,000 

Library Remodeling 73,000 



•Library Remodeling — Equipment 9,000 

Ventilation Turndown — Civil Engr. Bldg., Library 90,000 

Stair Enclosures — Gregory and Lincoln Halls 273,000 

Elevator Installation — Flagg Hall 220,000 

Electrical Distribution System (Primary) Willard Airport 80,500 

Davenport Hall — Biophysics 180,000 

•Davenport Hall — Biophysics — Equipment 60,(X)0 

Roof Replacement — Armory (94.000). Bevier (107,600), 

Civil Engr. Ph. I (131,000), Hort. Field Lab (26,500), 

Psychology (75,600) . and Talbot (37,800) 472,500 

Lincoln Hall Remodeling 170,000 

•Lincoln Hall Remodeling — Equipment 15.000 

Temperature Control — Adams Lab, Armory, Auditoriimj 99,000 

Storm Window Installation — Mumford, Commerce 

West. Lincoln 80,000 

Magnetic Door Holders — Bevier, Animal Science Lab 36,000 

Gregory Hall Lighting Improvements 30,000 

Animal Room Exhaust Air — Small Animal Chnic Bldg 90,000 

HVAC Retrofit — Physics Building 80,000 

Condensate Pump Replacement — Vet. Med. Bids. & Annex, 

Meats Lab. \"et. Med. Research Bldgs., Child Development 

Lab. 1107 West Green 45,000 

Commerce Remodeling 111,000 

Cooling To\ver Remodeling 67,000 

Davenport Hall — Geography 102,000 

College of Veterinary Medicine Remodeling 250,000 

•College of Veterinary Medicine Remodeling — Equipment 75.000 

HufT Gym Basement Remodeling 250,000 

•Huff Gym Basement Remodeling — Equipment 25,000 

H"at;'ig System Remodeling — Architecture Building 165.000 

Metallurgy and Mining — Rooms 100 & 119 — Air Conditioning. . 60,000 
Fire Alarm and Signal System Replacement — Library, 

Children's Research Center 26,300 

Lighting and Electrical Improvement — Morrill Hall, 

Vet. "Med. Bldg. & Annex 43,400 

Window Replacement — Law Building 70,500 

Remodel Air Conditioning Piping — Civil Engr., 

Digital Computer Lab 60,000 

Remodel Steam Absorption Machines — Morrill, Fine 

and Applied Arts, Library, Commerce 137,700 

Mumford Hall Remodeling 84,000 

Physics Building Remodeling 45,000 

Chilled W'ater System — Student Staff A/C Center 31,500 

Building Plumbing System — Davenport, Lincoln, 

and BurrUl Halls 205,500 

Centrifugal Freon Air Conditioning System Replacement — Water 

Resources Building 35,000 

Reolacement — Window Sash (ME Lab) Auditorium 

Seats (Commerce) 63,500 

Replacement — Stairs and Entrance Areas — Noyes, 

Wood Shop, EERL 23,500 



* Equipment requests are not included in the SR^ formula (which deter- 
mines the total SR" funds and their distribution) or total dollar amount. 
They are shown here to demonstrate their relationship to the SR' projects. 
Equipment requests are made separately for each project in the equipment 
category. 



FOOD PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH COMPLEX 
(FOOD FOR CENTURY THREE) 

The FY 1978 budget request contains a tliird section, 
a capital request for a food production and research 
complex commonly called "Food for Century Three." 
This request is made separately from the capital program 
described previously and will not compete for the same 
funds. It is anticipated that this agricultural-veterinary 
medicine program will be funded from the Agricultural 
Premium Funds which exist to advance agriculture in 
the State of Illinois. 

The magnitude of the world food shortage is increas- 
ing annually. Increasing population growth coupled with 
rising affluence in developing countries is expected to 
require an increase in food production of three percent 
annually or 30 million metric tons of food per year. To 
put this increased need in perspective, Illinois (which 
usually ranks first or second in the nation in com pro- 
duction) produced 3.5 million metric tons (1.2 billion 
bushels) in 1975. Meeting expanded world food needs 
for one year would be the equivalent of doubling the 
1975 Illinois corn crop. 

The $1.67 billion in agricultural commodities pro- 
duced in Illinois made it the nation's leading export 
state and a major contributor in the fight against hunger 
and starvation. Illinois led all states in soybean exports 



TABLE 5 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOOD PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH COMPLEX 

(FOOD FOR CENTURY THREE! 

PROPOSED LIST OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 

Total Can F 11978 Ff 1979 Fr 1980 Fri98l Fr 1982 Fr 1983 

BuiUings, Additians and I or Strvttures 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences Bldg $21 ,813, 200* $21 ,612,700 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences Bldg 7, 859, 200* * 7,702,600 

Dain' Farm Consolidalion 298,600 298,600 

Downers Grove Extension — Storage 63,900 63,900 

Greenhouse Replacement • . 3,183,600 t 3,183,600 

\elerinar\- Medicine Research Buildings 524,500 524,500 

Dixon Springs Research Facility 216,000 216,000 

Downers Grove Extension Center 2,324,500 2,324,500 

Swine Research Center 1 ,381 ,800 $ 1 ,381 ,800 

High Security Isolation Research Lab 13,798,100 13,798,100 

Car Pool Maintenance Relocation 1,390,800 1,390,800 

Ruminant Laboratory 37,500 37,500 

Greenhouse Headhouse 1,749,500 1,749,500 

Veterinar\- Research Farm Complex Building! 285,600 285,600 

Dixon Springs Agricultural Center 1 ,415,400 1 ,415,400 

Western Illinois Agriculturt: Center 150,100 150,100 

VeterinarvMedicineBuildingAddiuon for Agriculture.. 4,261,400 $ 4,261,400 

Turner Hall. Ph. Ill 24,067,000 24,067,000 

Isolation Research Lab 4,605,500 4,605,500 

.\gricultural Resources Center 7,327,400 $ 7,327,400 

Turner Hall Greenhouse 1,973,800 1,973,800 

Subtotal ($98,727,400) •>•• (529,677,800) ($ 6,248,600) ($20,208,800) ($32,933,900) ($ 9,301 ,200) 

FwuU to CmpliU Bond Elipbli Buildings $1,000,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 307,200 S 96,000 $ 229,700 $ 365,100 

Agriculture — Vet. Med $1,400,000 $1,000,000 $ 400.000 

Dixon Springs 500,000 500,000 

Western lUinois 600,000 600,000 

Subtotal ($2,500,000) ($2,100,000) ($ 400,000) 

Etr-apmfnt 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences Building $1,560,000 $ 560,000 $1,000,000 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences Building 340,000 90,000 250,000 

Swine Research Center 150,000 50,000 $ 100,000 

Greenhouse Replacement 220,000 220,000 

Veterinars- Medicine Research Building 135,000 135,000 

Downers Grove Extension Center 30,000 30,000 

High Securiry Isolation Research Lab 800,000 300,000 $ 500,000 

Car Pool Maintenance Relocation 100,000 25,000 75,000 

Greenhouse Headhouse 200,000 200,000 

Vet. Res. Farm Complex Bldg 50,000 50,000 

Dixon Springs .W Center 20,000 20,000 

Vet. Med. Bldg. Remodeling for Agr 200,000 200,000 

Vet. Med. Bldg. .Addition for Agr 300,000 100,000 $ 200,000 

Turner Hall, Ph. Ill 1,500,000 500,000 1,000,000 

Isolation Research Lab 300,000 100,000 200,000 

Agricultural Resources Center 200,000 200.000 

Turner Hall Greenhouse 110,000 110,000 

Animal Science Lab Remodeling 250,000 250.000 

Subtotal ($6,465,000) ($ 650,000) ($1,685,000) ($ 695,000) ($1,475,000) ($1,960,000) 

Utilititi fcT Btdldingt $2,257,100 $ 72,100 $ 600,000 S 395,000 $ 740,000 $ 450,000 

RimedtUng 

Dain- Farm Consolidation $ 160.000 $ 160.000 

Veterinary Medicine Bldg. Remodel for Agriculture.... 1,980.000 $1,980,000 

Veterinarv Research Farm Bldgs 200,000 $ 200,000 

Animal Sciences Lab Remodel 1,100,000 $1,100,000 

Subtotal ($3,440,000) ($ 160,000) ( -0- ) ($1,980,000) ($ 200,000) ($1,100,000) 

Siu Imprcxmml! (.CimJalion Rmsiims) $ 610,500 $ 610,500 

TOT.\L $1 15,000,000" •• $32,010,900 $8,110,100 $24,576,000 $35,064,900 $12,555,900 $2,325,100 



• Includes $200 500 in Planning Funds Requested in FY 1977. 
•• Includes $156,600 in Planning Funds Requested in FY 1977. 



— $699 million; was second in com exports — $723 mil- 
lion ; and was second in meat products export — $28.6 
million. Illinois has ranked fourth among all states in 
total cash receipts from the sale of all farm products for 
a number of years, exceeded only by California, Texas, 
and Iowa — all of which are larger in acreage. Illinois is 
usually first in the nation in soybean production, first or 
second in com and in pork production, and among the 
first ten states in production of all livestock products. 
The gross farm income in Illinois has been over $3 bil- 
lion annually since 1968. It was $5,363 billion in 1973, 
$6,174 billion in 1974, and will probably be about $6 
billion in 1975, when final figures are tabulated. 

Many authorities have long realized that education 
and research represent the major tools that can lead to 
better fanning methods, increased grain and livestock 
production, better transport systems for delivering food, 



improved food packaging and preservation, new and 
different foods, more effective fertilizers and herbicides, 
etc. The State of Illinois has invested resources in build- 
ing a strong state university system, with particular 
strength in research at the Urbana-Champaign campus. 
Faculty members in many departments and colleges at 
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have 
contributed to Illinois' leadership in the food production 
area. In turn, using the results of faculty research in 
direct application to Illinois' agricultural enterprise, the 
state's overall economy has prospered, and it has been 
able to make a significant contribution toward solving 
national and world-wide food shortages. 

The University of Illinois can provide the human 
resources to mount the attack against food shortage, and 
the proposed building program provides the physical re- 
sources from which to launch it. By supporting such a 



program, the State of Illinois will be enhancing and im- 
proving the investment it has already made in first-rate 
agricultural teaching, research, and extension programs. 
At the same time it will be investing in activities which 
are critically important to improving the state's own 
agricultural productivity and thus improving its eco- 
nomic base. 

As summarized in Table 5, the proposed building 
program would provide the needed space to allow fac- 
ulty members in the Colleges of Agriculture and Veteri- 
nary Medicine to pursue more effectively federal research 
funds that will soon be available. It will allow both col- 
leges to expand and modernize their extension efforts in 



the state, and it will provide space for the College of 
Veterinary Medicine to increase the size of its entering 
freshman class from 70 to 104 students. 

It is proposed that the capital projects in this pro- 
gram, which are to be constructed over a period of eight 
years, be financed by a special issue of bonds totaling 
$114,000,000 to be retired over a period of 32 years at 
an annual interest rate anticipated not to exceed 5.75%. 
The source of funds for the annual payments to retire the 
bonds is proposed to be the Agricultural Premium Fund 
— a special fund created for the advancement of agri- 
culture in the State of Illinois. 



4 



I 

I 



l,li 




cLy 



220a Library 
3 1 oopies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 266, November 15, 1976 



Summary of American Council on Education Report '^^ '^•^5A,VA-c/w^<pS 

COSTS OF FEDERALLY MANDATED SOCIAL PROGRAMS AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 



The operating costs of colleges and universities have 
increased over the past decade far faster than has the 
general price level. Part of the increases are attributable 
to the added cost of implementing an ever-growing num- 
ber of federally mandated social programs. The Ameri- 
can Council on Education (.\CE) undertook a study to 
provide quantified e.xamples of these cost increases and 
to reach a better understanding of their impact on the 
financial conditions of academic institutions. The follow- 
ing comments are excerpts from the special report 
titled 'The Costs of Implementing Federally Mandated 
Social Programs at Colleges and Universities," published 
in June of 1976 by the American Council on Education. 



Rather than provide an extensive survey of institutions 
using a form questionnaire, the ACE decided to use the 
approach of an intensive investigation by a small task 
force with a small number of institutions. This procedure 
was followed because in the judgment of .'\CE, the close 
collaboration with a few institutions would produce far 
more usable information than a large scale survey, and 
it would provide a more solid basis for any subsequent 
broad sur^'ey on narrowly defined topics. 

TASK FORCE INSTITUTIONS 

In order to assemble a reasonably typical group of 
colleges and universities, six task force institutions were 
selected on the basis of the following criteria: 
1 . Type and control ; 



2. Geographic location (constrained by consideration of 
travel costs) ; 

3. Financial conditions (apparently not in unusual fi- 
nancial distress) ; 

4. Availability of cost data, including historical data, 
and experience with sophisticated data collection 
techniques ; 

5. Awareness of commitment to the objectives of the 
selected programs. 

The six task force institutions selected by control and 
type were : 

University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois (state institu- 
tion) 

Miami-Dade Junior College, Miami, Florida (commu- 
nity college) 

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (private uni- 
versity with hospital) 

Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (private uni- 
versity with hospital) 

Hampton Institute, Hampton, Virginia (private com- 
prehensive college) 

College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio (private liberal arts 
college) 

FEDERALLY MANDATED SOCIAL PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY 

The federally mandated social programs listed below 
were selected because they apply to colleges and univer- 
sities as business entities, and do not extend to social 
programs directed only at educational institutions. Thus, 



the programs included are only a small part of the mas- 
sive legislation — federal, state, and local — that affects 
higher education. 

Equal Employment Opportunity — Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Em- 
ployment Opportunity Act of 1972. 
Equal Pay — Equal Pay Act of 1963. 
Affirmative Action — Executive Order 11246, issued in 
1965, as amended by Executive Order 11375 to include 
discrimination on basis of sex, 1967. 

Age Discrimination — Emplo)Tnent Act of 1967, as 
amended. 

Wage and Hour Standards — Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) of 1938, as amended. 

Unemployment Compensation — Social Security Act of 

1935; Employment Security .Amendments, 1970. 

Social Security Tax Increases — Social Security Act of 

1935; Employment Security Amendments, 1970. 

Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) — Health 

Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. 

Retirement Benefits — Employment Retirement Income 

Security Act (ERISA) of 1973 (note: public institutions 

excluded) . 

Wage and Salary Controls — Economic Stabilization 
Act of 1970 (note: public institutions excluded; non- 
profit institutions exempted January 25, 1974) . 

Occupational Safety and Health — Occupational Safety 
and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970. 

Environmental Protection — Regulations implemented 
under several laws by the Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

PERIOD COVERED BY THE STUDY 

The period covered in die study is the ten years from 
1965 to 1975, which covers the tvvo business recessions in 
1970-71 and 1974-75. Because enactment of new federal 
social legislation accelerated rapidly in the late 1960s 
and early 1970s, information had to be collected over a 
period beginning as early as 1965 in order to establish 
at least a rough baseline for identifying incremental 
costs. In general, the participants in the study were able 
to provide better infonnation for the years after 1970 
than for the previous years. This may have the effect of 
understating costs more in the earlier years than in the 
later years of the study and thus overstating the rate of 
cost increase. However, the estimates of the dollar cost 
of the mandated program are probably more conservative 
than are the estimates of the rate of cost increases. 

HIGHLIGHTS 

The major highlights of the study are given below. 

In 1974-75, the costs to the individual institutions of 
implementing these federal programs were small (1-4 
percent) relative to total institutional operating budgets, 



but large relative to ( 1 ) income from endowments and 
gifts, (2) the deficits suffered by some institutions in re- 
cent years, and (3) the budgets of some academic de- 
partments that face extinction because of shifts in insti- 
tutional budget priorities. 

As new mandated programs were added over the 
1965-75 decade, the costs increased considerably faster 
than instructional costs or total revenues. Thus, to cover 
these mandated costs, institutions have had either to 
generate added revenues or to cut expenditures. 

Administering these federal programs is itself costly, 
having increased over the decade from a negligible share 
to as much as one-eighth to one-fourth of general ad- 
ministrative costs. 

By far the greatest cost increases result from increases 
in social securit)' taxes, i.e., taxes on employment. Inas- 
much as colleges and universities are highly labor-inten- 
sive, employment taxes fall especially heavily on them. 
Thus, the value of the tax exemption conferred on aca- 
demic institutions because of their nonprofit status — 
an exemption that generally applies to taxes on income, 
property, and sales, but not to taxes on employment - — 
is vitiated. 

These programs have contributed substantially to the 
instability of costs at the task force institutions from year 
to year and thus have compounded their difficulties in 
financial management and budget balancing. 

In addition, the study suggests the following hy- 
pothesis, which needs to be tested with a larger sample. 

The cost impact of the programs differs by size and 
type of institution, being most severe for highly "visible'" 
(i.e., large and prestigious) institutions and for private 
institutions. 

Because a large part of the mandated costs is related 
to emplo^Ttnent, and because academic institutions are 
more labor-intensive than are most manufacturing and 
many service enterprises, the cost impact of the programs 
may be greater on them than on many profit-oriented in- 
dustrial firms. In addition, colleges and universities have 
less flexibility in raising prices and reducing other expen- 
ditures to generate fimds to cover the mandated costs, 
all of which must be met out of current institutional 
budgets. 

Federal policies relating to social justice, manpower, 
science, defense, and taxation may have a far greater fi- 
nancial impact on higher education than does any ex- 
plicit and coherent federal jxilicy in support of higher 
education. 

Some actual data from the report indicating the 
trends in costs of implementing the federally mandated 
social programs over the period from 1965 to 1975 are 
shov^m in the table on the next page. 

Copies of the report are available from the Publica- 
tions Division, American Council on Education, One 
Dupont Circle, ^Vashington, D.C. 20036, at a cost of 
$3.50 per copy. 



TRENDS IN COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING FEDERALLY MANDATED SOCIAL PROGRAMS 

1965-75 

(By Institution, Including Social Security Taxes) 



Institution 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


VI 


Control and Type 


Public 


Public 


Private 


Private 


Private 


Private 




State 


Local 


University, 


University, 


Comprehensive 


Liberal 




University 


Coinmunitv 


with 


with 


College 


Arts 






College 


Hospital 


Hospital 




College 


Highest Degree Offered 


Doctorate 


Associate 


Doctorate 


Doctorate 


Master's 


Master's 


FTE Enrollment, 1974-75 


33,000 


23,000 


8,000 


10,000 


3,000 


2,000 


Expenditures, 1974-75 


$213,000,000 


$-44,500,000 


$160,000,000 


$86,000,000 


$12,500,000 


$10,500,000 


1965-65 


$ 438,470 






$ 110,736 


$ 2,158 


$ 4,540 


1966-67 


348,809 






359,522 


71,113 


16,028 


1967-68 


176,467 






555,194 


131,926 


23,081 


1968-69 


346,265 


$ 25,567 


$ 391,545 


611,384 


202,908 


43,511 


1969-70 


683,645 


138,250 


661,559 


1,440,581 


221,908 


105,583 


1970-71 


856,429 


156,240 


1,607,738 


992,038 


216,493 


119,753 


1971-72 


880,932 


240,107 


1,450,318 


1,485,302 


242,245 


131,893 


1972-73 


819,815 


337,451 


2,493,210 


1,809,287 


279,659 


123,789 


1973-74 


1,156,583 


441,257 


3,715,170 


2,330,676 


385,619 


154,965 


1974-75 


1,302,545 


480,067 


3,618,070 


3,603,243 


467,493 


240,164 



Source: American Council on Education, Policy Analysis Service. Data compiled by the Special Costs Study Task Force, spring 1975. 



Letter from Annuitants' Association to Faculty 

ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT J. E. BLAZE ADDRESSES UIUC FACULTY AND STAFF 



People who are dependent, or will be, on the State 
Universities Retirement System, are facing real trouble. 

For years the office of the system, and the annuitants, 
have carried the major burden of concern because of the 
underfunding of the State Universities Retirement Sys- 
tem. The time has now arrived for the active faculty to 
be concerned about the resources upon which they will 
depend when they become retirees. 

Our pension system, and the other state-funded sys- 
tems of Illinois, are in serious difficulties. 
"A study of the pension liabilities of thirty-five states with 
significant amounts of general obligation debt outstanding, by 
Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. has found five states sig- 
nificantly underfunded. 

'"The study concluded that Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecti- 
cut, Michigan, and Florida had potential difficulties in meet- 
ing their benefit payments. Turthermore,' the study said, 'none 
of the above has yet made significant strides in overcoming its 
funding difficulties'."* 

A 1967 amendment to the lUinois Pension Code (Il- 
linois Revised Statutes, Chapter 108 V2, Sec. 15-155) pro- 
vides that "The contributions of employers from State 
appropriations for any fiscal year shall not be less than an 
amount which is required to fund fully the current costs 
in accordance with actuarial reserve requirements as 
prescribed in paragraph ( 1 ) of this section, plus interest 
at the prescribed rate on unfunded accrued liabilities." 
This provision was designed to stabilize the liabilities 

* June 7, 1976, issue of "Pensioo and iDvestmeots," page 26. 



for past service at the July 1, 1967, level of $143,000,000. 
It would do this by fixing the employer contributions at 
no less than the current service costs plus interest on the 
unfunded accrued liabilities. 

Since this legislation was approved, many efforts have 
been undertaken unsuccessfully to improve the rate of 
funding through legislative appropriations and litigation. 

On May 8, 1973, Governor Walker said in a letter to 
Timothy Swain, president of the Board of Trustees, of 
the State Universities Retirement System, "I promised 
to provide adequate funding and I mean to do just that." 

On September 24, 1974, Mr. Harold Hovey, director 
of the Bureau of the Budget, in a letter to the Board of 
Higher Education said, "Neither the governor nor the 
Bureau of the Budget has made a decision to 'fully fund' 
or a decision to pay 100 percent of payouts. . . ." 

The 1975 appropriation for the State Universities Re- 
tirement System was $64 million less than the minimum 
statutory requirement. The unfunded accrued liabilities 
for this one system e.xceeded $587 million on August 31, 
1975, and the deficit for the five state-supported systems 
was approximately $3 billion. In 1975, the state appro- 
priated to the State Universities Retirement System 
$2,049,000 less than the state's share of benefit payouts 
for the 1975-76 fiscal year. 

The annuitants of the State Universities Retirement 
System sincerely believe that : 

\. At a minimum, the state should appropriate annually 
funds sufficient to meet its share of the annual payouts. 



Although full funding of the systems may not be 
feasible, the governor, the Pension Laws Commission, 
and the legislature should agree on a program which, 
over a period of fifteen to twenty years, would raise 
the rate of funding of the system (45 percent) at least 
to that of the General Assembly System (now 61.7 
percent) . 

The solution to the funding problem actually is more 
important to the faculty and staff than the annuitants. 



The older members of the staiT will become concerned 
with the problem of funding as they approach the time 
when they will be dependent on the reserves of the sys- 
tem funds for their own security in retirement. But the 
younger members of the faculty should be even more 
concerned because of the larger sums they will contribute 
to a less and less reliable system. So, there are strong 
reasons for the faculty and staff to be concerned and 
active in seeking corrective measures. 



Grievance Procedures to Follow on Three Campuses 



IMPROVED TO COMPLY WITH TFTLE DC, NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

Each campus of the University of Illinois has adopted 
grievance procedures in compliance with Title IX, Non- 
discrimination on the Basis of Sex, for academic/profes- 
sionals, faculty, and students. The General University 
also has adopted such procedures. Nonacademic person- 
nel with complaints should follow the procedures out- 
lined in Chapter VII, Grievances of the Policy and Rules 
— Nonacademic. 

The new procedures provide for the processing and 
disposition of complaints by faculty, staff, and students 
as well as applicants for admission and for employment 
alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national 
origin, religion, age, handicap, or status as a disabled 
veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. 

Copies of the procedures can be obtained as follows. 

Chicago Circle: 

Faculty grievances: Nan E. McGehee, 2801 University 

Hall (phone: 4878) 

Academic/Professional grievances: Nan E. McGehee, 
2801 University Hall (phone: 4878) 

Student grievances: Weyman Edwards, 801 University 
Hall (phone: 3123) 

Nonacademic grievances: Yvette Jackson, 707 University 
Hall (phone: 2602) 



BASIS OF SEX 

Medical Center: 

Faculty grievances: Carol A. Mootry, 414 Administrative 

Office Building (phone: 8670) 

Academic/Professional grievances: Carol A. Mootry, 
414 Administrative Office Building (phone: 8670) 

Student grievances: William A. Overholt, 204 Admin- 
istrative Office Building (phone: 4942) 

Nonacademic grievances: George McGregor, 310 Ad- 
ministrative Office Building (phone: 6680) 

U rbana-Champaign: 

Faculty grievances: Office of Academic Affirmative 

Action, 209 Coble Hall (phone: 3-0574) 

Academic/Professional grievances: Office of Assistant 
Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, B-3 Coble Hall 
(phone: 3-2759) 

Student grievances: Campus Student Assistance Center, 
130 Student Services Building (phone: 3-4636) 

Nonacademic grievances: James Ransom, 52 East 
Gregory Street (phone: 3-2147) 

General University: 

Copies of all of the General University grievance pro- 
cedures may be obtained from Jean E. Somers, 306 Illini 
Tower (phone: 3-2590). 



BROWN NORMAN 3 




FAC 



FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 267, February 9, 1977 



Report to the President on Intercampns Relations 

PRESENTED BY ELX)ON L. JOHNSON, VICE-PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS 



This is a report in response to the assignments given 
this office on certain aspects of intercampus relations. 
Your letter of assignment was dated December 10, 1975.^ 
It contemplated a response by, or soon after, September 
15, 1976, on the assiimption that a single, consolidated 
report would be made. Experience has shown the wis- 
dom of filing separate reports, sector by sector. There- 
fore, it seems appropriate now to summarize what has 
been done, with a generalized commentary. 

It must be realized, of course, that there are deep- 
seated, per\-asive intercampus attitudes and historical 
relations which proxide the unspoken context for all that 
is rejxjrted here. Intercampus distance is a factor, some- 
times producing problems over the 135-mile axis between 
Chicago and Urbana-Champaign and sometimes pro- 
ducing both cooperation and o\erfamiliarity between 
the two Chicago campuses located three-quarters of a 
mile apart. Difference in campus missions is another 
factor, and so is comparative stage of development. A 
new operation in the shadow of the Sears Tower is 
bound to be different from a centur}'-old operation at 
the site of what was long THE University of Illinois; 
and a specialized health-related campus is bound to differ 
from both. 

The resources of this amalgam do, or should, provide 
enrichment and interlocking strength; otherwise the sys- 
tem is without merit. It is to discover and enhance the 
means of reciprocal support and mutual benefit that the 
assignments \vere made and executed. 

Within this context the six selected segments chosen 
for study are summarized below. 

Intercampus Research Relations. Examination of this 
area was, in fact, \irtually completed when the overall 
task was assigned. It is included here because, in a sense, 
it set in motion concern for other intercampus relations. 
That examination was the result of response to one or 
two critical, and t)pical, intercampus problems which 
had arisen and had presented experience out of which 
future remedy might be wrought. 

.\fter extensive discussions in the University Aca- 

' See Faculty Letter No. 260, February 11, 1976. 



demic Council, two policy statements were agreed upon 
and put into operation.^ The first is an Early Notifica- 
tion System adopted on November 21, 1975, and sent to 
you on December 5, 1975. The vice-chancellors of aca- 
demic affairs have used the system conscientiously and, 
on the basis of several concrete cases, testify to its effec- 
tiveness. The chief merit is the sharing of information 
among campuses early enough to anticipate and iron 
out intercampus complications, particularly in the cre- 
ation of offices, centers, institutes, and other units of 
potential mutual concern. 

The only problem areas so far experienced are: 
(a) the remaining possibility of an accomplished fact 
or "end run" via a successful grant application (although 
this possible bypassing of the policy was anticipated and 
steps taken to prevent it) and (b) the current campus- 
based reconsideration of plans for an All-University 
Center for Gerontology as previously worked out by an 
intercampus committee. 

The second policy statement (also adopted November 
21, 1975) concerned intercampus workshops, with the 
following results: 

1. Gerontology. A most successful workshop, as judged 
by responses from the approximately 100 participants 
from the three campuses, was held on May 7 and 8, 
1976, in Chicago. Emphasis was placed on research in 
progress, the national picture, and the most needed 
and promising research areas for the future. Com- 
mendation belongs particularly to Dr. Ethel Shanas 
(UICC) and her steering committee and Associate 
Vice-President Victor J. Stone for planning and 
execution. 

2. Cancer. A three-campus planning committee under 
the chairmanship of Dr. Tapas Das Gupta (UIMC) 
is organizing a workshop on cancer research to be 
held on April 15 and 16, 1977. 

3. Genetics. An intercampus committee has been ap- 
pointed under the chairmanship of Dean William A. 
Overholt (UIMC) to plan a symposium workshop 
dealing with the frontiers of research in human 
genetics, including recombinant DNA research and 



social and ethical implications. Commissioned papers 

are planned with postsession publication for wider 

dissemination. 

This sector of the original plan has worked as well 
as — perhaps better than — anyone contemplated. An 
original goal, not yet realized but still planned, is similar 
periodic intercampus effort on a disciplinary, rather than 
problem, basis. 

Special thanks are due the President's Office for fi- 
nancial suppKjrt of these efforts, the last two of which will 
have the aid of a Joyce Foundation grant to the 
University. 

Graduate Degree Programs. A separate report will be 
filed soon on this important section of the intercampus 
studies. The campuses have now formulated answers 
(through special committees at UIUC and UICC and 
with similar aid on graduate program evaluation at 
UIMC) to key questions about current status and five- 
year plans for graduate education. These answers will, 
like the original questions, be considered by the Univer- 
sity' Council on Graduate Education and Research. 
Appropriate generalizations and systemwide considera- 
tions will be incorporated in the repwrt. 

Completion of this sector has been the most time-con- 
suming of all, but emphasis has been on thoughtful 
planning rather than meeting deadlines. Without antici- 
pating the final outcome, it can now be observed with 
confidence that these gains will be realized : 

1. An internal status report and five-year projection of 
intent, sometimes general and sometimes specific, 
although perhaps falling short of "an internal master 
plan for graduate education" as once envisioned ; 

2. Extensive consideration and planning by all the regu- 
lar machinery for graduate education at both the 
campus and system levels, plus augmentation by the 
participation of ad hoc committees; 

3. Illumination of intercampus cooperation as a supple- 
mental vehicle for achievement of the University's 
goal in graduate education — the special significance 
as a developmental device for Chicago Circle, the 
current status of joint degree programs, and options 
for the future; 

4. Partial response to the planning expectations set 
forth in Master Plan IV of the Board of Higher 
Education. 

OfT-Campus Educational Services. The sector concern- 
ing University outreach has been completed. Reports 
were sent to you on September 1, 1976, one setting forth 
policy issues and planning targets and the other giving re- 
ports from five task forces. These latter groups and the 
parent body, the University Council on Public Service, 
spent months investigating problems and options for 
improvement. On the basis of your endorsing letter of 
September 22, 1976, the chancellors and campus officers 
are now seeking to make appropriate campus applica- 
tions. The University Council on Public Service will also 
attempt to give priority to policies and targets which are 
attainable under present circumstances. If this urgent 
matter of delivery of off-campus services (e.g., ad- 



\anced continuing education for professionals and the 
application of knowledge to societal problems) is to take 
its place alongside, or in supplementation of, traditional 
on-campus activities, it deserves and requires explicit at- 
tention and action. 

Internal Evaluation. Universitywide concern about in- 
ternal evaluation, with intercampus implications, takes 
two forms: (a) assurance that each campus has a sys- 
tematic plan for periodic evaluation of programs and 
units and (b) Universitywide experimentation with a 
program for evaluation of top administrative personnel. 
This is an area in which progress, rather than com- 
pletion, will have to be reported. Progress on the first 
task, concerning campus systems, can be summarized as 
follows : 

1. Urbana-Champaign campus. The COPE evaluation 
program was in being, and fully operative, before 
these intercampus studies were begun. Its early devel- 
opment and comprehensiveness have won it national 
attention. 

2. Chicago Circle campus. All the essential pieces of a 
comprehensive system are now in place and an Evalu- 
ation Review Board has begun its work. This includes 
the establishment of evaluative criteria with workable 
definitions and the identification of programs and 
units to be evaluated in the first round. Two major 
components are incorporated: the work of the elabo- 
rate self-study organization called into being for 
accreditation review by the North Central Association 
and the program for evaluation of all graduate degree 
programs e\ery five years. The remaining question is 
whether all these pieces can be cast together as a co- 
herent plan which can be published and made known 
both to insiders and outsiders as an instrument of 
fjeriodic "accountability," with due allowance for the 
imprecision of both the word and the expectations it 
engenders. Putting the several pieces into replicatable 
form is now being undertaken at the campus level. 
When done, it should be an appropriate and worthy 
parallel to the COPE system on the Urbana-Cham- 
paign campus. 

3. Medical Center campus. A system of evaluation is 
nearing completion, but it is bound to reflect the 
unique features of UIMC and its special academic 
mission. \Vith the emphasis on professions and the 
customary reliance of the health professions on pe- 
riodic accreditation by outside bodies, these processes 
will inevitably loom largely in any final system. That 
regularizing process is now proceeding under the su- 
p>ervision of \^ice-Chancellor William J. Grove, and a 
report is anticipated in a few weeks. 

The conclusion of this phase of the studies now 
awaits the receipt (from UICC and UIMC) of the com- 
pleted evaluative plans, their transmission to the Presi- 
dent's Office, and their wide dissemination on the ap- 
propriate campus. We are on the threshold of having in 
place for the first time, on all campuses, systems of 
periodic program evaluation. This is not as novel as it 
sounds because evaluation has never been absent. How- 



ever, die new thnjst is toward a more fonnal system 
with emphasis on estabHshed periodicity, greater cer- 
tainty, higher visibihty, broader staff participation, and 
spelled-out procedures. 

Supplementing, and in some ways complicating, the 
evaluative pixnresses is the Administrator Evaluation 
Project. It is Universitywide and, in a sense, laid on top 
of the campus program evaluations, raising the inevitable 
question as to whether and how the two schemes are to 
be reconciled. ^Vhile the project, under the direction of 
Professor Peter Yankwich, is proceeding with official and 
real evaluations of representative administrators by cate- 
gories (e.g., department heads and deans), it is under- 
stood both by authorizing Senates and Trustees to be ex- 
perimental. The future will depend on total experience, 
which will be analyzed and reported by the director 
at the end of the summer of 1977. Therefore, further 
comment would be premature. 

This is unquestionably an era of general zeal for 
evaluation of all kinds, including performance auditing 
by state governmental agencies. Contributing components 
are the drives for openness, accountability, and partici- 
pation. Candor requires recognition that some campus 
resistance is rising against these extensive evaluative 
efTorts, with complaints about the time demands and 
fears about the budgetary uses. Experience is confirming 
that problems exist in how and ^vhat to publicize, the 
uses to which results should be put, who should do the 
evaluating, how the many le\els of evaluating can be 
reconciled, the time/benefits trade-ofT, the internal- 
external tensions, and the short-run and long-run 
administrative effects. ^Vhile the old assurance that evalu- 
ation inheres in ongoing budgeting and personnel pro- 
cedures \vi]\ no longer suffice, the shape of the more for- 
mal and purposeful substitute has not yet fully emerged. 
What is now taking place at the campus and University- 
\vide levels will contribute to that process of emergence. 

Intercampus Library Services. How to maximize the use 
of the University's library resources has long been a 
problem and challenge. The library at the Medical Cen- 
ter campus in Chicago has immense capacity to enrich 
the resources of the other two campuses in the life sci- 
ences and their adjuncts. Given its size and compre- 
hensiveness, the Urbana-Champaign library is potentially 
an invaluable ally of the Chicago Circle campus as it 
builds towards its objective of on-site capacity to match 
its teaching-research-service mission in the Chicago area. 
Likewise, it is a rich supplementary resource for the 
Medical Center campus. 

Yet experience shows that this is better theory than 
practice. A recent report indicates that interlibrary loans 
between the Urbana-Champaign campus and the Chi- 
cago Circle campus have actually declined in number, 
while the opposite was the intended objective. Also, in 
response to this perpetual problem, the University Coun- 
cil on Libraries (when it was created in 1967) was asked 
to maximize "the accessibility of all the University's li- 
brary resources to potential users on all campuses, and 
including a consolidated statistical report for all li- 
braries." In other words, the old challenge and the new 



ln\estigat!on came together. Therefore, the University 
Council on Libraries was asked to consider the library 
sector of the intercampus studies and to report its 
recommendations. That report, received on November 
10, 1976, was sent to you on November 29, 1976. For a 
modest financial outlay, it proposes several remedial 
steps for irmnediate implementation : 

1. Implementation of a courier service to provide 24- 
hour turnaround time for interlibrary loans. 

2. Coordination of collection development to minimize 
duplication, facilitate purchase of expensive and 
esoteric items, and avoid conflicting actions. 

3. E.xpansion of the Union List of Serials. 

In addition to these steps hope lies in the implicit com- 
mitment of the top library personnel to strive, through 
their planning and recommendations, for a better match 
between theory and practice in the intercampus use of 
the University's total library resources. 

To avoid confusion mention should be made of the 
Library Sharing Request in the FY 1978 budget which 
was \vorked out subsequent to the plan outlined above. 
While the more ambitious sharing plan, based on com- 
puterization, also addresses itself to interlibrary services, 
it is not a substitute for the procedural and personnel 
recommendations of the University Council on Libraries. 
The two plans have their independent but related mer- 
its and should be neither confused nor regarded as 
competitive. 

While it would be naive to assume that intercampus 
library relations can be solved by yet another report 
(there have been many in the past!), the sound and 
modest recommendations which have resulted from your 
December 10, 1975, inquiry do augur well for some im- 
mediate improvement. They are eminently worth trying, 
in the full knowledge and with the deteiTnination that 
still more will be insisted upon if necessary to bring the 
unique resources of one library to the urgent needs of 
another in the University system. 

Intercampus Student and Faculty Services. To be faith- 
ful to the organic concept of the multicampus Univer- 
sity of Illinois, as distinguished from a loose confedera- 
tion of autonomous institutions, students and faculty of 
the different campuses should engage in some sharing, 
reciprocity, and accommodation. There should be some 
advantage in being within the system as compared with 
being outside it — for example, student admissions from 
one campus of the University to another campus. In 
fact, the admissions problem antedated this study and 
served as the centeipiece for an examination of a range 
of similar intercampus relations, actual and potential, 
affecting students. 

Responsibility for this sector was assigned to Director 
E. Eugene Oliver, University Office of School and Col- 
lege Relations, who chaired intercampus committees al- 
ready engaged in, or well prepared to become engaged in, 
consideration of such shared services. His report will be 
ready as soon as intercampus agreement can be obtained 
on the assessment and collection of fees and the provision 
of services for students in intercampus programs. He has 



alread)' reported how the admissions, or student transfer, 
problem between campuses was resolved through an 
intercampus policy agreement. He will report also on 
other types of intercampus services (e.g., concurrent en- 
rollment) affecting students and faculty under certain 
circumstances, with comment on what improvement 
seems feasible. 

The conclusion seems warranted that, while impor- 
tant, this is not an area of intercampus relations which 
will generate either great need or much use. 

Independently of tliis study, a proposal for a system 
of Uni\-ersity Professorships, involving intercampus status 
and services, originated on the Chicago Circle campus. 
The idea was discussed both in the University Academic 
Council and tlie University Council on Graduate Edu- 
cation and Research and was referred to the campuses 
for consideration. Under present conditions the idea 
seems to lack sufficient interest for implementation. The 
major supplier of potential talent, the Urbana-Cham- 
paign campus, reported unencouraging response. 

To recapitulate, the sector studies now stand as 
follows : 

1. Research Relations. Completed. (Policy statement on 



Early Notification System and Encouragement System 
available on request. ) 

2. Graduate Degree Programs. Campus reports have 
now been received and the composite Universitywide 
report will follow as soon as the University Council 
on Graduate Education and Research can be con- 
sulted. (All to be available on request.) 

3. Off-Campus Educational Services. Completed, with 
two reports submitted on September 1, 1976. (Avail- 
able on request.) 

4. Internal Evaluation, (a) Campus program evaluation 
at UIUC has long been complete; UICC has a system 
now beginning to operate, with an integrated descrip- 
tion soon to be available; UIMC is building on a com- 
posite of its professional accrediting reviews, with a 
final report expected soon, (b) Administrator Evalu- 
ation Project preliminaiy report due, as planned 
from the beginning, in autumn 1977. (All to be avail- 
able on request.) 

5. Library Services. Completed, with report submitted 
on November 10, 1976. (Available on request.) 

6. Student and Faculty Services. To be completed by 
the end of February. (To be available on request.) 



Report on the Pass-Fail Option at Chicago Circle and Urhana 

PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BO/VRD OF TRUSTEES DECEMBER 15, 1976 



At its meeting on June 19, 1974, the Board of Trus- 
tees approved the continuance and modification of the 
pass-fail grading option for the Urbana-Champaign 
campus. In the discussion of the recommendation, it was 
understood that a report on pass-fail options would be 
prepared for the Board at the end of a two-year period. 

A summary report follows of the policies, participa- 
tion, and success rate of students utilizing the pass-fail 
option at Urbana-Champaign and Chicago Circle for 
the period fall 1973 through fall 1975 at the Urbana- 
Champaign campus and from spring 1974 through win- 
ter 1976 at the Chicago Circle campus. .\t the Medical 
Center campus, although all grades in certain clinical 
courses are either pass or fail, students are not offered the 
choice of taking courses on a pass-fail or regular grading 
system. 

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Several substantive changes in the pass-fail system at 
the Urbana-Champaign campus were approved by the 
Board of Trustees on June 19, 1974, to be effective for 
the 1974-75 spring semester. These changes specified a 
minimum grade of C to receive credit under the option, 
rather than the D grade required previously, and ex- 
cluded from the option those courses (a) used to satisfy 
the University general education requirements, (b) 
specifically required by the student's college for gradua- 
tion, or (c) specifically designated by the curriculum as 
satisfying the student's major or field of concentration. 
Also excluded were fourth semester foreign language 
courses when taken to fulfill the graduation requirement 



in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The revi- 
sions permitted part-time students to participate for the 
first time by taking a maximum of one course pass-fail 
in any one semester and permitted full-time students to 
take a maximum of two courses in any one semester, 
rather than only one course as permitted under the 
pre\-ious policy. The terminology was also changed from 
pass-fail to credit-no credit. 

Table 1 (page 5) shows the number and percent of 
student grades in courses taken on the pass-fail (credit- 
no credit) basis from fall 1973 through fall 1975. The 
percentages are based on the total number of courses 
taken by all students. 

A substantial decline in participation is noted: 
credit-no credit courses taken by students at Urbana- 
Champaign in fall 1975 represent 1 percent of the 
total courses taken by students on that campus, com- 
pared with 4 percent in the fall of 1973. The actual 
number of courses taken on a credit-no credit basis 
dropped from 5,729 to 1,963 during this period. 

The proportion of students taking credit-no credit 
courses who fail or, under the re\'ised policy, receive no 
credit for the course, has increased slightly, from 4.61 to 
6.16 percent of the total grades in such courses. The 
follo\ving table indicates the percentage of courses passed 
or failed as compared to the total number of courses 
taken on the credit-no credit basis; 

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 

1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 

Pass (credit) 95.39 96.20 96.15 94.08 93.84 

Fail (no credit) .. . 4.61 3.80 3.85 5.92 6.16 



CHICAGO CIRCLE 

The University of Illinois at Chicago Circle's pass-fail 
option for undergraduate students \vas initiated spring 
quarter 1974. This study covers the period from spring 
quarter 1974 through winter quarter 1976, and Table 2 
^page6) show-s the number and percent of student grades 
in courses taken on a pass-fail basis during this period. 

During that period, no changes were made in the 
])rovisions for the use of the option. There are two major 
diflTerenccs between the pass-fail option at UICC and 
the credit-no credit option at Urbana-Champaign : at 
UIUC a student may take two courses per tenn under 
the option, whereas at UICC only one may be taken; 
under the UIUC credit-no credit option a C is the 
passing grade, whereas under UICC's pass-fail option a 
D is considered passing. 

Three of the colleges at UICC established additional 
requirements for the use of the pass-fail option beyond 
those specified by the campus. Those colleges were : 
business administration, engineering, and liberal arts and 
sciences. 

The additional requirement of the College of Liberal 
Arts and Sciences was that no more than two courses 
could be taken on a pass-fail basis in a single discipline; 
LAS does, however, allow a student to use the option 
for any course that is not a requirement for the major. 

In the Colleges of Business Administration and Engi- 
neering, each of which has a substantial number of core 
courses, more stringent rules on the use of pass-fail have 
been imposed. The College of Business .-\dministration 
prohibits its use for (a) English composition, (b) begin- 
ning economics, (c) required mathematics courses, and 
(d) administrative core courses other than business 
electives. 

The College of Engineering restricts the number of 
hours that can be taken under the pass-fail option by 
limiting the courses permitted to six and imposing these 
additional restrictions: (aj no 100-level courses, (b) 
only t\vo courses per discipline, and (c) no courses in 
the core. 



A nonrigorous comparison of grades taken under 
the pass-fail option at UICC and under the regular 
grading system indicated that the incidence of failure is 
lower in courses taken pass-fail than in courses taken for 
a letter grade. This circumstance seems particularly in- 
teresting in view of the fact tliat under the UICC pass- 
fail option the instructor does not know that a student 
is registered in his course under the pass-fail option. 

During the period studied, the greatest use of the 
pass-fail option was in courses offered by the College of 
Liberal Arts and Sciences. Those ofTered by the College 
of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation ranked 
second. For neither college, however, were pass-fail 
registrations high. Pass-fail grades in LAS courses never 
exceeded 4 percent; in HPER they never exceeded 2 
percent. It is perhaps relevant that each of these col- 
leges had a pass-fail option prior to the adoption of the 
campuswide option. Prior to initiation of the campus- 
wide option, LAS had conducted a four-year pass-fail 
experiment under rules closely paralleling the campus 
option; HPER had authorized pass-fail grades in its 
service courses since fall quarter 1970. In the other col- 
leges at UICC, with the exception of the Jane Addams 
School of Social Work where pass-fail registration hit an 
atypical high of 11 percent summer quarter 1974 and 
then dropped to less than 1 percent, pass-fail registra- 
tions were less than 1 percent for most of the period 
studied (Table 2). 

In reviewing the report of its Ad Hoc Committee to 
Study the Pass-Fail Option, the Senate Committee on 
Academic Programs reached the following conclusions: 
the data presented provided no indication that the pass- 
fail option at UICC should be expanded, contracted, or 
modified ; and the nimiber of students exercising the 
pass-fail option is too small to justify pursuing other 
hypotheses or gathering additional data for further study. 

The following table indicates the percent of courses 
passed or failed as compared to the total number of 
courses taken under the pass-fail option : 



Pass. 
Fail. 



Spring 1974 
.. 94.89 
.. 5.11 



Summer 1974 

96.09 

3.91 



Fall 1974 

96.19 

3.81 



Winter 1975 

94.68 

5.32 



Spring 1975 
95 . 60 
4.40 



Summer 1975 

94.62 

5.38 



Fall 1975 
95.44 
4.56 



Wmtet 1976 

95.06 

4.94 



TABLE 1 

STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN UNDERGRADUATE PASS-FAIL (CREDIT-NO CREDIT) COURSES AT THE URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CAMPUS, BY COLLEGE 

Number and Percent of Student Grades in Courses Taken on Pass-Fail (Credit— No Credit) Option 



Fall 1973 

No. % 

College P F P F 

.\griculture 137 4 2 .. 

Cx)inmerceand Business Ad- 
ministration 436 20 3 . . 

Education 59 2 1 

Engineering 97 7 1 

Fine and .-\pplied Arts 380 31 2 .. 

Communications 60 3 3 

Liberal .\rts and Sciences. . 4,132 194 6 

Applied Life Studies 159 3 2 .. 

Aviation 5 1 

Campus Total 5,465 264 4 



Spring 1974 



Spring 1975 




Fall 1975 



Cr 
82 

244 

35 

29 

149 

8 

989 

305 

1 



A'- 
Cr 

2 
22 

5 
12 

1 
66 
13 



Cr 



4,645 186 



2,320 146 



1,842 121 1 



TABLE 2 

STUDENT PARTICIPATION, BY COLLEGE, IN THE CAMPUSWIDE PASS-FAIL OPTION AT THE CHICAGO CIRCLE CAMPUS 

Number and Percent of Student Grades in Courses Taken on Pass-Fall Option 



Spring 1974 



No. 



52 



College P 

Architecture and Art 40 

Business Administration 35 

Education 4 

Engineering 4 

Health, Physical Education, and 

Recreation 42 

Jane Addams School of Social Work .... 24 

Liberal Arts and Sciences 983 

Urban Sciences 

Spring 1975 

No. 
College P 

Architecture and Art 40 

Business Administration 71 

Education 3 

Engineering 8 

Health, Physical Education, and 

Recreation 43 

Jane Addams School of Social Work .... 4 

Liberal Arts and Sciences 916 

Urban Sciences 



% 



% 



Summer 1974 



7 

18 

336 



No. 



349 20 



% 
P F 



Fall 1974 



% 
P F 



23 
694 



No. 



% 
P F 



613 
1 



32 

34 

1 

7 

22 

2 

863 



No. 



New University Director of Public Information Named 

DAVID LANDMAN APPOINTED AT JANUARY MEETING; TO ASSUME OFFICE APRIL 1 



David Landman, 59, has been named University di- 
rector of public information at the University of Illinois 
effective April 1. 

He will become one of ten general officers of the 
three-campus system of the University and will partici- 
pate in policy discussions and decisions. He will be based 
in Chicago with a satellite office on the Urbana-Cham- 
paign campus. 

The position has been vacant since the resignation of 
Charles E. FlyTin. 

Director of public affairs for the Pathfinder Fund in 
Boston since 1973, Landman formerly was director of 
information at the Harvard Business School (1969-73), 
associate director of development at Princeton Univer- 
sity (1963-69), and assistant to the president of Cooper 
Union, New York (1959-63). From 1947 to 1959 he 
was a free-lance writer and editor. 

Throughout his career. Landman has been involved 
with public relations, publications, communications, and 
development. 

He is the author of numerous articles on education, 
social problems, health, and other areas and is a mem- 



ber of the American Society of Journalists and Authors. 
He also has taught professional writing at the School of 
Public Communication, Boston University. 

Landman holds an A.B., magna cum laude, from 
Brown University and an M.A. from Columbia. He is a 
member of Phi Beta Kappa. 

At Illinois Landman will be responsible for develop- 
ing programs to inform the public about the goals, ac- 
tivities, sendees, and accomplishments of the University. 

In recommending Landman's appointment, Univer- 
sity President John E. Corbally said, "I am pleased to be 
able to attract to the University of Illinois a person who 
is both a student of and experienced practitioner in the 
field of communications. 

"The University needs to ha\-e its record of service 
to Illinois and to the nation described in ways which 
reinforce the understanding of its crucial significance to 
Illinois. It is to this task that Mr. Landman will devote 
his abilities and his energy." 

His appointment was approved at the January meet- 
ing of the Board of Trustees. 




FACULl 



BROWN NORN'AN B 
220S LIBRARY 
StRIALS DEPT 



FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 268, March 15, 1977 



Illinois Board of Higher Education Budget Recommendations for FY 1978 



COMPARISON OF UI BUDGET REQUESTS AND IBHE PROPOSAL 

The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) ap- 
proved on March 1. 1977, a suggested allocation of the 
$50 million which Governor Thompson has stated repre- 
sents the new money available for higher education in 
Illinois for Fiscal Year (FY) 1978. It is important to 
remember. howe\er, that this suggested allocation does 
not represent the IBHE recommendations, but is an allo- 
cation made at the request of the governor. 

On Januan,' 11. 1977, the IBHE made recommenda- 
tions for FY 1978 operating and capital budget appro- 
priations based upon IBHE analysis of needs and of the 
resources of the State of Illinois. These recommendations 
will be used in developing the appropriations bills for 
the University of Illinois for FY 1978. This report, then, 
is a comparison of the budget requests of the University 
of Ilhnois (see Faculty Letter no. 265, October 22, 1976) 
with the January- 1977 recommendations of the IBHE. 

The amount recommended for the Fiscal Year 1978 
regular capital budget for the University is $25,969,347. 
In comparison, the University originally requested $56,- 
1 15.900 for new capital projects. The University's capital 
request was revised to $46,195,166 after the governor's 
veto of the FY 1977 budget was sustained. The major 
impact of the IBHE recommendations for regular capital 
projects will be the deferral of the proposed new building 
projects and the revision of the phasing of the major 
remodeling efforts. 

The University's Food Production and Research 
Complex (Food for Centura' Three) proposal was fa- 
vorably received by the IBHE. The IBHE recommended 
funding $31,203,100 of the requested $32,368,000. 



DETAILED COMPARISON OF THE U. OF I. BUDGET REQUEST 
IN IBHE RECOMMENDATIONS: OPERATING BUDGET 

Table 1 shows the detailed comparison of the Univer- 
sity's operating budget request with the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education recommendations. 

Salary Increases — The University requested salar)- 
increases averaging 8 percent for all personnel and an ad- 
ditional 2 percent for lower-paid staff personnel. ,\ mar- 
ket study has shown that this employee group is farther 



from market conditions than the other groups. The IBHE 
recommended an average 7 percent increase for all person- 
nel with an additional 2 percent for the lower-paid group. 

General Price Increases — The IBHE recommended 
a 5 percent increase for expense items and a 9 percent 
increase for equipment. The increased amount for equip- 
ment was recommended because appropriations in recent 
years have not been sufficient to replace equipment and 
acquire library books. 

Utility Price Increases — The IBHE recommended 
the amount requested by the University for utility price 
increases. The requested increase of 12.5 percent is the 
smallest increase requested in the past three years for 
utility increases. 

Operating Funds for New Buildings — The IBHE 
recommended a flat rate to support new buildings of 
$2.20 per gross square foot; the University request ($3.19 
per gross square foot) represented the actual estimated 
cost for operating the new buildings. The problem of 
inadequate maintenance for University buildings will be 
increased as a result of adding new buildings without 
sufficient operating funds. 

Continuing Education and Extended-Day — The con- 
tinuing education and extended-day programs were sup- 
ported at a level lower than that requested ($998,000 vs. 
$3,876,700) . There are sufficient funds in this recom- 
mendation to begin the extended-day operation, but with 
fewer students than was originally planned. The funds 
for continuing education were recommended for needs 
assessment and evaluation at the Medical Center and for 
continuing education in engineering at Urbana-Cham- 
paign. 

Expansion in Health-related Fields — The IBHE rec- 
ommended that the University receive an additional 
$2.5 million for expansion at the Medical Center and 
$368,000 for replacement of federal capitation funds for 
the College of Veterinary Medicine at the Urbana- 
Champaign campus. These increases will allow the Med- 
ical Center campus to fund an enrollment increase of 
eighty-three students and will allow the College of Vet- 
erinary Medicine to maintain an entering class size of 
eighty-six students. 



TABLE 1 

COMPARISON OF UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 1978 WITH THE IBHE RECOMMENDATION 

(in thousands of dollars) 



U. of I. Request 
I. Continuing components 

A. Salaiy increases 14,646.1 (8%) * 

B. General price increases 2,240.9 (7%) 

C. Utility price increases 1,723.1 (12.5%) 

D. Operating funds for new facilities 772.9 

E. Workers' compensation increases 72.0 

Subtotal ($19,455.0) 

II. Programmatic components 

A. Extended education 

1. Continuing education 1,989.3 

2. Extended-day 1,887.4 

B. Health professions 

1. Medical Center 3,500.0 

2. Veterinary Medicine 412.5 

C. Program development 

1. Bilingual Education Center 75.0 

2. Institute for Environmental Studies 153.3 

3. Institute for Developmental Disabilities 218.8 

4. Agriculture Cooperative Extension 188.4 

5. Library Sharing Program 588.3 

D. Equipment recover)' 250.0 

E. Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement . . . 650.0 
Subtotal ($9,913.0) 

III. Special service and special funding 

A. DSCC 954.4 

B. Willard Airport 254.8 

C. Police Training Institute 258.1 

D. County Board matching 201.1 

Subtotal ($1,668.4) 

E. Refunds (0) 

TO TAL $31,036.4 

* These amounts include an extra 2 percent increment for lower-paid staff personnel. 
•* This amount includes a 9 percent increase for equipment. 



IBHE 

Recommendation 

14,314.1 (7%)* 
1,780.1 (5%)** 
1,723.1 (12.5%) 
522.4 
72.0 
($18,411.7) 



98.0 
900.0 

2,500.0 
368.0 

40.0 

24.0 
-0- 

90.0 
450.0 
-0- 
300.0 
($4,770.0) 

350.0 
No recommendation 

121.1 

201.1 
($672.2) 

(96.7) 
$23,950.6 



Special Services and Special Funding Components — 
Additional funds were recommended for the Division of 
Ser\-ices for Crippled Children ($350,0001. the Police 
Training Institute ($121,000), and County Board match- 
ing funds ($201,100) which match the county budgets 
for Cooperative Extension programs at a one-to-four 
ratio. There was no recommendation for the Willard 
Airport public service operations. The Willard Airport 
request ($254,800) will be discussed separately with the 
staffs of the Bureau of the Budget and the General As- 
sembly Appropriation Committee. 

Other Recommendations — Funding was recom- 
mended at reduced levels for the following new pro- 
grams: Center for Bilingual/Bicultural Education ($40,- 
000), Institute for Environmental Studies ($24,000). 
expansion of the Cooperative Extension Service ($90,- 
000), and the Librar>' Sharing Program ($450,000). In 
addition, $300,000 was reconmiended for repair and 
maintenance of buildings for the Urbana-Champaign 
campus. The IBHE recommended $25,556,900 for re- 
tirement. This amount would meet the annual payout 
requirements and begin to meet the funding require- 



ments of the retirement system. The University requested 
the minimum statutoiy requirement of $37,392,887. 

CAPITAL BUDGET 

The regular capital budget request of the University 
of Illinois for FY 1978 was $56,115,990. After the gov- 
ernor's veto of the FY 1977 capital projects was sus- 
tained, the requested amount was reduced to $46,195,166 
as a result of deferral of some projects and redefinition 
of others. The IBHE recommended $25,969,347 for new 
capital projects for the L'^niversity of Illinois. Table 2 
shows the reduced request and the recommendations of 
the IBHE by campus and by budget category. Table 3 
details the projects included in the SR^ category for each 
campus. 

The only new building projects approved by IBHE 
were the two Veterinary Medicine Research buildings, 
Willard Airport Crash Rescue Facility, and the Library 
.Si.xth Stack Addition, all at Urbana-Champaign. Funds 
to complete bond-eligible buildings were recommended 
for the Replacement Hospital and Turner Hall Addition. 
Equipment funds were also recommended for these two 



TABLE 2 

DETAILED FY 1978 CAPITAL BUDGET REQLJEST AS APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND IBHE 

Approved Explanation oj revision oj 

U. of I. Approved FY 1978 request after veto 

Category and Project BOT IBHE of FY 1977 request 

Chicago Circle 

Buildings, additions, and/ or structures 

Library Addition $ 7,562,000 -0- No change 

Subtotal ($ 7,562,000) (-0-) 

Funds to complete bond-eligible buildings 

Library Addition S 41 ,000 -0- No change 

Subtotal ($ 41 ,000) (-0-) 

Land -0- -0- 

Equipment 

SEL Engineering $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Combined and reduced 

Library Addition 240,500 -U- No change 

Subtotal ($ 640,500) ($ 400,000) 

Utilities 

Library Addition S 162,000 -0- Escalated 

Subtotal ($ 162,000) (-0-) 

Remodeling and rehabilitation 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement I $ 1 ,278,620 $ 1 ,278,620 Formula amount for FY 1978 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement II 671,300 615,300 Residual SR' projects 

Building equipment automation 747,500 447,500 Combined and escalated 

SEL engineering 406,000 406,000 Combined and reduced 

Roosevelt Road building 600,000 -0- Combined and reduced 

Subtotal : ($ 3,703,420) ($ 2,747,420) 

Site improvements 

Library Addition % 85,300 -0- No change 

Exterior campus graphics 48,300 -0- Escalated 

Campus landscape improvements 165,000 -0- Escalated 

Subtotal ($ 298,600) (-0-) 

Planning -0- -0- 

Cooperative improvements 

Pedestrian traffic control — Morgan and Park Place $ 56,000 $ 56,000 Escalated 

Bus stop shelters CTA 39,500 -0- Escalated 

Pedestrian traffic control — Polk and Halstead 56,000 -0- Escalated 

Subtotal ($ 151,500) ($ 56,000) 

Total, Chit-ago Circle campus $12,559,020 $ 3,203,420 

Medical Center 

Buildings, additions, and/or structures -0- -0- 

Funds to complete bond-eligible buildings 

Replacement Hospital $ 1 ,000,000 S 1 ,000,000 No change 

Subtotal ($ 1,000,000) ($ 1,000,000) 

Land -0- -0- 

Equipment 

Replacement Hospital J 6,000,000 $6,000,000 Combined 

College of Medicine 333,400 333,400 Combined and escalated 

School of Public Health 96,800 96,800 Need to match federal funds 

Subtotal ($ 6,430,200) ($ 6,430,200) 

Utilities -0- -0- 

Remodcling and rehabilitation 

SUDMP— Project II $1,118,500 $1,118,500 Project scope redefined, new 

cost figure 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement I 1 ,490,277 1 ,490,277 Formula amount for FY 1978 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement II 1,301,319 -0- Residual SR^ projects 

1919WestTaylor — Phase 1 719,250 719,250 Escalated from FY 1977 

amount 

SUDMP — Project III 1,217,400 -0- Project scope redefined, new 

cost figure 



Approved 
U.ofl. 

Category and Project BO T 

1919 West Taylor — Phase II 975,000 

715 South Wood 1,225,000 

Rockford School of Medicine 241 ,000 

Subtotal ($ 8,287,746) 

Site improvements 

Demolition of General Services Building $ 85,000 

Subtotal ($ 85,000) 

Planning 

Pharmacy Building air conditioning — ventilate $1 ,225,000 

Vacated hospital space 250,000 

Subtotal (S 1 ,475,000) 

Cooperative improvements -0- 

Total, Medical Center campus ($17,277,946) 

Urbana-Champaign 

Buildings, additions, and/or structures 

Veterinary Medicine Research Buildings (2) S 396, 700 

Willard Airport Crash Rescue Facility 60,000 

Library Sixth Stack Addition '. 3,966,300 

Subtotal ($ 4,423,000) 

Funds to complete bond-eligible buildings 

Turner Hall Addition $ 65, 100 

Subtotal ($ 65, 100) 

Land 

Medical Science Building $ 38,500 

Life Sciences Teaching Laboratory 1 10,000 

Subtotal (S 148,500) 

Equipment 

Turner Hall Addition $ 1 , 1 10,000 

English Building renovation 25,000 

Animal room improvements 65,000 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement 1 450,000 

College of Engineering remodeling 50,000 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement II 14,000 

Subtotal ($ 1,714,000) 

Utilities 

Central supervisory control S 600,000 

Library Sixth Stack Addition 90,900 

Condensate return system 167,400 

Watermain extension (S.E.) 27,900 

Subtotal ($ 886,2001 

Remodeling and rehabilitation 

English Building renovation $ 1,375,000 

Animal room improvements 507,000 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement I 1 , 181 ,500 

College of Engineering remodeling 902,000 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement II 1,137,000 

Coble Hall improvements 415,000 

Space realignment, remodeling, and replacement III 1,585,500 

Instructional tennis court improvement 88,000 

Subtotal ($ 7,191,000) 

Site improvements 

Pennsylvania Avenue street improvements S 300,000 

Campus landscape improvements 75,000 



Approved 
IBHE 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

($ 2,328,027) 

-0- 

(^) 



Explanation oj revision of 

FY 1978 request after veto 

oj FY 1977 request 

Escalated 
No change 
No change 



No change 



$ 120,000 
-0- 


Changed from remodeling to 

planning by IBHE 
No change 


{% 120,000) 




-0- 




($10,878,227) 


' 


$ 396,700 


Escalated 


60,000 


Reduced 


3,966,300 
($ 4,423,000) 


No change 


$ 65,100 
($ 65,100) 


No change 


$ 38,500 


No change 


-0- 
($ 38,500) 


No change 

1 


$ 1,110,000 
25,000 


No change 
Escalated 


45,000 


Project redefined, new cost 


450,000 
50,000 


figure 
No change 
Combined and reduced 


14,000 
($ 1,694,000) 


No change 


$ 300,000 


Combined 


90,900 
-0- 


No change 
Cost escalated 


-0- 
($ 390,900) 


No change 


$ 1,375,000 


Combined and escalated 


306,000 


Project redefined 


1,181,500 


First third of formula amount 




for FY 1978 


902,000 


Combined and reduced 


1,137,000 


Second third of formula 




amount for FY 1978 


-0- 


Combined and escalated 


-0- 


Last third of formula gener- 




ated amount 


-0- 
($ 4,901,500) 


Cost reduced, scope changed 


-0- 


No change 


-0- 


No change 



Approvid 
U.oJI. 

Category and Project BO T 

Intramural athletic field 39,400 

Subtotal ($ 414,400) 

Planning 

Life Sciences Teaching Laboratory $ 153, 100 

Engineering Library Stack Addition 98 , 500 

Davenport Hall remodeling 100,000 

Law Building Addition 116,200 

Auditorium roof replacement 660,000 

Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Phase II 51 ,300 

Subtotal ' (S 1 , 179, 100) 

Cooperative improvement 

UC Sanitary District $ 228,000 

Stadium Drive resurfacing 96,400 

LVbana signalization 12, 500 

Subtotal ($ 336,900) 

Total, Urbana-Champaign Campus $16,358,200 

TOTAL, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS $46,195,166 



projects along with equipment funds for major ongoing 
remodeling efTorts. Central Supervisory Control Center 
and Library Sixth Stack Addition LTtilities were the only 
utility projects approved. In keeping with the philosophy 
of the past few years, the bulk of the IBHE recommenda- 
tion for new funds is for remodeling and rehabilitation 
projects, including both major renovation projects and 
space realignment, remodeling, and replacement projects 
at each of the three campuses. Planning funds were ap- 
proved for three remodeling projects: air conditioning 
and ventilating the Pharmacy Building at Medical Cen- 
ter, renovation of Davenport Hall at Urbana-Cham- 
paign. and replacement of the Auditorium roof at Ur- 
bana-Champaign; and for two building additions: Law 
Building Addition and Engineering Library Stack Addi- 
tion, both at Urbana-Champaign. The only cooperative 
improvement recommended was for pedestrian traffic 
control at Morgan and Vernon Park Place at Chicago 
Circle. No site improvement projects \vere approved. 

Food Production and Research Complex (Food for 
Century Three) — The original Food for Century Three 
FY 1978 request of $32,010,900 was increased to $32,- 
368,000 as a result of the sustaining of the governor's 
veto of planning funds for \'eterinary Medicine Basic 
Sciences Building ($200,500) and Agricultural Engineer- 
ing Sciences Building ($156,600). The IBHE recom- 
mended $31,203,100 for FY 1978. The specific projects 
approved are : 

\'eterinary Medicine Basic Sciences 

Building $21,813,200 

Utilities 10,000 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences 

Building 7,859,200 

Utilities 56,100 

Dairs- Farm Consohdation Building 298,600 

UtUities 6,000 

Remodeling 160,000 



Approved 
IBHE 


Explanation oj revision oj 

FY 1978 request after veto 

oj FY 1977 request 


-0- 
(-0-) 


No change 


-0- 
98,500 


No change 

Escalated (building deferred 




until FY 1979) 


100,000 


Escalated 


116,200 


Cost reduced 


60,000 

-0- 
($ 374,700) 


Changed from remodeling to 

planning by IBHE 
No change 


-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 


No change 
No change 
No change 
No change 


$11,887,700 




$25,969,347 




1 research land 


1,000,000 



Those Food for Century Three projects proposed for 
oflf-campus sites were not recommended for funding in 
FY 1978. These include land at Dixon Springs ($500,- 
000) and in western Illinois ($600,000) and the Storage 
Building at Downers Grove ($64,900). These projects 
are being deferred until the FY 1979 request. 



TABLE 3 

SPACE REALIGNMENT REMODELING AND REPLACEMENT 

REVISED PROJECT LIST 



pproved 


Approve 


BOT 


IBHE 


12/76 


1/77 



Chicago Circle 

First group ($1,278,620) 
Lecture Center roof and 

drain Phase I $ 137,360 

Security Phase II 125.820 

Roof repairs Phase I . . . 130,860 

Roof repairs Phase II . . 360,200 

Rehab upper walkway 

Phase I 121,050 

OSHA 72,890 

Lecture Center 12 

KVduct 96,110 

Elevator code compliance 63,200 

Window replacement 

RRB 58,460 

Lecture Center air intake 68,670 

Floor slab room 

B-500-SES 44,000 

($1,278,620) 
Second group ($671,300) 

Security Phase III $ 121,000 



$ 137,360 
125,820 
130,860 
360,200 

121,050 
72,890 

96,110 
63,200 

58,460 
68,670 

44,000 
($1,278,620) 

$ 121,000 



Rehab upper walkway 
Phase II . . 

OSHA Phase II 

Exterior wall repair — 
ECB 

Service Building 

remodeling 

Lecture Center lighting. 

BSB acoustical 

Fire alarm modification . 

Medical Center 

First group ($1,490,277) 
General hospital 

renovation 

Elevator code violations 
General code violations 
Window replacement . 
Third floor, hospital . . 
Room 200 Pharmacy . . 
Room 346 Pharmacy . . 
BRL cage washing 
Phase I 



($ 



Approved 
EOT 
12/76 

126.000 
115,000 

68,750 

38,700 

57,000 

22,350 

122,500 

671,300) 



Second group ($1,301,319) 
Building equipment 

automation 

Window replacement . . 
General code violations . 
Elevator renovation, ISI 
Administration, 

Pharmacy 

Room 404 Pharmacy . . . 

Instrument shop 

2035 West Taylor 

Urbana-Champaign 

First group ($1,181,500) 
Electrical modernization 
Krannert Center for the 

Performing Arts 

Energy conservation — 

heat control 

Gregory Hall, Journalism 
Altgeld Hall elevator . . . 



Approved 
IBHE 

1/77 

126,000 
115,000 

68,750 

38.700 
57,000 
22.350 
66.500 
$ 615,300) 



\'isual Arts Laboratory- 
Davenport Hall, 



98,000 



98,000 



$ 


297,890 


$ 


297,890 




133,030 




133.030 




120,600 




120,600 




84,957 




84,957 




203,700 




203,700 




214,000 




214,000 




272,700 




272,700 




163,400 




163,400 


$1,490,277) 


($1,490,277) 


$ 


193,450 


$ 


-0- 




168,259 




-0- 




120.600 




-0- 




190,450 




-0- 




62,900 




-0- 




134,300 




-0- 




306,160 




-0- 




125,200 




-0- 


$ 


1,301,319) 


$ 


^0- 


$ 


163.500 


$ 


163,500 




275,000 




275,000 




140,300 




140,300 




32,300 




32,300 




92,100 




92,100 



Biophysics 


180,000 


180,000 


Freer G>-m remodeling . 


200,300 


200,300 




($1,181,500) 


($1,181,500) 


Second group ($1,137,0001 






Architecture Building 






roof and gutters 


$ 89,900 


$ 89,900 


Environmental Research 






Laboraton,' 


80,900 


80,900 


Natural History Building 






— heating 


173,300 


173,300 


Natural Histor\' Building 






— sprinklers 


117,400 


117,400 


David Kinley Hall, 






Room 114 


150,000 


150,000 


Elevator replacement — 




Lincoln Hall 


93,000 


93,000 


Library fire protection . . 


111,500 


111,500 


Librar}' remodeling .... 


73,000 


73,000 


Energy conservation — 






vent turndown 


90,000 


90,000 


Stair enclosure 


128,000 


128,000 


Lincoln Hall remodeling 


30,000 


30,000 




($1,137,000) 


($1,137,000) 


Third group ($1,585,500) 






Huff Gymnasium roof 






and gutters 


$ 92,600 


$ -0- 


Elevator install — 




Flagg Hall 


220,000 


-0- 


Roof replacements 


459,900 


-0- 


Temperature control — 






remodeling and 






replacement 


99,000 


-0- 


Energ)' conservation — 






remodel windows .... 


80,000 


-0- 


Magnetic door holders — 






Bevier and ASL 


36,000 


-0- 


Gregory Hall lighting . . 


30,000 


-0- 


Huff G)'mnasium 






remodelins; 


250,000 


-0- 


Energ\' conseivation — 






animal room vent . . . 


90,000 


-0- 


Commerce remodeling . 


116,000 


-0- 


Condensate pump 






replacement 


45,000 


-0- 


Cooling tower 






remodeling 


67,000 


-0- 




($1,585,500) 


$ -0- 



open Enrollment for Medicare Part B (Physician) Ends March 31 



UI EMPLO'\'EES SHOULD ENROLL AT 65 FOR BEST BENEFITS 

The 1977 general enrollment period for Medicare 
Part B (physician) ends March 31. Any employee, annui- 
tant, or retiree 65 years of age or over is eligible to sign 
up for these benefits and may do so by contacting the 
nearest Social Security Office by telephone. Coverage 
will begin July 1 for those who sign up during this gen- 
eral enrollment period. 



Although eligible state employees are not required to 
enroll in Medicare Part B, the state insurance program 
will not pay any benefits which Medicare would have 
paid, leaving the patient responsible for this portion of 
the charges. 

For further infoiTnation, contact the insurance office 
on your campus. 



'yCU 




220a Library 
3 1 copies) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



APR 'i b ^"^ '*^' *p"' '*' '"' 



'T lJR?J'NA-dV^.3!*■-?p■A!f;^I 



Report to the People: The State of the University of Illinois 

ANNUAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY TO CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS 



Each year at this time I come to the people of Illi- 
nois to report on the work of their state University. In 
the past I have singled out an area of education or ser- 
vice which the University performs and have focused on 
that segment of our activity. This year, however, I offer 
a more basic report — a Report to the State on "The 
State of the Universitv' of Illinois," where we stand, and 
how we hope to progress. 

The people of Illinois have an educational treasure 
in the University' of Illinois. The University of Illinois, 
by any standard, is a great University. Someone recently 
called it "one of America's great natural resources." 
That is a valid statement. 

The Universit)' of Illinois, and this can be said in all 
honesty, is not only a repository — a treasury, if you 
will, of the store of humankind's knowledge — it also 
is a generator of knowledge, a research institution where 
the perimeters of lore and learning, of truth and tech- 
nology-, are made to move and to expand. It is an insti- 
tution where the proven truths are revered and where 
new horizons of science and skill are approached. 

The people of Illinois, through their support over a 
span of 109 years, have made their University great, and 
for this they are to be commended. 

Yet sometimes it seems that these same people — the 
residents of the state of Illinois — are not fully aware of 
their treasure. For this reason, let me cite briefly a few 
of the yardsticks by which the stature of a university is 
measured. 

I. First, the quality of its departments and its faculty. 

A measure of faculty eminence is the selection of an 
institution's scholars for exclusive and prestigious honors. 
The University' of Illinois can boast twenty-six members 
of the National Academy of Science, twenty members of 
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, nineteen 
members of the National Academy of Engineering, a 
Pulitzer Prize winner, five recipients of the National 
Medal of Honor, and the only scientist ever to receive 
a Nobel Prize twice in the same field. 

Academic units also are rated nationally. Deans of 
engineering were asked to list the five engineering schools 



(other than their own) they considered to be the best. 
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was 
second, after MIT and tying with Stanford. The Ameri- 
can Council on Education, in a survey of thousands of 
scholars, ranked our graduate faculty in the top ten of 
all universities and in the top four among publicly sup- 
ported universities. Eleven departments ranked among 
the top seven. 

2. Second, the quality of the student bodies on the 
campuses. 

The average freshman at the University of Illinois 
earned test scores substantially higher than the national 
average for college-bound students — a composite score 
of 23 on the American College Test — which is better 
than seven out of ten college-bound students. Compared 
with over 350 institutions participating in the ACT 
Research Service, the University of Illinois ranks in the 
upper 7 percent in terms of the average test scores of 
its entering freshmen. Six percent of all students in the 
nation who earned the highest possible ACT math score 
enrolled as freshmen at the University last fall. 

These highly qualified and motivated freshmen 
earned more than 6,000 semester hours of college credit 
last fall in College Board Advanced Placement exams 
taken during their senior year in high school — in addi- 
tion to more than 7,500 credit hours based on the College 
Level E.xamination Program and other proficiency 
examinations. 

The University also attracts a large number of highly 
qualified transfer students from a variety of institutions, 
including every public community college in the state. 

It is appropriate — and not at all boastful — to 
note that while other excellent institutions of higher 
learning are seeking ways to attract more students, the 
University of Illinois, term after term, is turning away 
qualified prospective undergraduate and graduate stu- 
dents — bright, capable, young people we wish we could 
find space and funds to admit. 

3. Third, the quality of its alumni. 

A recent survey reveals that thirty-one of the chief 
executive officers of America's major corporations are 



graduates of the University of Illinois, a number ex- 
ceeded only by two other institutions. 

Among the graduates of the University are five 
Nobel Prize winners and 10 Pulitzer Prize recipients. The 
University ranks third among U.S. universities and first 
in the Big Ten in the number of its graduates who have 
gone on to earn the Doctoral degree. 

4. Fourth, its stature as an institution where research 
thrives and public service is a commitment. 

In 1909 the nation's first organized Engineering 
Experiment Station was established here. Research 
breakthroughs include development of the Betatron, pi- 
oneering work in amino acids which made possible the 
production of 150-bushel-per-acre com, and many 
others. We can take pride, as can the people of Illinois, 
in numerous "firsts," not only in the sciences but also in 
such diverse areas as early childhood education, music 
and other fine arts, linguistics, and intercultural studies. 

As a land-grant institution, and as the multifaceted 
comprehensive public University in Illinois, the Uni- 
versity of Illinois is asked not only to offer instruction 
and research, but also to bring these programs to bear 
on public problems through extension and public ser\dce. 
Within this charge, the University must be more than 
a teaching and research institution ; it must involve it- 
self with people in ways that influence their daily lives 
for the better. 

One of the channels for University service to 
the people of Illinois is a closer relationship with the 
branches and agencies of state government. Therefore, 
we compile a listing of these services by University of 
Illinois units and faculty for state agencies. The report 
is titled "Illini Service to the State." Its listings are but 
examples of the many services to the state. They total 
395, in 15 areas of interest. A complete listing would 
occupy many volumes. 

We also serve local communities and their agencies, 
and we offer educational opportunities off campus to 
adults who, for job or family reasons, are not able to 
attend their state University as full-time residents on 
the campuses. We do this in many ways — through 
extramural classes, correspondence courses, conferences 
and institutes in professional areas, new educational de- 
livery systems such as the UNIVEX-Net (a telephonic 
network), and even by mighty PLATO, our computer- 
ized instruction system. 

Although the University of Illinois maintains its ma- 
jor campuses at Urbana-Champaign, Chicago Circle, 
and the Medical Center in Chicago, it is a presence in 
every corner in Illinois. Each of you has in your part of 
the state a University of Illinois office staffed by regional 
directors who can help find ways to fulfill your educa- 
tional needs, those of your town, and those of your or- 
ganization or business. 

Our effort to increase the quantity and quality of 
health services led to the establishment of medical pro- 
grams at Urbana-Champaign, Rockford, and Peoria. 

There are experiment stations and other research 



units in many locations, including the famed agricul- 
tural facility at Dixon Springs. 

I spoke of extramural classes. We have set up a net- 
work of centers devised to ensure that no present or 
prospective teacher, for example, has to drive more than 
fifty miles to take a sequential course which will enable 
him or her to work toward an advanced degree from the 
University of Illinois. 

Now let us add to all of these locations at the Uni- 
versity of Illinois — campuses, regional headquarters, 
health education sites, experiment stations, and extra- 
mural class centers — the locations of Cooperative Ex- 
tension Service offices, and you will see that your multi- 
University is located in each of the 102 counties in 
Illinois. 

Yes, you say, but the Cooperative Extension Service 
is out there to serve farmers and their families. True, but 
not entirely true. The times have changed and are 
changing; the University of Illinois is meeting the 
changing needs. As urban and suburban populations 
grow, people of all sorts still need to draw upon the 
expertise of their University. One way we deliver this 
expertise to their doorsteps is through the Cooperative 
Extension Service. 

Within the boundaries of Chicago alone, without in- 
clusion of the entire great metropolitan district, the Co- 
operative Extension Service has more than 100 full-time 
employees. What do they do in the city? They carr^' on 
programs which help urban residents cope with everyday 
problems, such as consumerism and nutrition. They 
offer healthy, wholesome outlets for young people 
through 4-H work. They assist establishments concerned 
with agribusiness, and they work with governmental 
agencies. 

Yes, times do change. The University is not an in- 
stitution which looks only to the past. We look also to 
the present and to the future. 

Presently we are embarked on hundreds of exciting 
activities ; I will cite only three. 

Residents of Illinois who come from other cultures 
benefit by our pioneering work in techniques for the 
teaching of English as a second language; their com- 
munities and the economy also benefit. 

With starvation stalking the world, we have launched 
a mighty research thrust which will involve scores of 
distinguished faculty members beginning in 1978. We 
call this project "Food for Century III." 

Energy is a primar)' concern. In our Small Homes 
Council-Building Research Council at Urbana-Cham- 
paign, our Energy Resources Center at Chicago Circle, 
and in other parts of the University, we originate and 
consolidate work on alternate sources of energy and 
provide services \vhich have statewide and national 
ramifications. 

Yes, we are a great University, made so by the 
stature of our faculty, our academic colleges and de- 
partments, our student body, our research eminence, our 
public service outreach into your communities, and most 



of all by the people of Illinois and their support. I want 
to speak about that support. 

As a great University our needs also are great, and 
our needs are not being met. To the uninitiated, our 
budget may seem large. As a fact, it is veiy small vvhen 
translated into wages, research and teaching equipment, 
heat and light for cla-ssrooms and laboratories, books for 
m libraries, and other fundamentals. 

The people of the state of Illinois, so generous to the 
L'niversity for decades past and so richly rewarded for 
^ their generosity, now are failing in their support. The ap- 
B propriations made to the Uni\-ersity and approved by 
our governoi-s have been cut beyond the bare bone and 
deep into the verv- marrow. I need not stress what this 
means to our missions of educating the young and the 
aspiring adult, pushing back the boundaries of knowl- 
edge and technology, and meeting the public service 
needs of the people of the state. 

The support for higher education in Illinois falls far 
below that of most states by several important measures. 
A survey of how the states compare in their financing 
of higher education was made recently bv The Chronicle 
of Higher Education. The results show that Illinois ranks 
fortv-fourth in its percent increase in appropriations for 
higher education from 1974-75 to 1976-77. Our nine 
percent increase over this period is far below the national 
average of 24 percent. 

A similar analysis ov^er the past ten years shows Illi- 
nois ranking thirty-si.xth, indicating state support de- 
clines drastically compared to the rest of the nation. 

Illinois ranks thirty-second on the basis of appropri- 
ations per capita. The $61.10 figure for Illinois is 6.7 
percent below the U.S. average of $64.21. 

Finally. Illinois ranks forty-third in appropriations 
per .$1,000.00 of personal income, at $9.00. This is 22.8 
percent below the national average of $11. 05. 

There are heartening signs of renewed support in 
Illinois. The General Assembly recently restored to the 
University salarv- funds reduced by gubernatorial action. 
This permitted the University to provide salary in- 
creases averaging a total of 4.5 percent for the second 
half of 1976-77 instead of 2.5 percent. We are extremely 
pleased with this action by the General Assembly, and 
we are most appreciative of the support which thousands 
of you gave to our efTorts to slow the steady decline in 
the salary status of our people. 

Yet, even with the restoration of these funds, Illinois 
still falls behind the average in its support of higher 
^ education and most particularly in the salaries for our 
^ employees. The salary ranking of University of Illinois 
faculty — in comparison to other Big Ten faculties — 
has declined at every level since the 1975 fiscal year. In 
U the current year, your University is fifth in the Big Ten 
for salary increases given full professors, sixth for asso- 
ciate professors, eighth for assistant professors, and ninth 
for instructors. 

The salary picture is bleak not only for the faculty, 
but also for the supportive staff — janitors and clerks, 
lab technicians and accountants — all up and down the 



line. The problem is most acute in the lowest-salaried 
ranks, where the deficiencies range about 20 percent. 
University nonacademic staff salaries average 12 percent 
less than those of other state employees doing the same 
jobs and 16.2 percent less than those of people in similar 
jobs in local business and industry. 

The fact that we remain a strong and vital Univer- 
sity is, first of all, a testimony to the dedication of faculty 
and staff who have struggled to maintain quality on 
starvation rations. Even so, we are at a crisis point. 

Through combinations of increased tax support plus 
realistic increases in student tuition, other great public 
universities have slowly and relentlessly equalled and 
then passed us by. And it is these universities with which 
we compete for outstanding faculty, for the most gifted 
graduate students, for research dollars, and for positions 
of leadership in scholarly organizations. 

We are attempting to stretch decreasing resources 
in an era of constant inflation to meet the unceasing de- 
mands on our educational assets, our facilities, and our 
faculty and its expertise. To meet our most basic needs, 
we are at the desperation level of "eating our own seed 
corn." 

The University of Illinois Library is a source of 
honest pride. It is the heart of the University. When 
ranked with other universities it stands third in the num- 
ber of volumes, behind only Harvard and Yale. But even 
our Library is ailing. Last year, in volumes added, Illi- 
nois ranked ninth. In total outlay for books and bindings, 
it slid from fifth to thirteenth, and in total operating 
expenditures, from ninth to thirteenth. 

The "knowledge explosion" which is occurring as 
science and learning expand in volume and in force 
brings demands for all kinds of information to meet the 
needs of students and scholars. The pressure on the 
Library is greater than at any time in history. It is oc- 
curring in almost all fields of subject matter. Add to 
this the grim fact of our financial problem, and you can 
picture the situation. A great library can survive a year 
or two of short rations, but not five years, and never ten. 
We must find ways to stop the slippage. We must find 
ways to correct the downward trend. 

Another great need is for funds for the support of 
research of young faculty. This is a must if we are to 
attract and retain the brightest, most eager, and most 
effective young faculty members. We need these men and 
women. Those of you with children or grandchildren 
who in a few years may come to their state University 
need them too. These young faculty members will be 
academic leaders in that tomorrow; their scholarship will 
enrich the education of your children, and their research 
findings might well assist the economic climate in Illi- 
nois and the nation. 

People who visit the University of Illinois at its cam- 
puses are impressed by the beauty of the buildings and 
what seems to be a wealth of equipment, but whole de- 
partments are on the verge of obsolescence for lack of 
up-to-date equipment and tools. This is true not only 
in the technologies but also in social sciences, commerce, 



the arts, and other fields. Obsolescence, inflation, and 
the need to maintain high-caliber instruction and re- 
search have added both needs and costs to meet those 
needs. Imagine any research corporation devoting only 
3 percent of the value of its equipment to replacement. 
That is our condition today! 

We are, of course, turning to alumni and other 
friends of the University with requests for gifts which 
can help in this crisis. But even the most regal gifts can- 
not possibly meet all the needs. 

There is another source of the necessary funds which 
other universities have used, but which the University of 
Illinois has not. That is increased student tuition. No 
academic administrator — and I less than most • — • likes 
to ask for an increase in the cost of an education for the 
student who receives it. 

Nevertheless, it is a fact that those maior universities 
with which we compare have increased their tuitions 
step by step, year after year, to help meet the increased 
expense of educating students. This is one factor which 
has made our competitors able to increase faculty sal- 
aries on a much more realistic level than has the Uni- 
versity of Illinois. 

An increase of $90 per year for an undergraduate 
has been approved by our Board of Trustees, efTective 
next fall. It will be coupled with similar increases for 
in-state graduate and professional students and for all 
out-of-state students. These seem like increases of some 
size, but they are not as high as the increases instituted 
recently at most comparable institutions. Thus, even with 
the increases we are asking for, an education at the Uni- 
versity of Illinois still will not cost the student as much 
as at most other comprehensive universities. Some ele- 
ment of hardship to the student and his or her family 
may exist, but it is not as severe as it may appear. If the 
state of Illinois often has been deficient in its support of 
higher education, it has not been deficient in its support 
of student benefits. Illinois has better scholarship oppor- 
tunities than most other states. In this state, a student 
from a family with a $23,000 income still may qualify for 
scholarship assistance. 

What will it take in hard dollars to bring the Uni- 
versity of Illinois up to the standard of excellence we 
must maintain to provide a fitting capstone for Illinois's 
educational structure? 

The University of Illinois does not conjure up its pro- 
posed annual budgets in any mystical or even whimsical 
way. We do not submit inflated budget requests. Our 
requested budget for fiscal 1977-78 is, I can assure you, 
a realistic one. Any increases it suggests and any pro- 
posals for funding of programs were worked into that 
budget proposal only after a series of expert decisions 
had been made which were aimed at eliminating all 
nonessentials. You know that before our budget is ap- 
proved, it must pass a number of hurdles and often is 
decreased considerably in the process. 

We have proposed a faculty-staff salary increase of 
8 percent, but the IlUnois Board of Higher Education 
staflF now recommends only 7 percent, and recent esti- 



mates in Springfield of the monies which will be avail- 
able to higher education next year may cut that to 5 
percent. Even the 8 percent would not have counteracted 
the erosion in our employees' buying power which has 
been caused by inflation and unsatisfactory salary in- 
creases, but it certainly is better than the very small 
percentages we have been forced to accept in the past. 

The staff of the Board of Higher Education has rec- m 
ommended an increase of nearly $24 million for the ^ 
University of Illinois's operation in the next fiscal year. 
After careful appraisal, we had ascertained that an in- ^ 
crease of $31 million was required. Much less will be fl 
included in the recommendations of the governor, so we 
will continue to face financial pressures and problems. 

In no way do I want to close this report on the Uni- 
versity of Illinois on a negative note. Instead I go back 
to what I told you in the beginning. There are problems, 
and we admit them. Most of them stem from shortages 
in state appropriations. You can help, if you will, by re- 
flecting your support and your concern for the University 
of Illinois when you talk or write to your local legislator. 

I have dwelt at some length on the University's fi- 
nancial needs. This emphasis on needs is prompted by 
several factors, only one of which is our current climate 
of crisis. More importantly, I believe that you people 
have a right to know where the University of Illinois 
stands as of this March 1977. You are not only its stock- 
holders, you are its family. 

The University of Illinois is rightly known for its 
excellence. I think you also want it known for its emi- 
nence. This is a University whose climate of learning, 
research, and public service has brought forth scores 
of educational and scientific "firsts." It is the University 
where the modern photoelectric cell was developed and 
where the sound-on-film motion picture was invented. 
It houses the world's first comprehensive college program 
for the severely disabled. It is the headquarters for the 
world's largest educational film lending library. The list 
is long. 

Even at this moment, as I make this report, in dozens 
of laboratories, library cubicles, quiet offices and busy 
classrooms, the search goes on. It is a never-ending 
search . . . the search for the hidden fact . . . the potential 
. . . the possible . . . the pioneering . . . the new truth and 
the beginning of a hairline crack in the seemingly im- 
penetrable barrier of humankind's vast ignorance. There 
is so much to know, and we know so little. 

It is because of this excellence and excitement, this 
promise of eminence, that I have reported today to you, 
the people of Illinois, on the state of the University of 
Illinois. 

It is your support which has made this University 
great. 

For this you are to be commended. 

The president's annual message was released March 20 
and was carried by twenty-nine television stations in 
Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri and by sixty-one radio 
stations, including nineteen in Illinois and forty-two else- 
ivhere in the nation. 




FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



Gift and Exchange Division 
220a Library 
3 copies) 



No. 270, May 16, 1977 



Note to the Faculty on Tuition Policy Memo Which Follows 

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY ON MEMORANDUM SENT TO TRUSTEES 



The subjects of tuition levels and of tuition policies 
continue to be among the dominant themes in university 
administrative discussions. Not only are these subjects 
basic to discussions of state and federal student financial 
aid policies and programs, but they also represent one of 
the difficult points of friction between the public and pri- 
vate sectors of higher education. Obviously, the subjects 
are also key elements of discussions related to the financ- 
ing of all of higher education. 

The Board of Trustees and the administration of the 
University of Illinois, along with faculty and student 
groups, have discussed tuition issues each year during my 
tenure here - — usually in connection with a specific an- 
nual budget request. In February 1977, members of the 
Board asked that a "long-range tuition policy" be con- 



sidered — a framework within which annual tuition de- 
cisions could be made with a minimum de novo discus- 
sion of tuition policies. Prior to the April 1977 meeting 
of the Board, I was asked to develop a sample long-range 
tuition policy in order that Board members might con- 
sider how such a policy might read. 

The following sample policy is just that — a sample. 
It is not a recommendation, and the sample contains 
some obvious deficiencies — for example, the sample pol- 
icy, if observed faithfully, would diminish tuition income 
if tax support declined, a result not to be desired. Be- 
cause of faculty and staff interest in the tuition issue, I 
did feel it appropriate to share this sample with you. 
Comments or suggestions concerning this or alternative 
samples would be most welcome. 



Sample Long-Range Tuition Policy for University of Illinois 

PRESENTED TO GENERAL POLICY COMMITTEE, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APRIL 18, 1977 



The levels of tuition charged students in public insti- 
tutions of higher education are established by action of 
the governing boards of those institutions. Because of 
the current and past appropriations processes in Illinois, 
howe\er, the ability to spend income generated by tui- 
tion collections is subject both to legislative and to guber- 
natorial approval. The complexities and the timing of 
appropriations processes — including the appropriation 
to the institutions of funds collected from the assessment 
of tuition — have worked against the development of 
and conformance to long-range tuition policies by gov- 
erning boards. Instead, tuition levels have been estab- 
lished on the basis of political realities with little con- 
sistent regard to an appropriate relationship between 
taxpayer support and student support of the costs of 



public higher education. Discussion of tuition levels has 
generally centered about such topics as the desirability of 
low tuition levels for students in public universities, the 
concern that tuition charges not limit access to higher 
education by students from lower-income levels, and the 
creation of theories of the presumed proper relationship 
between taxpayer support and student support of costs. 
Because the theories are based on opinion rather than 
fact and because there are no fixed and widely accepted 
definitions of such terms as "low tuition," "low income," 
and "access," neither the political realities nor the dis- 
cussions have led to the creation of anything even ap- 
proaching a tuition policy for public higher education in 
Illinois. 

Instead, the history in Illinois is that tuition levels in 



public higher education tend to plateau for a few years 
and then are increased sharply when fiscal pressures are 
intense enough to make such increases politically feasible. 
Following such an increase is another plateau period 
until once again pressures generate feasibility which leads 
to another increase. Because of the inability to predict 
when "pressures" will build up sufficiently to lead to tui- 
tion increases, neither the universities nor the students 
can make reasonable predictions of tuition income and of 
tuition levels and both institutional and personal plan- 
ning in this area of concern are impossible. It is equally 
difficult for financial aid officers and for the Illinois State 
Scholarship Commission to predict the need for financial 
aid funds in advance because of the inability to predict 
tuition levels — a primary determinant of financial aid 
requirements. 

In an effort to bring some degree of predictability to 
the area of tuition levels, the administration and Board 
of Trustees of the University of Illinois have considered 
the development of long-range tuition policy for the Uni- 
versity. This consideration has been made with the full 
understanding that under current processes in Illinois, 
acting within a long-range tuition policy requires not 
only the support of the Board of Trustees, but of the 
General Assembly and of the governor as well. It is also 
fully understood that any long-range policy requires peri- 
odic review, evaluation, and perhaps revision by the pol- 
icy-making body. 

Within those understandings, the Board of Trustees 
has reviewed historical trends in tuition levels at the 
University and in comparable universities; comparative 
data concerning current tuition levels at comparable uni- 
versities; proposals for long-range tuition policies put 
forth by the Illinois Board of Higher Education, the 
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, the Com- 
mittee for Economic Development, and others; the re- 
lationships between tuition, required fees, and student 
financial aid; and historical and current data related to 
instructional costs and tuition levels. The Board has also 
reviewed projections of inflation rates and of tax support 
for public higher education in Illinois in future years. 

Many bodies including the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education have recommended that undergraduate tui- 
tion rates approximate one-third of instructional cost. In 
fiscal year (FY) 1973 (academic year 1972-73) —the 
last year in which tuition levels were increased at the 
University of Illinois — undergraduate tuition came close 
to meeting this recommendation in that tuition equalled 
31.1 percent of instructional costs. Without attributing 
any "magic" or "scientific proof" to support the "one- 
third concept," the Board of Trustees does find the con- 
cept to offer guidance and to bear a close relationship 
to the situation which existed in FY 1973 when tuition 
was last increased at the University. At that time, tuition 
was considered to be "low" and to bear an appropriate 
relationship to instructional costs. Since that time, in- 



structional costs have increased as a result both of infla- 
tion and of increased tax support of higher education 
and, it can be argued, the definition of "low" has been 
changed through the impact of inflation. 

Also since that time the Board of Trustees has ap- 
proved a tuition action which will in the fall of 1977 
provide a "differential tuition level" for graduate stu- 
dents. The average costs of graduate instruction are 
higher than the average costs of undergraduate instruc- 
tion, and many argue that a "cost-based tuition policy" 
should reflect that fact. The Illinois Board of Higher 
Education has recommended that tuition levels for grad- 
uate students be one-third higher than those for under- 
graduate students. This recommendation has little or no 
statistical underpinning, but is simply a way to recognize 
differential costs rather than a method of accounting for 
those differential costs. 

In the light of the above discussion and in an effort 
to provide guidance to University and state planning 
agencies and to provide some certainty to present and 
future students about tuition levels, it is recommended 
that the Board of Trustees adopt the following long- 
range tuition policy : 

1. In general, tuition levels for undergraduate students 
at the University of Illinois should approximate one- 
third of undergraduate costs; tuition levels for grad- 
uate students should approximate one and one-third 
the level of undergraduate students; tuition levels for 
professional programs should increase proportionately 
to tuition levels for graduate students; and tuition 
levels for nonresident students at any level should be 
three times the level for resident students. 

2. Tuition levels should increase annually to reflect in- 
creases in instructional costs caused by increased tax 
support and/or inflation; tuition levels should de- 
crease annually to reflect decreases in instructional 
costs caused by decreased tax support and/or defla- 
tion. 

3. Annual tuition increases or decreases as required by 
(2) above should be calculated on the basis of the 
latest available data and included as a part of the an- 
nual budget request of the University of Illinois. 

4. Information concerning annual tuition increases or 
decreases should be provided by the University to 
appropriate state and federal agencies responsible for 
student financial aid programs at the time that the 
annual budget request for the University is approved. 

5. While moving from present levels of tuition to levels 
which meet the requirements of ( 1 ) above, no annual 
tuition increase for resident undergraduate students 
shall be in excess of 10 percent of the then current 
tuition for resident undergraduate students nor shall 
increases for resident graduate students be in excess 
of 133.3 percent of the increase for resident under- 
graduate students. 



University Policy on Recombinant DNA Research 

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING APRIL 20, 1977 



In the light of the controversies and hazards atten- 
dant to recombinant DNA research (sometimes referred 
to as a forerunner of genetic engineering) / the Univer- 
sit\''s graduate facuhies are taking steps to ensure that 
appropriate safeguards are observed whenever such re- 
search is undertaken. 

On March 31, 1977, the University Council on Grad- 
uate Education and Research recommended to the presi- 
dent adoption of the following resolution : 

The University of Illinois has adopted the NIH (Na- 
tional Institutes of Health) "Guidelines for Research 

* The technique seeks to study the working of heredity by taking genes 
— composed of DNA, or deox>TibonucJeic acid — from the cells of complex 
organisms and inserting them into simple bacteria, where their functioning 
can be studied in a less complicated en\ironment. 



Involving Recombinant DNA Activities" as Univer- 
sity policy for all proposed recombinant DNA research 
whether externally or internally funded. 

With the support of the vice-president for academic 
affairs, I recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt 
this resolution as University policy, with the understand- 
ing that steps are under way on each campus to develop 
and to approve implementing and monitoring procedures 
which will ensure strict compliance with the NIH Guide- 
lines. The Graduate College at Urbana has developed 
compliance procedures which will be published in the 
immediate future. Similar action soon will be taken at 
the Medical Center and Chicago Circle campuses. 



Ajnendment to Statutes on Employment and Promotion Criteria 

APPROVED BY UNTVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT APRIL MEETING 



In Jjinuary the Board approved provisionally the 
amendment of Article IX. Sec. 1, of the University of 
Illinois Statutes, as indicated in the attachment, in order 
to comply with Sec. 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans 
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Sec. 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

The Senates and the University Senates Conference 
have now concurred in the proposed amendment. 

Therefore, I recommend that the Board of Trustees 
finally approve the proposed amendment of the Statutes. 

University of Illinois Statutes 
Article IX. Academic and Administrative Staffs 

Sec. 1. CRITERIA FOR EMPLOYMENT 
AND PROMOTION 



The basic criteria for employment and promotion of 
all University Staff, whether or not subject to the act 
creating the University Civil Service System of Illinois, 
shall be appropriate qualifications for and performance 
of the specified duties. The principles of equal employ- 
ment opportunity are a part of the general policy of the 
University. Unless otherwise provided by law, employees 
are to be selected and treated during employment with- 
out regard to political affiliation, relationship by blood or 
marriage, age, sex, race, creed, [or] national origin, handi- 
cap, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Viet- 
nam era.^ 



language is italicized; deletions are in brackets. 







220a Library 
3 1 cppiQs) 



FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 271, August 24, 1977 



Report to Board on Actions of Illinois General Assembly 

PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT JOHN E. CORBALLY AT JULY 20 MEETING, CHICAGO CIRCLE 



THE LIBRAP.X C 

T ii4 \^i6 



lY rjt- ILLINOIS 



Each of you has read and heard reports of the ac- 
tions affecting higher education and the University of 
Illinois taken by the Illinois general assembly during its 
recent session. My purpose today is not to repeat the 
details of each of those actions, but rather to highlight 
a few significant events and to comment briefly upon the 
general tone of die session and of our relationships widi 
the general assembly and with other agencies of state 
government. 

In round numbers, appropriations in support of all 
those acti\ities included in the category', higher educa- 
tion, for FY 1978 are $60 million above appropriations 
for FY 1977. This $60 million includes approximately 
$50 million in general revenue funds and approximately 
$10 million in income funds, the latter increase reflecting 
increases in tuition levels at senior universities. It should 
be remembered that appropriations for FY 1977 follow- 
ing the restoration by the general assembly of funds re- 
duced by then Governor Walker included sufficient funds 
to support an additional 2 percent salary increase (be- 
yond the 2.5 percent approved by Governor Walker) for 
the entire contract year, but that the restoration of funds 
was done by the general assembly based up>on an under- 
standing that that additional increase would not be ef- 
fective until January, 1977. The base used by the general 
assembly and by Governor Thompson for FY 1977 was, 
however, the appropriations base rather than the expen- 
diture base so that the annualization of the cost of the 
additional 2 percent salary increase was in the base 
rather than considered to be "new money" for FY 1978. 
This technical detail results in the ability to use all new 
1978 funds for new purposes and the support of this 
method of calculating the base by the general assembly, 
by the Bureau of the Budget, and by Governor Thomp- 
son was another indication of the understanding which 
higher education received in this session. 

For the University of Illinois, appropriations for FY 
1978 are $22 million above appropriations for FY 1977 
including retirement s\-stem funding and including $4 
million new income due to the tuition increase. With re- 
drement f$5.5 million), income fund ($4 million), and 
Agricultural Premium Fund f$0.4 million) increases ex- 
cluded, the University received an increase of about $12 



million in General Revenue Fund (GRF) support or a 
5.25 percent increase in GRF support for FY 1978 over 
FY 1977. Without dwelling upon the point, the income 
fund increase of $4 million is a significant amount when 
compared with the GRF increase of $12 million (exclu- 
sive of retirement funding) and does have a real rather 
than a token impact upon our ability to meet our needs. 
In terms of the one-third ratio of tuidon support to tax 
support recommended by the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education, FY 1978 is the first year for some time that 
resource increases for the University meet that recom- 
mendation. 

In summary, Governor Thompson stated early in his 
term that without new sources of revenue he could sup- 
port no more than an increase of $50 million in appro- 
priations to higher education for FY 1978 and he would 
support tuition increases if governing boards found such 
increases to be essential. In his action in signing appro- 
priations to higher education, he was faithful to that 
statement. The general assembly sent the governor appro- 
priations representing increased general revenue spend- 
ing in the amount of $64 million; these measures were 
reduced by Governor Thompson to the $50 million level 
in accordance with the allocation of $50 million sug- 
gested by (but not supported by) the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education. Major reductions included funds to 
increase a 5 percent average salary increase to 5.5 per- 
cent, to provide for estimated utility cost increases of 12.5 
percent rather than 10 percent, and to provide for State 
Universities Retirement System (SURS) funding at the 
gross payout level rather than at the net payout level. 

The State Universities Retirement System situation is 
worthy of special comment. Through actions of this 
Board of Ti-ustees and of the Illinois Board of Higher 
Education special priority attention was focussed uf)on 
SURS funding problems. A legislative strategy was 
adopted with the full support of the administration of 
the university systems which forced the general assembly 
to pay particular attention to the funding of SURS 
rather than having that problem "buried" in each uni- 
versity system appropriation bill. Two legislators from the 
Urbana-Champaign area — Senator Weaver and Repre- 
sentative WikofT — worked with other legislators to in- 



sist that obligations to SURS be considered separately 
and not merely in catch-all amendments to university 
appropriations bills. The result was that for the first time 
in many years, the general assembly appropriated funds 
to SURS at the gross rather than at the net payout level. 
While Governor Thompson reduced this appropriation 
to the net payout level, the fact that he was dealing with 
retirement system appropriations in a separate bill led to 
his public recognition of the problem of our retirement 
system and to his inclusion of retirement system funding 
among the six high priority concerns to which he has 
asked the Illinois Board of Higher Education to address 
itself and to which he has committed himself and his 
staff to address themselves. This set of actions represents 
a major step forward toward the achievement of a plan 
for solving a basic problem in Illinois higher education. 
I should also mention the atmosphere which we en- 
countered in our hearings before the committees of the 
general assembly. We were asked probing questions about 
faculty workloads, about research activities, about facults- 
and staff travel, about admissions procedures, about ef- 
forts in remedial education, about efTorts toward achiev- 
ing equal educational and employment opportunities for 
members of minority groups and for women, and about 
other activities. These questions were asked with an atti- 
tude of seeking information and understanding and I 
felt that the members of the legislative committees were 
truly trying to clarify misunderstandings and to seek in- 
formation which would assist them in explaining our 
needs and our practices to constituents. Not once during 
many hours of hearings did I detect hostility toward the 
University of Illinois nor toward our people and our 
programs. 

This same type of relationship exists with legislative 
and executive agencies. We have this year engaged in 
efTorts with the Legislative Audit Commission and the 
auditor general to attempt to insure that we could main- 
tain necessary flexibility while at the same time insure 
that the commission and the auditor general can meet 
the statutory requirements of their assignments and we 
the statutory requirements of oiu-s. These efTorts have 
been conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation and of 
mutual understanding and have led to the preservation 
of the flexibility' necessar\' if a great university is to re- 
main great. Similar efTorts with the Economic and Fiscal 
Commission of the general assembly, with the Bureau of 



the Budget, with the Capital Development Board, and 
with the Office of the Governor have produced similar 
results — mutual understanding and mutual agreement 
that procedural straitjackets are not necessary to achieve 
accountability and to protect stewardship. In many ways, 
these mutual efTorts which have led to the absence of 
new statutes or of new regulations are among the most 
positive results of the past year. 

On the capital side, actions and results have also been 
so widely publicized as to need little repetition here to- 
day. It is worth noting, however, that $6 million to equip 
the Replacement Hospital has been appropriated as has 
$1 million to equip Turner Hall. The debate over Food 
for Century III — a debate which had little to do with 
the merits of that program — is well-known to you, but 
it should be noted that this successful efTort was led by 
Senator Weaver with help from many legislators. Sig- 
nificant support also came from alumni, from staff mem- 
bers, from farm organizations, from Governor Thompson, 
from the Capital Development Board, from the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, and from many others. 

All in all, it was a successful session. Many pieces of 
legislation which would have had negative impact upon 
the University were not enacted. While it is clear that 
the salary needs of our people have still not been met 
and while efTorts to meet those needs must continue un- 
abated, we did receive funds to support an average salary 
increase of 5 percent without requirements which are 
becoming common in other states that we reduce num- 
bers of faculty members as the price for salary' increases. 
Our lower-paid employees in the open-range category 
will receive increases averaging 7 percent. A much- 
needed increase in tuition was supported, and the board's 
role in establishing tuition levels seems to me to have 
been enhanced. 

Major gains in correcting some of our deficiencies 
still await a major change in the revenue picture in Illi- 
nois. Given the unwilling:iess of either the governor or 
the general assembly to increase revenues now through 
new or increased taxes — an unwillingness undoubtedly 
shared by those who elect governors and legislators — 
higher education has fared well within available revenue, 
and the legislative and executive attitude toward higher 
education seems to me to be reaching better levels each 
year in Illinois. 



Peter Yankivich Named, Vice-President for Academic Affairs 

APPOINTMENT APPROVED BY UI BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT JULY 20 MEETING 



Peter E. Yankwich has been named vice-president for 
academic affairs at the University of Illinois effective 
September 1. 

Yankwich, a member of the chemistry faculty at 
Urbana-Champaign since 1948, succeeds Eldon L. John- 
son, who is retiring after nine years as vice-president. 

Yankwich moved to UIUC from the University of 
California at Berkeley, where he received his undergrad- 



uate and graduate degrees and was a member of the 
faculty. 

At UIUC he has taught a wide range of classes from 
introductory chemistry to advanced graduate courses. 
His own research is in the field of chemical reaction rates. 

Since 1975, Yankwich has been special faculty as- 
sistant to Johnson and has directed a study evaluating 
academic administration. 



Amendments to Articles of University of Illinois Statutes 

APPROVED BY II BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT MAY 18 AND JULY 20 MEETINGS 



At the May 18 and July 20 meetings of the Board of 
Trustees, nineteen new amendments to the University 
of Illinois Statutes were approved to take effect imme- 
diately. 

The amendments deal largely with issues of depart- 
mental and college governance. Their effect is to broaden 
faculty participation in these matters. 

The amended statutes are more specific and explicit. 
They were proposed by the senates of the three cam- 
puses and coordinated by the University Senates Con- 
ference. 

The statutes now emphasize that only tenure-track 
faculty members are guaranteed the right to vote in de- 
partmental or college mattere, although units still have 
the option of granting this right to nontenure-track per- 
sonnel at the level of instructor or above. 

This clarification was made in several articles. 

The membership of the Faculty Advisory Committee 
and its functions are set out in one of the amended ar- 
ticles. One significant change is that any faculty member 



holding an administrative appointment is ineligible for 
membership on the committee. 

The faculty's role in evaluating administrators is set 
forth in several of the articles. Specifically, the amend- 
ments provide that deans, directors, chairpersons, and 
department heads be evaluated at least once every five 
years and that faculty views be solicited during this 
process. 

The amended articles more clearly define the faculty 
role in cjuestions of appointment, reappointment, nonre- 
appointment, and promotion. The faculty has input into 
these matters through the advisory committee in depart- 
ments with a head and the executive committee in col- 
leges and in departments with a chairperson. The articles 
also clarify the role and composition of the advisory 
committee and executive committee. 

Factors such as committee work, continuing educa- 
tion, public service, and special assignments are given 
additional emphasis in the evaluation of a faculty mem- 
ber's performance for salary and promotion purposes. 



Statement on Nondiscrimination at the University of Illinois 

HANDICAPPED PERSONS GUARANTEED EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER REHABILITATION .\CT 



The Universitv' of Illinois policy is to fully comply 
with applicable Federal and State Nondiscrimination and 
Equal Opportunit)- Laws. Orders, and Regulations. As 
a recipient of Federal financial assistance, the University 
of Illinois is subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, which states that "no otherwise qualified 
handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by reason of his 
handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination 
under any program or activit)' receiving Federal financial 
assistance." The Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare has adopted regulations defining and forbidding 
acts of discrimination against qualified handicapped per- 
sons in emploNTnent and in the operation of programs 
and activities. A handicapped person has been defined 
as any person who (a) has a physical or mental impair- 
ment which substantially limits one or more major life 
acti\-ities, (b) has a record of such an impairment, or 
'c) is regarded as having such an impairment. The Uni- 
versity of Illinois does not and will not discriminate 
against handicapped persons in x-iolation of the Rehabil- 
itation Act of 1973 or the HEW regulations. This non- 
discrimination jx>licy applies to admissions or access to, 
treatment, and employment in ihe University programs 
and activities. 



Vice-President Ronald W. Brady has been designated 
as the University Equal Opportunity Officer for the Uni- 
versity of Illinois. For additional information on the 
equal opportunity and affirmative action policies of the 
University, please contact : 

For the General University, Dean Barringer, 409 
East Chalmers St., Room 306, Champaign, IL 61820 
f 217/333-2993). 

For the Urbana-Champaign campus, academic per- 
sonnel, Michele Thompson, Office of Vice-Chancellor 
for Academic AfTairs, 209 Coble Hall, Champaign, IL 
61820 (217/333-0574) ; and for nonacademic personnel, 
James Ransom, Jr., Chancellor's Nonacademic Affirma- 
tive Action Office, 52 East Gregory, Room 136, Cham- 
paign, IL 61820 (217/333-2147). 

For the Chicago Circle campus. Nan McGehee, Office 
of the Chancellor, 2807 University Hall, P.O. Box 4348, 
Chicago, IL 60680 (312/996-4878) . 

For the Medical Center campus, Carol Cottrell- 
Mootry, Office of the Chancellor, 414 Administrative 
Office Building, 1737 West Polk St., P.O. Box 6998, 
Chicago, IL 60680 (312/996-8670) . 



University of Illinois Affiimative Action Plan 

SUPPLEMENT ON RIGHTS OF DISABLED VETERANS, VIETNAM VETERANS, AND HANDICAPPED 



The Statement below is a supplement to the AfRrma- 
tive Action Plan for the University of Illinois published 
in Faculty Letter No. 222, October 6, 1971. This supple- 
ment is the Affirmative Action Plan for Disabled Vet- 
erans, Veterans of the Vietnam Era, and Handicapped 
Individuals. The supplement was sent to the United 
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
on July 29, 1977. 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN 

The following is the University of Illinois Affirmative 
Action Plan stating policies, practices, and procedures to 
employ and to advance in employment disabled veterans, 
veterans of the Vietnam era, and the handicapped. 

This plan, developed to carry out the intent of Sec- 
tion 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974 and Sections 503 and 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is available for inspection by 
employees and applicants for emplo)'ment at each of the 
following locations Monday through Friday during the 
regular working hours of the University : 

General University: 306 Illini Tower (Urbana) 

Chicago Circle: 2801 University Hall 

Medical Center: 414 Administrative Office Building 

Urbana-Champaign: 209 Coble Hall; 52 East Greg- 
ory 

This plan is reviewed annually and updated as neces- 
sary to reflect changes in employment conditions and 
governmental regulations. Each campus has also devel- 
oped an affirmative action program featuring procedures 
to implement the intent of Section 402 and Section 503. 

For purposes of this affirmative action plan, a handi- 
capped individual shall be defined as "... any person 
who ( 1 ) has a physical or mental impairment which sub- 
stantially limits one or more of such person's major life 
activities, (2) has a record of such impairment, or (3) 
is regarded as having such an impairment ... a handi- 
capped individual is substantially limited if he or she is 
likely to experience difficulty in securing, retaining, or 
advancing in employment because of a handicap."^ 

"Disabled veteran" is defined as "... a jjerson entitled 
to disability compensation under laws administered by 
the Veterans Administration for disability rated at 30 
fjer centum or more, or a person whose discharge or re- 
lease from active duty was for a disability incurred or 
aggravated in the line of duty."^ 

"Veteran of the Vietnam era" is defined as "... a 
person (1) who (i) served on active duty for a period 
of more than 180 days, any part of which occurred be- 
tween August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975, and was dis- 
charged or released therefrom with other than a dis- 
honorable discharge, or (ii) was discharged or released 
from active duty for a service-connected disability if any 
part of such active duty was performed between August 



5, 1964 and May 7, 1975, and (2) who was so dis- 
charged or released within 48 months preceding the al- 
leged violation of the (Vietnam Era Veterans Readjust- 
ment Assistance) Act (of 1974), the affirmative action 
clause, and/or the regulations issued pursuant to the 
Act."2 

1. STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY 

The University of Illinois, as an institution of higher 
education, recognizes its resp)onsibilities to facilitate full 
participation in the educational and employment pro- 
cesses of all qualified individuals who seek to partake of 
the institution's resources and opportunities. Committed 
to the goal of equal opportunity, the University of Illinois 
recognizes the need to formulate procedures to insure 
that no qualified individual will be denied participation 
in the University because of artificial and discriminatory 
barriers.'' -■ " It is the University's commitment to take 
affirmative action to employ and advance in employment 
qualified disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, 
and handicapjDed individuals. It is the stated policy of 
the University of Illinois that appropriate qualifications 
for and performance of specific duties are the basic cri- 
teria in all aspects of the employment process, including 
hiring, retention, training, transfer, promotion, and up- 
grading. 

The University of Illinois reaffirms its commitment 
to three basic goals : 

a. The continuing analysis of current practices and pol- 
icies and the adoption of new or revised practices and 
policies when necessary to insure the establishment of 
effective and specific objectives and procedures for 
equalizing opportunities in each employment unit. 

b. The identification and elimination of all employment 
practices whose relationship to job performance has 
not been clearly established and which have adverse 
impact on disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam 
era, and the handicapped. 

c. The wide recruitment of the above groups of potential 
employees to insure that persons with appropriate 
qualifications and potential are afforded equal op- 
portunity for emplo)'ment, training, promotion, and 
compensation. 

The University of Illinois realizes that in order to 
foster these goals, it is essential to enlist the active and 
genuine participation of current University employees, 
as well as to encourage the voluntary self-identification of 
these individuals wishing to benefit from these pro- 
grams.^' - 

2. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADMINISTERING 
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN 

The president of the University of Illinois is respon- 
sible for the development and implementation of the 



equal opportunity policy and affirmative action plan. 
Specific authority and responsibility are delegated by the 
president as follows : 

a. The vice-president for administration has responsibil- 
it>' for overall coordination for the president and 
serves as liaison between the University and state and 

^^ federal agencies concerned with equal opportunity - — 

wth special reference to insuring that ail University 
procedures are in accord with go\emmental regula- 

• tions. 

In carrj'ing out this assignment, the vice-president 
for administration ser\'es as chairman of the Univer- 
sit)- Council on Equal Opportunity, whose major func- 
tions are: 

(1) To advise the president on all University-wide 
matters pertaining to equal opportunity. 

(2) To review af!]rmati\e action plans to make cer- 
tain that they insure equal opportunity in all 
phases of University affairs. 

(3) To stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate planning 
and implementation of aihiinative action pro- 
grams at the general University and campus 
levels. 

b. A UniversiU' equal opportunity officer is appointed by 
the president. The vice-president for administration, 
who is the University equal opportunity officer, is au- 
thorized to structure and coordinate the affinnative 
action plan, to monitor its implementation, and to 
assess its accomplishments at the general University 
level. 

In order to review and evaluate the campus-level 
programs implementing University policy, the Univer- 
sity equal opportunity officer or designee periodically 
u-ill convene the Universits- Council on Equal Oppor- 
tunity' and other appropriate representatives from the 
campus. 

c. Basic responsibility for equal opportunity and affirma- 
tive action rests with the chancellor at each campus. 
The chancellor appoints one or more senior adminis- 
trative officers to coordinate affirmative action pro- 
grams at the campus level. In devising the specific 
programs that will implement University policy, and 
in defining and meeting each campus' affirmative 
action objectives, each campus coordinator may be 
advised and assisted by a committee ^consisting, for 

^^ example, of the officers responsible for campus policies 

^B and pro^'edures in the areas of academic, nonaca- 

^^ demic, construction, and student employment, and 

including other appropriate representatives as campus 
^ needs dictate) . 

y d. Primary operational resp)onsibility for accomplishing 

the University objectives in the three-campus system 
in regard to hiring and to promoting disabled vet- 
erans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and handicapped 
individuals, rests with those campus administrators in 
charge of academic, nonacademic, construction, and 
student employment, and the heads of the units re- 



porting to them. Not only are they responsible for 
performing all of their activities in a manner consis- 
tent with the institution's equal opportunity policy, 
but they must include in their policies and procedures 
the implementation of affirmative action and compli- 
ance programs developed at the campus level. 

3. INTERN.VL AND EXTERNAL DISSEMINATION 
OF POLICY: FORMAL AND INFORMAL 

a. Through University policy and procedure manuals 
and campus publications this institution's policy of, 
commitment to, and procedures for equal opportunity 
will be promulgated among campus and community 
members and agencies within the recruiting area. 

b. Administrators vsath hiring responsibilities will be in- 
formed that federal legislation requires that they take 
affirmative action to employ and to advance in em- 
ployment qualified disabled veterans, veterans of the 
Vietnam era, and handicapped individuals. Such ad- 
ministrators also will be informed that evaluation of 
their work performance will take into account the 
manner in which they carry out their affirmative ac- 
tion responsibilities.'' ^ 

c. The designated general University and campus ad- 
ministrative officers shall be responsible for communi- 
cating the University's equal opportunity commitment 
to local, state, and national organizations serving the 
needs of disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam 
era, and the handicapped. The veterans employment 
representative of the Illinois State Employment Ser- 
vice, the Veterans Administration Regional Office, 
the Office of the National Alliance of Businessmen, 
and campus veterans counselor/coordinators, the ser- 
vice officers of the several national veterans organiza- 
tions and local service centers, and the several or- 
ganizations which serve disabled veterans and veterans 
of the Vietnam era will be called upon as needed to 
assist the University in recruitment efforts. State vo- 
cational rehabilitation agencies, sheltered workshops, 
state educational agencies, labor organizations, orga- 
nizations of and for the handicapped, and educational 
institutions which participate in training of the handi- 
capped will be utilized where necessary to aid in 
recruitment. 

d. The responsible University officials will advise all 
contractors, subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers of 
their responsibilities under Section 402 of the Vietnam 
Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 
and under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973 and will reference both acts in all covered con- 
tracts, purchase orders, and leases. Nondiscrimination 
clauses wall be included in all contracts and subcon- 
tracts, and posters in support of affirmative action will 
be displayed. 

e. The responsible Personnel Services Office staff wdll 
inform union officials of the University's affirmative 
action p>olicy and their full cooperation will be re- 
quested in the recruitment, employment, and training 



of disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and 
handicapped individuals. Contractual provisions of 
union contracts will be reviewed to insure that they 
are nondiscriminatory. Nondiscrimination clauses will 
be included in all union contracts.^' ^ 

f. The University will seek the cooperation of the Uni- 
versity Civil Service System of Illinois in removing 
barriers to the employment of disabled veterans, vet- 
erans of the Vietnam era, and handicapped indi- 
viduals. The University shall continually review all 
physical and mental job qualification requirements to 
determine if they tend to screen out disabled veterans, 
veterans of the Vietnam era, and handicapped per- 
sons. When such a tendency is identified, these job 
qualifications will be further reviewed to determine 
their job-relatedness and their consistency with busi- 
ness necessity and the safe performance of jobs. The 
University will continually review its personnel prac- 
tices and procedures to assure that they result in care- 
ful, thorough, and systematic consideration of the job 
qualifications of persons known to be disabled vet- 
erans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and handicapjjed 
persons. Should new procedures be required, they will 
be adopted. 

g. Reasonable physical accommodation for disabled vet- 
erans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and handicapped 
persons will be determined through consultation with 
line management, representatives from the covered 
groups, and consultant groups, and then will be made 
with consideration of business necessity and financial 
costs and expenses. ^' ^' ^ 

4. IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS 
COVERED 

Persons identifying themselves for coverage under this 
affirmative action plan will be asked (a) to describe any 
sfjecial methods, skills, and procedures which qualify 
them for positions that they might presumably be unable 
to fill because of their disablement or handicap so that 
they will be considered for all such positions, and (b) to 
alert the University regarding accommodations which 
might be made to enable them to perform their jobs 
properly and safely, including special equipment, changes 
in the physical layout of the job, and elimination of cer- 
tain duties related to the job. 

The University may request medical documentation 
or may require an applicant or employee to undergo a 
comprehensive medical examination at the University's 
expense. The University will make every effort to assist 
persons identified as handicapf)ed to reach their full em- 
ployment potential. 

Self-identification shall be voluntary and refusal to 
provide it will not subject a person to discharge, disci- 
plinary action, or other adverse treatment. Information 
obtained concerning individuals shall be kept confidential 
except that (a) supervisors may be informed regarding 
restrictions on the work or duties of disabled or handi- 
capped individuals, (b) first aid and safety personnel 
may be informed, when and to the extent appropriate, if 



the condition might require emergency treatment, and 
(c) government officials investigating compliance with 
the act shall be informed. 

a. Persons wishing to be considered for protected class 
employment as handicapped persons will be asked to 
identify themselves based on the following categories _ 
under which they qualify : ^| 

1. Orthopedic 

2. Visual 

3. Speech ^^ 

4. Hearing ^^ 

5. Cerebral Palsy 

6. Epilepsy 

7. Muscular Dystrophy 

8. Multiple Sclerosis 

9. Cancer 

10. Heart Disease 

1 1 . Diabetes 

12. Mental Retardation 

13. Emotional Illness 

14. Drug Addiction 
l.'i. Alcoholism 

16. Other (specify) . 

b. In order to assure proper suppwrt of affirmative action 
objectives, the general University and each campus 
shall analyze employment records and the profiles of 
self-identified persons in order to ascertain: 

— the representation by unit of disabled veterans, 
veterans of the Vietnam era, and handicapped 
persons. 

— the nature of the applicant flow. 

— salary and rank differential, if any, between persons 
covered by Sections 402, 503, and 504 and other 
employees. 

— the composition of committees and other mecha- 
nisms for selection and promotion of staff. 

Problem areas identified by such analysis will be re- 
p)orted to the president and to the chancellor at each 
campus. Appropriate action will be taken on each cam- 
pus and at the general University level to remedy such 
problems within the University's ability to respond. 

5. EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES AND MAN- 
POWER (LABOR FORCE) REQUIREMENTS 

The University will utilize attrition to the maximum 
extent feasible to upgrade and extend the participation 
of disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and 
handicapped persons among the academic and non- 
academic work forces. 

Every vacant or new academic and nonacademic posi- 
tion will be subject to affirmative action procedures and 
full consideration will be given to all qualified applicants. 

6. MONITORING AND REPORTING SYSTEM 

Monitoring and reporting procedures to measure the 
effectiveness of general University and campus affirma- 
tive action programs will be used to provide an evalua- 



ti\e tool in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of 
campus recruitment and selection activities. 

The University equal opf>ortunit>' officer, with the 
adNice of the campus review committees described in 
"Responsibilities for Administering Affirmative Action 
Plan," coordinates the reporting on the nature and the 
degree of implementation of the University's affirmative 
action programs. Annual rep>orts as to the number of 
handicapped p>eople employed will be prepared for the 
L'nivereity equal opportunity officer, and will be pre- 
sented annually to the president of the University and 
to the Board of Trustees. 

7. CAMPUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM 
a. Academic Employment: Each campus affirmative 
action program has a mechanism established by the 
Office of the Chancellor which assures that equal 
opportunity guidelines have been considered before 
appointments receive final authorization. The follow- 
ing features are also incorporated : 
— position descriptions, including a written list of the 

broad responsibilities anticipated initially for each 

appointee. 
— ■ evaluation procedures and documentation to assure 

equal opportunit)- at every step of the selection 



process, including a special review of the appoint- 
ment papers before authorization to fill a position 
is given, 
b. Nonacadcmic Employment: Appropriate efforts will 

be made to recruit, train, and upgrade all qualified 

individuals. 

8. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 

The University has adopted "Guidelines on Grievance 
Procedures for Complaints of Discrimination," and the 
general University and the campuses have adopted 
grievance procedures to cover complaints by faculty, 
academic professionals, and students concerning alleged 
discrimination by the University on the basis of race, 
sex, national origin, religion, age, handicap, or status 
as disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam era. 
Similar grievance procedures are available to nonaca- 
demic employees and these are found in the Policy and 
Rules-N ojiacademic. These procedures are available for 
disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and 
handicapped persons who seek relief of alleged pre- 
employment or employment discrimination. 

■ Section 503. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

= Section 402, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. 

= Section 504, Reliabilitation Act of 1973. 



LiLlii^I f^^L^ 



^IFT & EXCHA>JGE OIVISIOM 
220A LIBRARY CAVPUS 




TY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 274, February 15, 1978 

, H- ulbR/'.SY OF i:-; 



Budget Recommendations of Board of Higher Education 

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CORBALI.V TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT JANUARY 18 MEETING 



iA>; 



1 'iJN 



As you know, the Illinois Board of Higher Education 
at its regular meeting held on January' 10 approved the 
advice which it will pro\ide the governor and the Gen- 
eral Assembly about Fiscal Year 1979 budget requests for 
higher education. This advice is presented in two docu- 
ments, one relating to operations and grants, the other to 
capital improvements. 

It is apparently still difficult for some jjeople to un- 
derstand the roles of various groups in developing bud- 
gets and appropriations decisions for higher education in 
Illinois. Thus, immediately following the IBHE meeting, 
we read or heard reports such as "University tuition in- 
creases for 1978-79" or "Board reduces faculty salary 
increases." The IBHE is an adviser — not a governing 
board — and decisions about the appropriations we shall 
seek and the allocation of the funds we receive are mat- 
ters under the jurisdiction of this board, subject to the 
actions of the General Assembly and of the governor. 
.Any reports, then, of what is or is not to be done in FY 
1979 at the University of Illinois are definitely pre- 
mature. 

In the operations and grants area, the IBHE recom- 
mended increased appropriations for all of higher educa- 
tion in Illinois amounting to $93,824 million. This 
amount is allocated among various units as follows: 



Senior universities 


$ 56.0 


million 


Community colleges 


7.3 


" 


ISSC 


9.6 


" 


Private institutions 


1.0 


" 


Health education grants 


2.3 


" 


Retirement 


16.7 


» 


Other 


.8 


" 



Total 



$ 93.7 "* 
(* $0.1 million lost in rounding) 



The IBHE recommends that this new dollar amount 
of S94 million be made up of about $87.5 million in new 
General Revenue Fund appropriations and about $6.5 
million to be gained through tuition increases averaging 
$48 per student per academic year. This recommenda- 
tion provides that the total increase of 10.64 percent 
o%-er FY 1978 be supported by an 11.4 percent increase 
in General Revenue Fund support and a 7 percent in- 
crease in support through the income funds of the senior 
universities. 



For senior universities, the recommended new dol- 
lars ($56 million) are allocated as follows among (1) 
systems and (2) purposes: 



(1) 


Board of Governors 
Board of Regents 




$ 


9.5 
10.2 


milli 

n 




Southern Illinois Univers 


ty 




10.0 


" 




University of Illinois 
Total 






26.3 


" 




$ 


56.0 


" 


(2) 


Salary increases 

Price increases 

O & M — new buildings 

Program support 

Other 




$ 


36.4 
8.3 
2.6 
6.0 
2.5 


milli 




Adjustments to FY 1978 base 
Total 




0.2 


" 




$" 


56.0 


" 



These recommendations compare to requests for FY 
1979 submitted by the various units included within the 
category "higher education" as follows: 

(1) Total request $154.8 million 
Total recommendation 93.8 " 
Recommendation as percent 

of request 60.6% 

(2) Request — senior universities $ 82.6 million 
Recommendation — senior 

universities 56.0 " 

Recommendation as percent 
of request 



(3) Request — U. of I. 

Recommendation — U. of I. 
Recommendation as percent 
of request 



67.8% 

$ 34.5 million 
26.3 

76.2% 



For the University of Illinois, the differences between 
requests and recommendations total $8 million and are 
as follows: 



Salaries 


$ 


1.68 million) 


Price increases 




.75 


" ) 


O & M — new buildings 




.12 


" ) 


New programs 




4.87 


" ) 


Other 




.57 


" ) 


Total 


r 


7.99 million) 



These figures and comments represent the cold facts 
of the IBHE budget recommendations for FY 1979. 
Several items are worthy of special mention. The IBHE 
recommendations contain a careful and thorough discus- 
sion of the funding problems of the State Universities 
Retirement System (SURS), and the recommended in- 
crease of $16.7 million for SURS funding will enable 
Illinois to achieve retirement funding above the so-called 
payout level for the first time for many years. The rec- 
ommendation provides the funds necessary to achieve 
the level recommended by the Pension Laws Commis- 
sion — net benefit payout plus 2 percent of total esti- 
mated payroll. This recommendation deserves and will 
receive our strong support. 

We are presently engaging in conversation with the 
staff of IBHE concerning the nearly $5 million reduction 
in our request for funds to support program initiatives. 
^Vhile it seems clear that we will need to adjust to the 
reduction, we do not yet have full agreement with the 
IBHE staff about the distribution of the reduction 
among various programs. I expect that we will reach 
agreement and I do agree with the IBHE staff that pro- 
gram initiatives must follow salaries, retirement funding, 
and meeting price increases in any reasonable list of 
priorities. 

The tuition issue is one about which we shall talk 
later today and I will simply mention here that in spite 
of the IBHE recommendations it is clear that the two 
questions — "Whether or not an increase shall occur?" 
and "If so, how great shall the increase be?" — are far 
from settled. My only regret at this moment is that the 
careful and wise efforts made last year to remo\'e this 
issue from the political arena and to place major re- 
sponsibility for tuition decisions in the hands of govern- 
ing boards seem now to be forgotten. I believe that what 
was a principle in 1977-78 is still a principle in 1978-79, 
and I will continue to express that view. 

Before making the final point with regard to budget 
requests for operations and grants for FY 1979, let me 
speak very briefly about IBHE recommendations for 
capital improvements. It is generally understood that 
authorizations and thus appropriations for new capital 



projects in FY 1979 will be limited. While the IBHE 
staff recommends support of $125 million in new capital 
expenditures of which $22 million are in response to re- 
quests from the University of Illinois and $34 million 
are for the second phase of the Food Production and Re- 
search program, it is unlikely that these totals will be 
realized. It seems clear that the commitments to the 
Food Production and Research program will be met and 
that some portion of the space remodeling, renovation, 
and repair (SR^) program will be funded. This entire 
area of concern is still under discussion and little weight 
can be given to current recommendations related to 
capital improvements. 

My final comments relate to the salary portion of the 
IBHE recommendations. You know that at the January 
meeting of the IBHE I spoke vigorously in support of 
the salar)' recommendations which you approved in our 
budget request — salary increases averaging 10 percent 
for all University personnel. A copy of my remarks at 
that meeting is attached to these remarks. I have been 
somewhat surprised that some people would find it 
unusual or a sign of "giving in to pressure" that my com- 
ments about and actions on behalf of salary increases 
might be modified as a result of my conversations with 
members of the faculty of the University. One of my pri- 
mary tasks is to represent the faculty of the University 
and I hope always to be alert to and receptive to sug- 
gestions and criticisms from that primary constituency. 
But more persons than faculty members found the IBHE 
salary recommendations for increases averaging 8 per- 
cent plus 2 percent for "low-paid employees" seriously 
deficient. In meetings with academic deans and direc- 
tors as well as with representatives of our professional/ 
administrative staff, the intensity of feeling about the 
failure of the IBHE to support salary increases at the 
10 percent level was expressed to me. It is clear that our 
initial salary recommendations were justified when you 
approved them and are at least as fully justified today 
and it is my hope that you will support my intention to 
continue to work on behalf of those justified increases. 

I will be pleased to respond to your questions or to 
hear your comments concerning this report. 



President's StateTnent on FY 1979 Budget Recomnundations 

DELIVERED TO ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHICAGO, JANUARY 10, 1978 



Fiscal Year 1979 Higher Education Budget Reconunen- 
dations, Operations and Grants, Illinois Board of Higher 
Education 

Both the dollar figures of the IBHE budget recom- 
mendations for Fiscal Year 1979 and the text in support 
of those dollar figures deserve the careful attention of 
the citizens of Illinois. The staff of the Board of Higher 
Education has worked long and hard to develop both 
the recommendations and the supporting material and 
has done so in full consultation with representatives of 
the systems and other higher education units in Illinois. 
\Vhile I recognize that some have already suggested that 



the recommendations seek too much, I must strongly 
suggest that our data indicate that in the area of faculty 
and staff salaries these recommendations seek too little. 
The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois de- 
voted major attention in the development of its budget 
request to salary needs and concluded that salary in- 
creases averaging 10 percent for all personnel of the Uni- 
versity were essential. The data in support of increases 
of at least this amount have been before you in salary 
studies conducted by or for your staff and I will not 
repeat those data again. 

But I do want to say to you today and through you 



to the p)eople of Illinois, to Governor Thompson, and 
to the General Assembly that %vhat you see as printed 
justifications of salary needs, I and my colleagues ex- 
perience each day in real and human terms. I am watch- 
ing the beginnings of the deterioration of one of the great 
universitN- faculties in all the world — the faculty of the 
Universit\- of Illinois. Morale is low : contentiousness is 
high ; minor irritations assume major proportions ; and a 
faculty which traditionally devoted its attention to 
teaching, research, and public ser\ice now finds itself 
increasingly concerned about its own welfare. 

The low salary^ rank of our top quality faculty is 
viewed by the faculty as a sign of the lack of respect 
which Illinois and its leadership have for higher educa- 
tion, for intellectual excellence, and for over a century- 
of significant academic achievement. 

I know the leadership of Illinois and I know that 
they do respect and honor higher education. The time 



is nearly here when we will have lost what our predeces- 
sors built. The time is here for real, honest action, not 
for pats on the head and for friendly words. I will urge 
the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois to 
continue its strong support of its request for 10 percent 
salary increases and I hope that many of you on the 
Board of Higher Education will join in this effort. This 
support is crucial if education is indeed to remain visible 
as a real priority of the leadership of Illinois. 

There are other and much less significant items 
within these recommendations about which we continue 
to work with the IBHE staff. My view about the recom- 
mendations is a positive view and it seems inappropriate, 
therefore, to discuss details today. Only in the crucial 
area of salaries is it imperative that we speak out today 
strongly and clearly so that the significance of that con- 
cern is not lost. 



University Boards and Committees 

.ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEMBERS FOR 1977-78 ACADEMIC YEAR 

University Academic Council. Peter E. Yankwich, 
Chairperson, Norman F. Cantor, William J. Grove, 
Harold \V. Hake, Dillon E. Mapother. 
University Committee on Accident Compensation. Rob- 
ert N. Parker. Chairperson, Truman O. Anderson, Dean 
Barringer. Dale X. Brostrom, Allan J. Harrison, William 
J. Hart. Timothy O. Madigan, Alexander M. Schmidt, 
Laurence M. Solomon. 

University Committee on Accountancy (C.P.A.). J. 
Nelson Young, Chairperson, Edwin Cohen, Jane AV. 
Loeb, ex officio, Kenneth \\'. Pern,-, Edward J. Smith. 
Secretary, Eldred C. Strobel (DePaul University). 
Avery Brundage Scholarship Fund Committee. Dale E. 
Mattson, Chairperson, Rosemary Cahill, Bruce Jorgen- 
son, Teri Legner, Michael T. Moore, Ernest T. Pas- 
carella, Edward G. Perkins, Jack H. Prost, Marjorie 
Souder, E. Eugene Oliver, Secretary. 

University Budget Committee. Ronald W. Brady, Chair- 
person, Werner H. Baur, David \V. Bonham, Norman F. 
Cantor, Paul J. Doebel, Etta A. Hincker, William J. 
Grove, \Valter H. McMahon, Alexander M. Schmidt, 
Richard H. Ward, Morton AV. AVeir, Peter E. Yankwich, 
Harlan D. Bareither, Staff Associate. 
University Committee on Copyrightable Works. Ronald 
W. Brady, Chairperson, James J. Costello, Dillon E. 
Mapother, W. Ann Reynolds, Jan Rocek, Peter E. 
Yankwich. 

University Council for Environmental Studies. Viron L. 
Diefenbach, Benjamin B. Ewing, Roger W. Findley. 
James P. Hartnett, Edward R. Hermann, R. Thomas 
Jaeger, Robert L. Metcalf, Thomas L. Poulsen, W. Ann 
Re\-nolds. 

University Council on Equal Opj>ortunity. Ronald W. 
Brady. Chairperson, Dean Barringer, Donald A. Henss, 



Carol Cottrell-Mootry, Nan E. McGehee, Michele M. 
Thompson. 

University Committee on Financial Aid to Students. E. 

Eugene Oliver, Chairperson, Richard K. Barksdale, 
Thorn P. Brown, Theodore Hymowitz, Harold Klehr, 
Larry Matejka, William J. Otting, Jr., William A. Over- 
holt, William C. Wagner. 

University Committee on Gerontology. Ethel Shanas, 
Chairperson, Thomas O. Byerts, e.x officio, Dennis A. 
Dahl, Edward L. Deam, Marilyn L. Flynn, Henry Jeffay, 
Edward A. Lichter, George W. Magner, David W. Plath, 
Harriet H. Werley. 

University Council on Graduate Education and Re- 
search. Peter E. Yankwich, Chairperson, A. Lynn Alten- 
bernd, Dale R. Eisenmann, Robert R. Heitner, David 
Lazarus, Dillon E. Mapother, W. Ann Reynolds, Jan 
Rocek, Piergiorgio L. E. Uslenghi. 

University Council on International Education. Peter E. 
Yankwich, Chairperson, George K. Brinegar, Robert L. 
Hess, George E. Miller. 

University Council on Legislative Relations. R. Samuel 
Baker, Chairperson, George H. Bargh, James J. Costello, 
Samuel K. Gove, Robert N. Parker, William H. Rice. 

University Council on Libraries. Beverly P. Lynch, 
Chairperson, Hugh C. Atkinson, Herbert Goldhor, John 
Lussenhop, Irwin H. Pizer, John P. Waterhouse, Ian D. 
Westbury. 

University Nonacademic Employees Advisory Commit- 
tee. Marjorie Beasley, Patricia Curtis, E. T. Flynn, 
Francis Gaughan, C. R. Hickman, P. T. Hughes, Bess 
Matteson, J. C. Radmaker, John Saldeen, Henry Walli, 
Bemice L. Wright. 
University Patent Committee. Ronald W. Brady, Chair- 



person, James J. Costello, Dillon E. Mapother, W. Ann 
Reynolds, Jan Rocek, Peter E. Yankwich. 
University Planning Council. Ronald W. Brady, Chair- 
person, David W. Bonham, Norman F. Cantor, Paul J. 
Doebel, William J. Grove, Harold W. Hake, Alexander 
M. Schmidt, Richard H. Ward, Peter E. Yankwich, 
Harlan D. Bareither, Secretary, 

University Press Board. Robert W. Johannsen, Chair- 
person, Gloria G. Fromm, Keneth Kinnamon, Dillon E. 
Mapother, ex officio, Miodrag Muntyan, ex officio, Ir- 
win H. Pizer, W. Ann Reynolds, ex officio, Jan Rocek, 
ex officio, Norman E. Whitten, Jr. 

University Council on Public Service. Peter E. Yank- 
wich, Chairperson, John B. Claar, Dennis A. Dahl, Sam- 
uel K. Gove, Thomas M. Jenkins, Alexander M. 
Schmidt, James E. Vermette, Thomas F. Zimmerman. 
Advisory Committee to the Board of Trustees of the 
University Retirement System of Illinois. Walter H. 
Franke, Stephen W. Forbes, Beverly T. Lehman, Howard 
A. Mcintosh, Lois E. Owens, William H. Ross, William 
W. Tongue, Wallace H. Wilson. 

University Committee on State-University Relations. 
Samuel K. Gove, Chairperson, Samuel R. Aldrich, Den- 
nis A. Dahl, Alan W. Donaldson, Michael Goldstein, 
James P. Hartnett, Boyd R. Keenan, Ross J. Martin, 
James T. McGill, Peter E. Yankwich, W. Ann Reynolds. 



University Committee on University Relations. David 
Landman, Chairperson, Lewis Barron, J. B. Claar, Lynn 
Pierce, Jack Righeimer, James E. Vermette. 

University Senates Conference. 

Chicago Circle. Elizabeth Gebhard, John Curtis John- 
son, Chairperson, Richard M. Johnson, Leonard Kent, 
Harriet Talmage, Bert L. Zuber. 

Medical Center. Bernard Ecanow, Secretary, Olga M. 
Jonasson, Sabath F. Marotta, George E. Miller, John 
P. Waterhouse, Harriet H. Werley. 
LIrbana-Champaign. A. Lynn Altenbernd, Rupert 
Evans, Kenneth Harshbarger, Robert G. Spitze, Mac 
Van Valkenburg, Rollin Wright. 

LTniversity Committee on Admissions. 

Chicago Circle. Robert J. Adelsperger, Robert E. 
Corley, Chairperson, Eloise H. Cornelius, William J. 
Dunne, Jose Ortiz, William C. Price, ex officio. 
Medical Center. Thomas W. Beckham, ex officio, 
Donald W. Rice. 

Urbana-Champaign. Margaret D. Early, Jane W. 

Loeb, ex officio, James C. Martin, Robert L. Mosborg, 

Ben A. Rasmusen, Jack Riley. 

University Representative. E. Eugene Oliver, ex 

officio. 



tliiuif^ 







FACULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 275, April 10, 1978 



Review ofProgrrss on FT 1979 Budget; Tuition-Salary Issues ^ g .Q-^g 



STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CORBALLY TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

This Statement to you started out to be a recommen- 
dation related to tuition levels for the coming academic 
vear. It is now much broader than that and while I 
apologize for the length of these remarks, I cannot over- 
emphasize their importance nor the need to view them 
as a whole rather than as a collection of separate items. 

At this point in time as we face our final decisions 
related to the 1978-79 operating budget and to our strat- 
egies for securing appropriations in support of our needs, 
it is imp)ortant to review the steps which have taken place 
to date : 

1. In September 1977 you approved the submission 
to the Board of Higher Education [BHE], to the gover- 
nor, and to the General Assembly of a budget request for 
1978-79 in the amount of $300,395,700 (inclusive of 
Agricultural Premium Funds and exclusive of SURS 
contribution). This request included funds to support 
salary increases averaging 10 percent for all members of 
the faculty and staff. This request did not include any 
recommendations concerning sources of funds — particu- 
larly concerning tuition increases. 

2. In January 1978 the Board of Higher Education 
approved budget recommendations for the University for 
1978-79 in a total amount of $292,268,900 — a decrease 
of $8.1 million from our request. I provided the details 
of that decrease to you in January; most of the dollars 
were deleted from new programs. However, our request 
for salary increases averaging 10 percent was reduced to 
a recommended increase of 8 percent plus 2 percent for 
lower-paid Civil Service employees. The BHE recom- 
mendations also included recommended tuition increases 
of $48 per year — increases which would have provided 
$2.4 million in support of our budget. 

3. Earlier this month, the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion responded to a request from Governor Thompson 
and provided a recommended allocation of the funds the 
governor has said will be available for higher education 
for 1978-79. This allocation provides the University of 
Illinois with $290,681,500 for 1978-79 — a decrease of 
$1,587,400 from the original BHE recommendation, but 
an allocation which does not depend upon a tuition in- 
crease. This allocation also provides for salary increases 
averaging 8 jiercent plus 2 percent for lower-paid Civil 
Service employees. 



AT MARCH 15 MEETING , ,,,. -, 

diversity ot Illinois 
4. Recommendations related to SURS fuVlWng have 
also gone through several stages. We requested $48.8 mil- 
lion — an increase of $27.9 million over the 1977-78 
level — which is the so-called "minimum statutory re- 
quirement." The BHE recommended $26.8 million (an 
increase of $5.85 million) which is the so-called "Pension 
Laws Commission Plan" or "net pay-out plus 2 percent 
of payroll." Within the governor's recommended amount, 
the BHE recommends SURS funding for the University 
of Illinois in an amount of $25.9 million — the "gross 
benefit payment" requirement and an increase of $4.9 
million over 1977-78. 

Of particular importance here is that even the small- 
est amount recommended — $25.9 million — is $4.4 mil- 
lion more than the amount required for "net benefit pay- 
ment" — the funding basis which has prevailed for the 
last decade. 

The decisions which we face today, then, are related to 
the content of the appropriation bill which we will in- 
troduce for 1978-79 and a decision on tuition levels for 
1978-79. While there are other topics which seem to 
arrive on our discussion agenda regularly, the subject of 
tuition is the topic which has appeared with the greatest 
regularity and with the most consistent intensity during 
my seven-year tenure with the University of Illinois. I 
find that fact unfortunate, for the topic of tuition charges 
in public higher education in Illinois should be relatively 
simple and straightforward. Our tuition levels are low by 
almost any measure; Illinois supports one of the most 
comprehensive plans of student financial aid in the na- 
tion and there is no evidence that tuition levels in Illinois 
are even approaching the point where they interfere with 
access to public higher education; and while we may 
argue about the sufficiency of increased appropriations 
for higher education, tax support in Illinois for higher 
education has increased each year, and there is certainly 
no evidence of intent on the part of governing boards, 
the General Assembly, or governors to place an excess 
burden on tuition for the support of higher education. 
As I have said many times, the simple fact is that tuition 
is a price and that in times of inflation prices go up or 
the quality of what you are paying for goes down. 

But we have permitted tuition to become both an 
emotional and a political issue, and tuition decisions in 



Illinois are not based on facts alone. In neighboring 
states, tuition levels at comparable universities have been 
increased — at no identifiable cost to access even in states 
with miniinal financial aid programs. In our state some 
private institutions have been forced to raise tuition by 
increments larger than our total tuition, and state finan- 
cial aid programs have been adjusted in attempts to ease 
the burden of these increases — adjustments which send 
an increasing number of public dollars to support the 
payment of high private university tuitions. And while 
governing boards in Illinois systems of public higher edu- 
cation are held responsible for the institutions they gov- 
ern on behalf of the people, the ability of governing 
boards to study, to deliberate about, and to establish 
tuition levels is presently more a fiction than a fact. 

So this year again we have discussed the tuition issue 
as if we really could do something about it. We — both 
you and I — have done so in spite of statements from 
legislative leaders that tuition increases for 1978-79 would 
not be approved and in spite of statements from the gov- 
ernor's office that tuition increases for 1978-79 would be 
vetoed and from the governor that tuition increases for 
1978-79 should not be sought. It seems clear to me that 
our first tuition objective must be to seek legislative 
change so that the governing boards of the four senior 
university systems have the same responsibility and au- 
thority for tuition decisions that now prevail in the Illi- 
nois system of community colleges. Governor Thompson 
has endorsed such legislation as has the Board of Higher 
Education, and with your approval, I intend to work 
actively in support of such legislation, starting imme- 
diately. 

Given the inability of this governing board to make 
binding tuition decisions because of the roles of the Gen- 
eral Assembly and of the governor in such decisions, and 
given the current emphasis upon tuition as a political 
issue, I do not find any reason other than a symbolic one 
to ask you to approve increased levels of tuition for 
1978-79. I personally believe in the need for and in the 
equity of a tuition increase based upon inflation factors. 
I regret the fact that the setting in Illinois makes it diffi- 
cult, if not impossible, for this governing board to make 
tuition decisions in a clear and straightforward and final 
way. But if I ask you to approve a tuition increase and 
if you do so, that approved increase becomes a part of 
our appropriations bill. In testimony and hearings before 
the General Assembly, our approval of a tuition increase 
and emotional and/or political arguments about that in- 
crease can become of greater interest and assume greater 
importance than discussions of our crucial and real bud- 
getary needs. Even faculty members otherwise eloquent 
seem rendered incoherent when asked to consider tuition 
and other sources of revenue to support meeting realistic 
salary and programmatic needs. It would be unfortunate 
to permit a set of artificially constructed controversies 
described as "tuition issues" to divert our attention from 
our real needs. So, unless you demand that I do so, I 
have determined that I will not seek the tuition increase 



which I believe to be right, but will instead settle for 
what I regretfully believe to be real for 1978-79. 

A decision not to seek a tuition increase for 1978- 
79 means that our budgetary decisions must be based 
upon increases in general revenue funds only. Governor 
Thompson has recommended an increase of 10.3 per- 
cent over expenditures and 9.6 percent over appropria- 
tions in general revenue supf)ort of higher education in 
FY 1979. For the University of Illinois, the BHE alloca- 
tion of the governor's recommendations pro\ides an in- 
crease in general revenue support of 10.3 percent over 
appropriations including SURS contributions. Our legiti- 
mate concerns about tuition levels or about unmet needs 
must not lead us to overlook the strong level of support 
wliich Governor Thompson's recommendations represent. 
The dollar increase is the greatest year-to-year increase 
ever received by the University from general revenue 
funds and is the largest percentage increase since FY 
1971. The governor's recommendations do support salary 
increases greater than inflation and do provide for in- 
creased SURS funding. It is essentially in programmatic 
support that the various budget recommendations differ 
and that support is crucial to our quality and to faculty 
satisfaction just as is equitable salary treatment. Just as 
some faculty members have chided me for lack of sup- 
port for adequate salary increases, others have chided me 
for lack of support for the programmatic elements of our 
budget requests. 

It is, therefore, my intent with your approval to intro- 
duce our appropriations bill at the BHE-recommended 
level, but without the BHE-recommended tuition in- 
crease. This level provides for an increase of $26.3 mil- 
lion over 1977-78 — all now from general revenue funds. 
It seeks $1.6 million more than Governor Thompson's 
recommendation will provide. It will support SURS con- 
tributions at the level recommended by the Pension Laws 
Commission. It will provide programmatic support for 
each of our campuses in essential areas of concern. It will 
provide for salary increases averaging 8 percent plus 2 
jjercent for lower-paid Civil Ser\'ices employees without 
a tuition increase. 

Let me make clear that these salary increases will not 
solve our salary problems, even though they v^dll improve 
our situation somewhat. I shall continue to point out our 
unmet needs and will do so vigorously. Our unmet salary 
needs will remain an issue for FY 1980 just as will an 
intelligent approach to responsibility for tuition decisions. 
But if I must face reality today with regard to tuition, so 
must I face reality with regard to the speed with which 
we can overcome several years of inadequate salary sup- 
port. 

I have been asked what is difi'erent today from the 
conditions which existed on January 10, 1978, when I 
urged you to continue your strong support of our request 
for a 10 percent salary increase. What seem to me to be 
differences are that the chances for a tuition increase are 
now no, SURS contributions have moved from "net" to 



"gross" at a cost of about two and one-half percentage 
p)oints on our salar)' and wages base, and support for 
programmatic needs has been reduced to no better than 
a bare minimum in order to preserve salary increases and 
SURS contributions. I do not back away from my sup- 
port of our budget request nor do I want you to do so, 
and I shall continue to enunciate our needs. As we seek 
to supfwrt the BHE budget recommendations and as we 



recognize new levels of support from the leadership of 
Illinois, we must tread the thin line between seeking too 
much and being content with too little. FY 1979 can 
represent real progress on the road back to needed levels 
of financial support, and I urge all of those concerned 
with the quality and health of the University of Illinois 
to come together in support of that progress as a base 
for continuing progress in the years to follow. 



Refinancing University Debt — Auxiliary Enterprises 



EXPLAN.\'nON OF PL.\N APPROVED BY BOARD IN MARCH 

At the March 1978 meeting of the Board of Trustees, 
a major program to refinance the debt of the University 
was approved. The debt involved is for facilities in what 
are described as the auxiliary' operations of the Univer- 
sity — primarily student housing and various activity fa- 
cilities. At the present time the debt is being retired by a 
combination of income received from operations, from 
user fees, from student fees, and from tuition payments 
retained by the University for debt service. This latter 
source of funds (tuition retention) is available only to 
the Uni\ersit\' of Illinois and to Southern Illinois Uni- 
versity under existing Illinois statutes. However, various 
state agencies are seeking the elimination of "tuition re- 
tention" and the University' of Illinois has been striving 
to do so for the past several years, so that all tuition 
income will be used to support the education and gen- 
eral expenses of the University. 

The refinancing plan involves the following steps : 

1. The direct exchange of approximately $22 million 
of bonds held by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development on a par for par basis (this transaction will 
jsennit a reduced debt service reserve requirement and 
iinpro\e the flexibility of funding for the use and support 
of housing and auxiliary facilities) . 

2. The sale of $50-60 million of bonds for the pur- 
pose of "advance refunding" existing debt. The proceeds 
of this sale will be placed into an escrow account ( sinking 
funds) to be used in retiring existing debt as it becomes 
due o\er the next thirty years. 

3. In the process of providing for the full long-term 
pavTnent of existing debt, the University's debt structure 
will be altered and leveled (stabilized) at approximately 
$3.7 million p)er year for the next thirty years. Under the 
present debt structure, net debt service requirements in 
1979 are approximately $6.0 million; therefore, on an 
annual basis, roughly $2.3 million in cash savings occur 
through the creation of a new debt structure. 

4. The $2.3 million in annual cash savings would 
enable the University to support over $31 million in new 
debt over the next thirty years. By maintaining a net an- 
nual debt service level of $6.0 million over thirty years, 
the University could not only retire the indebtedness of 
the advance refunding bonds (at $3.7 million per year), 



but also new debt incurred through a subsequent "parity 
bond series" (at $2.3 million per year) . 

5. Because the University's immediate construction 
needs (for auxiliary enterprises only) total $24 million, 
a net annual debt service level of approximately $5.5 
million is required to meet the total new debt require- 
ments. In other words, although the University would 
have the capacity to support $31 million of new debt in 
a parity bond series (without increasing its net debt ser- 
vice level of $6.0 million), selling only $24 million "frees 
up" roughly $500,000 per year in available revenue. 

6. To eliminate the need for tuition retention (money 
retained presently by the University from the Income 
Fund), a jjer-student service fee increase of approxi- 
mately $25 would be required. This fee increase would 
eliminate the use of $1.2 million of Income Fund collec- 
tions which are now being pledged in support of certain 
auxiliary services. However, because the University will 
be establishing a new total annual debt service level 
nearly $500,000 less than total income will support, these 
dollar savings will be used to partially reduce the current 
tuition and fee amount being retained. A $15 per-student- 
per-year fee increase will generate $700,000 per year. 
When combined with the $500,000 of available, but un- 
used, income in the system, these two amounts will be 
sufficient to eliminate the need for $1.2 million in re- 
tained Income Fund revenue. (This action will allow the 
University to place the $1.2 million heretofore retained 
for auxiliary services into the Income Fund for appro- 
priation and use by the three campuses. ) 

7. Current "debt service" and "repair and replace- 
ment" reserves totaling approximately $16 million will 
be placed into a special account (through the purchase 
of long-term government securities). Interest from this 
account (estimated at almost $1.8 million or 8 percent 
■per year) will be pledged toward annual debt service 
requirements. Present earnings on these funds are re- 
stricted because of existing bond covenant requirements 
— present yield is approximately $1.1 million per year or 
6.2 percent. This facet of the new "system," then, will 
generate roughly $700,000 more for the University in 
interest earnings. 

8. Slightly more than $7 million of the $50-60 million 



to be gained from the sale of "advance refund" bonds 
wUl be used to retire existing Foundation debt for the 
Stadium ($1.2 million) and the Intramural-Physical 
Education facility ($6.0 million) at Urbana-Champaign. 
Under the umbrella of the new "system," the Athletic 
Association will provide annual payments toward the 
retirement of existing and new debt for the Stadium. 
Existing student fees will support annual debt service on 
the IMPE facility. 

9. $6 million of the "advance refund" bonds will be 



used to establish a debt service reserve which is equiva- 
lent to one year's net debt service requirement for the 
system. 

10. As part of a program to insure the physical integ- 
rity of the facilities in the system, a repair and replace- 
ment reserve wall be established over the next two years. 
In addition to the $2-3 million reserve contemplated for 
this purpose, an annual amount approximating $1.5 mil- 
lion will be claimed from the revenues of the system to 
meet yearly repair and replacement needs. 



SUGGESTED PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR CAMPUS LIFE AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES SUPPORT SYSTEM 



ioritv Current Indebtedness 

1 IMPE BuildiDg at Urbana-Champaign 

2 Memorial Stadium at Urbana-Champaign 

Subtotal 
Remodeling, Equipment Replacement, and Completion oj Current Structures 

3 Urbana-Champaign — Memorial Stadium — Weatheiproofing 

4 Urbana-Champaign — .\ssembly Hall Roof Resurfacing 

5 Chicago Circle Center — Revolving Doors 

6 Chicago Circle Center — Recreation Lighting 

7 Chicago Circle Center — Swimming Pool Locker Room Floor 

8 Chicago Circle Center — Second Floor Locker Room Conversion 

9 Medical Center — Housing and Union — Equipment Replace- 

ment and Facility Renewal 

10 Urbana-Champaign — McKinley Health Center — Roof and 

H.V.A.C. 

11 Urbana-Champaign — Housing Division — Roof Repair 

12 Urbana-Champaign — Housing Division — Kitchen and Safety 

Improvements 

13 Urbana-Champaign — Illini Union — Kitchen Equipment 

14 Urbana-Champaign — IMPE Patio and Indoor Pool Repair 

15 Chicago Circle Center— Great Circle Hall Completion 

16 Chicago Circle Center — Enclose First Floor High Rise Building 

Subtotal R, R, and Completion of Current Structures 
New Projects 

1 7 Medical Center Union Addition and Recreation Facilities 

18 Chicago Circle Pavilion 

19 Urbana-Champaign — Illini Union Bookstore Improvement 

20 ' Chicago Circle Outdoor Playing Fields 

21 Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Facilities 

22 Urbana-Champaign — ■ McKinley Health Center Elevator 

Subtotal Enrichment 



Urbana- 
Champaign 



80,000 
20,000 
40,000 
50,000 



C( 7,351,073) (S 7,351,073) 



t 2,100,000 
1,600,000 
80,000 
20,000 
40,000 
50,000 



Cumulative 

Total Without 

Foundation 



% 2,100,000 
3,700,000 
3,780,000 
3,800,000 
3,840,000 
3,890,000 



625,000 625,000 

180,000 180,000 

290,000 290,000 

1,700,000 1,700,000 

100,000 100,000 

(5 1,990,000) ($1,737,490) (8 5,650,000) (5 9,377,490) 



5 7,500,000 
620,000 



S 8,120,000 
510.110,000 



$5,745,000 
57,482,490 



5 740,000 
$13,741,073 



$ 5,550,000 

7,500,000 

600,000 

620,000 

195,000 

140,000 

514,605,000 

$31,333,563 



7,107,490 
7,387,490 
7,577,490 
9,277,490 
9,377,490 



14,927,490 
22,427,490 
23,027,490 
23,647,490 
23,842,490 
23,982,490 



Cumulative 
Total With 
Foundation 



% 9,451,073 
11,051,073 
11,131,073 
11,151,073 
11,191,073 
11,241,073 



1,737,490 5,627,490 12,978,563 



14,458,563 
14,638,563 
14,928,563 
16,628,563 
16,728,563 



22,278,563 
29,778,563 
30,378,563 
30,998,563 
31,193,563 
31,333,563 









..TTHE 




iLTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



No. 276, September 15, 1978 



Sfaternent on State Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1979 

REPORTS ON THE OPER.\TING BUDGET, THE CAPITAL BUDGET, AND FOOD FOR CENTURY HI 



OPERATING BUDGET 

Governor Thompson has signed the University's 
operations and grants legislation for the 1978-79 fiscal 
year. While one can never be completely pleased with an 
appropriations process which does not meet in full 
measure the total needs represented by the Board of 
Trustees budget request, the Fiscal Year (FY) 1979 ap- 
propriation can be viewed with considerable satisfaction. 

Excluding retirement and capital appropriations, the 
FY 1979 legislation provides incremental funds totaling 
$24,755,600. This figure represents an increase of 9.3 
percent over the Universit)''s FY 1978 base — the highest 
Increase in four years and the second highest since FY 
1971. The FY 1979 increase is well above the 5.86 per- 
cent average increase for the past seven fiscal years. 
Highlights of the appropriations signed by the governor 
include the following: 

— Funds sufficient to provide salary increases aver- 
aging 8 percent for continuing University faculty and 
staff members. 

— Supplementary salary increase funds for lower-paid 
civil service employees. 

— Recognition of an inflation-induced decline in the 
ability of the University to maintain adequate library 
acquisition rates, and provision of a 10 percent increase 
in fimds for acquisitions to begin recovery from this 
decHne. 

— Acceptance of the principle of replacing declining 
federal funds in support of health professions and vet- 
erinary medicine education and a commitment of state 
funds to begin the replacement process. 

— Recognition of the growing deficiency in funds 
a\ailable for replacement of equipment, and provision 
of $200,000 to begin the recovery process at Urbana- 
Champaign. 

— Funding to continue the growth and development 
of the Chicago Circle Extended Day/Program PM 
efforts. 

— Funding (in separate legislation) of the state con- 
tribution to retirement at the "gross payout level" which 
vkdll permit the establishment of reserves to help offset 
future growth in unfunded liabilities in the State Univer- 
sities Retirement System. 



The actions of the General Assembly and the gover- 
nor this year in support of the University — indeed, of 
all higher education • — appear to indicate their recog- 
nition of the need for recovery from past years of funding 
levels inadequate to allow the advancement, or in some 
cases the continuation, of the University's major missions. 
Table A describes the history of the FY 1979 operating 
budget request from approval by the Board of Trustees 
through signature by the governor. The following sec- 
tions describe the major components of the budget as 
approved by the governor. 

Salary Increases ($15,984,600) —The Board of 
Trustees requested funds to allow average salary in- 
creases of 10 percent for University employees. The Illi- 
nois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) originally rec- 
ommended increases of 8 percent for most employees and 
10 percent for lower-paid civil service personnel. The 
IBHE held to its recommendation when advising the 
governor on the allocation of his budget for higher edu- 
cation. However, in order to maintain the 8 and 10 per- 
cent levels in the governor's budget, the IBHE advised 
using a 10 percent employee turnover rate for calculating 
the funds necessary to support its recommendation. This 
turnover rate is higher than the University of Illinois has 
experienced in the past. 

Although recent evidence of increased inflation has 
been noted, it appears that for FY 1979 most University 
personnel will receive salary increases which will exceed 
current inflation estimates. This is the most favorable 
position the University has been in since FY 1973. In 
addition, although final data are not yet available, it 
appears that both academic and nonacademic employees 
wall show some gains relative to their respective salary- 
comparison groups. 

Price Increases ($3,467,900) — The University re- 
ceived funds to provide general price increases of 4.5 
percent for most goods and services ($1,372,900). As in 
the past, the state provided additional support for utility 
price increases, funded at an 11.5 percent increase 
($1,775,600). 

For the first time, difl'erential price increase funds 
were also provided to support increases in library ac- 
quisitions. Due to severe inflationary increases related 
to publication costs, price increases of 10 percent for 
acquisitions were approved ($319,400) . 



TABLE A 

FY 1979 INCREMENTAL REQUEST 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Board IBHE Approved by Signed by 

of Trustees Approved General Assembly Goverrior 
I. Continuing Components 

A. Salary Increases 518,759.0 $17,145.9 $16,028.6 $15,984.6 

B. Price Increases 

1. General 2,022.1 1,478.9 1,372.9 1,372.9 

2. UtUity 2,316.5 1,761.7 1,775.6 1,775.6 

3. Libraries ... 424.9 319.4 319.4 

C. O&MSupport 1,514.4 1,390.4 1,390.4 1,390.4 

D. Workman's Compensation 80 . 80.0 80.0 80 . 

Subtotal ($24,692.0) ($22,281.8) ($20,966,9) ($20,922.9) 

% of 1978 Base' 9.29% 8.39% 7.88% 7.87% 

II. Recovery of Deficiencies 

A. Equipment 750.0 250.0 200.0 200.0 

B. Library^ 500.0 

C. O&M/SR' 1,400.0 400.0 500.0 500.0 

Subtotal ($2,650.0) ($ 650.0) ($ 700.0) ($ 700.0) 

% of 1978 Base 1.00% .20% .30% .30% 

III. Programmatic Components 

A. Assistance to Students (CC) 496.7 40.0 150.0 150.0 

B. Extended Day (CC) 800.0 500.0 400.0 400.0 

C. Capitation Replacement 2,500.0 575.0 575.0 575.0 

D. Dentistry Expansion (MC) 333.0 333.0 333.0 333.0 

E. Library Circulation (UC) 475.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 

F. Veterinary Medicine (UC) 740.8 480.0 400.0 400.0 

G. College of Law 116.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 

H. Impr. Undergrad. Educ. (UC) 192.0 

Subtotal ($5,653.5) ($2,403.0) ($2,308.0) ($2,308.0) 

% of 1978 Base 2.13% .90% .88% .88% 

IV. Special Services 

A. DSCC 579.0 420.0 150.0 150.0 

B. Energy Resources Center 60.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 

C. Urban Health Programs 165.0 165.0 165.0 165.0 

D. Coop. Extension Service 85.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 

E. County Board Matching 222.1 65.0 65.0 65.0 

Subtotal ($1,111.1) ($ 740.0) ($ 470.0) ($ 470.0) 

%ofl978Base .42% .28% .18% .18% 

V. Other ... 340.7' 354.7* 354. 7< 

VI. Grand Total ($34,106.6) ($26,415.5) ($24,799.6) ($24,755.6) 

% of 1978 Base 12.83% 9.93% 9.33% 9.31% 

' FY 1978 Base = $265,925.8 excluding capital, retirement, and IBA rentals. 

' IBHE funded Library Price Increases at 10% instead of deficiency. 

•Includes Income Fund Adjustment due to Audit Commission requirements ($238.0) plus refunds tied to IBHE recommendations for tuition ($102.7). 

* Includes lowered Income Fund Adjustment ($187.5) plus Contingency ($167.2). 



Operation and Maintenance Support ($1,890,000) — 
Funds for additional maintenance costs arising from the 
opening of new buildings were provided at the rate of 
$2.20 per gross square foot for the Turner Hall addition, 
Veterinary Medicine remodeling, Visual Aids addition, 
and the Ornamental Horticulture addition (all at Ur- 
bana-Champaign), and at $3.30 per gross square foot 
for the Replacement Hospital at the Medical Center 
($1,390,400). 

In addition, $500,000 has been provided for the dual 



purpose of funding nonbondable items related to com- 
pletion of construction or remodeling of capital projects 
and to support administrative costs associated with the 
University's Space Realignment, Renewal, and Replace- 
ment Program ( SR' ) . This funding for SR^ represents 
the most tangible evidence of the state's acceptance of 
the need to provide funds on a regular basis for the re- 
newal and repair of the University's physical facilities. 

Workmen's Compensation ($80,000) — The Univer- 
sity has faced steadily rising costs for Workmen's Com- 



pensation awards in the past three fiscal yeare, due to an 
increase in die number of claims and a significant liber- 
alization in benefits. To meet this growth for FY 1979, 
an increment of $80,000 was appropriated. 

Program Support ($2,308,000) — Chicago Circle: 

Incremental funds have been provided for two major 

^ program thrusts : the Extended Day/Program PM effort, 

^^ which has made academic programs at Chicago Circle 

accessible to students at hours outside the traditional 

class day ($400,000) ; and Assistance to Students, which 

• will provide a variety of e.xpanded services to stu- 
dents \vho need special academic or otlier assistance 
($150,000). 

Medical Center: Program funds have been provided 
to replace declining federal capitation funds, thus avoid- 
ing the possibility that a reduction in enrollments might 
be necessary' ($575,000). Additional funds were pro- 
\ided to enable the College of Dentistiy to increase its 
enrollment by thirty-three students, thus achieving the 
level required under provisions of a federal grant 
which provided $1.25 million for dentistry equipment 
($333,000). 

Urbana-Champaign : Sufficient new funds were ap- 
proved to continue the development of the library com- 
puter SN'Stem to the extent that it should become func- 
tional within the University during FY 1979 ($400,000). 
Incremental funds were provided for the College of Vet- 
erinary Medicine both to replace federal capitation 
funds no longer available and to continue the upgrading 
of the college's teaching and research programs ($400,- 
000). In addition, funds were provided to begin expan- 
sion of interdisciplinary teaching programs in the College 
of Law ($50,000). 

Special Services Support ($470,000) — In addition to 
the continuing and progressive components of the budget 
request, funds are sought each year to support certain 
special service components which the University is asked 
to provide outside the realm of its regular teaching and 
research efforts. Included in this category for FY 1979 
were incremental amounts for the Energy Resources 
Center ($30,000) (CC), the Urban Health Program 
($165,000) and the Division of Services for Crippled 
Children ($150,000) (MC), and the Cooperative Exten- 
sion Service ($60,000) and County Board Matching 
Fund ($65,000) (UC). 

Retirement Contributions ($4,947,400) — Retirement 
appropriations for all state systems of higher education 

• were placed in separate legislation again this year. The 
go\emor has officially signed the retirement bill, which 
represents a significant step forward in retirement fund- 
ing for higher education. For the first time, the state's 
^ contribution will be funded at the "gross payout" level 

B rather than at the "net payout" level used in the past. 

At the net level, only enough state funds are con- 
tributed each year to meet actual pension requirements 
of retired state employees, when combined with contri- 
butions from active employees. At this level, no reserves 



can be set aside to offset the future costs of higher pen- 
sion payment requirements. 

Under the gross payout level appropriated this year, 
the state will contribute not only its share of current 
pension payments, but also an additional amount equal 
to the contribution of active employees. This will permit 
the establishment of a reserve equal to the contribution 
of the active employees, with the state funding the cost 
of actual pension requirements. 

Although the gross payout level remains below the 
statutory full-funding requirement, the increase in ap- 
propriations for the State Universities Retirement System 
is a welcome sign of recognition of the state's need to 
maintain an adequate financial base for a retirement sys- 
tem which will grow rapidly in the next twenty years. 

Vetoed Provisions ($44,000) — During Senate con- 
sideration of the University's appropriations, an amend- 
ment was approved to provide $44,000 in additional 
salary funds for nonacademic employees at the Dixon 
Springs Agricultural Center. This amendment was passed 
by the House as well, but was vetoed by the governor. 
The amendment appeared to be in conflict with the stat- 
utory requirement that the Universities Civil Service 
System provide salary schedules based upon regional 
rates of pay. 

CAPITAL BUDGET 

With the exception of two major capital programs 
requiring special funding (the Replacement Hospital 
and the Food Production Research Complex) the Uni- 
versity's capital appropriation in recent years has fallen 
far below the levels requested by the Board of Trustees. 
Fiscal Years 1977 and 1978 were especially difficult for 
the capital programs for all higher education. Table B 
provides a history of the University's capital budget re- 
quests from FY 1975 through FY 1979. 

In this context, the FY 1979 capital appropriation 
appears somewhat improved over the last two years. 
Governor Thompson has signed legislation (SB 1601) 
providing the University with a total of $8.5 million in 
projects, as described in Table C. This total is some $2.8 
million above the level originally recommended by the 
governor. However, the final outcome of the capital ap- 
propriation process is still uncertain, because the Gen- 
eral Assembly failed to approve a bond authorization 
level sufficient to finance all of the capital projects in- 
cluded in the legislation the governor signed. 

The General Assembly will meet in November to 
consider raising the bond authorization level. If the bond 
authorization level is raised in November, projects can 
proceed on schedule. If it is not raised, the remaining 
funds from the existing authorization will be used to fund 
a reduced list of projects. 

The following sections describe the major projects for 
each campus approved for FY 1979. 



TABLE B 
HISTORY OF RECENT CAPITAL BUDGET REQUESTS 

FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 
Campus Requests* 

Chicago Circle 513,890,100 $8,447,100 510,939,113 $12,775,128 $7,788,520 

Medical Center 9,488,500 8,146,300 7,227,319 10,731,019 12,409,965 

Urbana-Champaign 20,427,600 23,152,700 16,001,929 26,609,843 16,937,056 

Total ($43,806,200) ($39,746,100) ($34,168,361) ($50,115,990) ($37,135,541) 

IBHE Recommendations* 

Chicago Circle $2,796,600 $1,109,320 $9,699,428 $3,203,420 $3,311,200 

Medical Center 3,966,000 5,640,000 4,228,342 4,878,227 5,111,500 

Urbana-Champaign 9,881,700 9,951,100 5,203,520 11,887,700 13,524,100 

Total ($16,644,300) ($16,700,420) ($19,131,290) ($19,969,347) ($21,946,800) 

Appropriation* 

Chicago Circle $1,627,100 $1,504,920 $ 177,500 $ -0- $1,715,000 

Medical Center 3,967,000 4,907,200 148,400 296,800 2,430,000 

Urbana-Champaign 2,958,600 10,982,900 234,130 1,273,600 4,330,500 

Total ($8,552,700) ($17,395,020) ($ 560,030) ($1,570,400) ($8,476,400) 

Appropriations for Special Projects 

Replacement Hospital $1,750,000 $51,250,000 $ -0- $ 6,000,000 $ -0- 

Food Production Research -0- -0- -0- 2,450,000 30,473,500 

Total ($1,750,000) ($51,250,000) ($ -0- ) ($8,450,000) ($30,473,500) 

Total University of Illinois 

Appropriation $10,320,700 $68,645,020 $ 560,030 $10,020,400 $38,949,900 

* Excludes Replacement Hospital and Food Production Research. 



TABLE C 
FY 1979 PROJECTS IN SB 1601 
AS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR 

1. Buildings, Additions, and/or Structures. $ -0- 

2. Land -0- 

3. Equipment 

Medical Center — SUDMP 227,000 

Urbana-Champaign — Animal 

Room Improvements 70,200 

Urbana-Champaign — English 

Building Renovation 35,000 

3a. SR^ Equipment 

Urbana-Champaign 93,000 

4. Utilities 

Urbana-Champaign — Central 

Supervisory Control 710,000 

5. Remodeling and Rehabilitation 

Chicago Circle — - Building 

Equipment Automation 1,010,000 

Medical Center — SUDMP 1,339,500 

Urbana-Champaign — Animal Room 

Improvements 520,000 

Urbana-Champaign — English 

Building Renovation 1,500,000 

5a. SR' Remodeling 

Chicago Circle 650,000 

Medical Center 864,400 

Urbana-Champaign 1,402,300 

6. Site 

Chicago Circle — Pedestrian Safety.. 55,000 

7. Planning -0- 

8. Cooperative Improvements -0- 

TOTAL $8,476,400 



Chicago Circle — Three projects totalling $1,715,000 
are included in SB 1601. By far the largest of these is 
the $1,010,000 for the Building Equipment Automation 
project, which will allow addition of some 17 buildings 
to the campus' centralized monitoring program for 
building systems equipment such as fans, refrigeration 
equipment, water heaters, etc. Completing this project 
will mean that most major campus buildings will be 
within the system. In addition to the Building Equip- 
ment Automation project, $650,000 was approved for 
SR^ projects which will be used to repair roofs on three 
buildings. The final project approved provides $55,000 
as the campus' share of a joint project with the City of 
Chicago to place a traffic control device at the comer of 
Morgan and Vernon Park Place. 

Medical Center — Three projects totalling $2,430,900 
are included in SB 1601. They are remodeling and equip- 
ment funds for continuation of the rehabilitation of the 
SUDMP building, and $864,400 for SR^ projects. 

Within the SR' funding, the following projects will 
be completed: remodeling of the cage washing area in 
the Biological Resources Laboratory; roof replacement 
for the Biological Resources Laboratory, miscellaneous 
remodeling at Rockford School of Medicine; window re- 
placement in the Old Chicago Illini Union Building and 
the Neuropsychiatric Institute ; a variety of building code 
and safety corrections; modifications to 19 elevators in 8 
buildings; and remodeling in the Research Resources 
Center. 

Urbana-Champaign — Seven projects totalling $4,- 
330,500 are included in Senate Bill 1601. These projects 
represent equipment and remodeling funds for animal 
room improvements, equipment and remodeling for con- 
tinuation of the English Building renovation, equipment 



and remodeling for SR', and the Central Supervisory 
Control project. The animal room funds ($590,200) will 
allow work to begin to upgrade current animal quarters 
in Morrill Hall and the Animal Science Laboratory to 
meet federal safet\' standards. The English Building proj- 
ect ($1,535,000) represents the second phase of a multi- 
phased effort to remodel the entire interior of the build- 
ing. The Central Superv,isor\' Control project ($710,000) 
is part of an ongoing efTort to add major buildings to 
the Urbana campus' central monitoring equipment for 
energv' conservation. It is similar to the Building Equip- 
ment Automation project at Chicago Circle. Finally, the 
SR' appropriation ($1,495,300) will include the follow- 
ing projects : Kenney G^Tnnasium Annex and Freer 
Gymnasium remodeling; electrical systems moderniza- 
tion; ventilation remodeling in the Civil Engineering 
Building and the Library; Hayes Laboratory remodeling; 
replacement of the Altgeld Hall elevator; roof, skylight, 
and gutter repairs in the Architecture Building and Huff 
G)Tnnasium: remodeling in Gregory Hall; heating sys- 
tem controls repair and replacement; remodeling in 
Freer Gymnasium of the consolidation of academic de- 
partments; temperature control remodeling in Roger 
.\dams Laboratory, the Armory, and the Auditorium, 
and remodeling in the Law Building. 

FOOD PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM 
(FOOD FOR CENTURY III) 

In line with a commitment made in FY 1978, the 



General Assembly approved and the governor signed a 
FY 1979 appropriation of $28,715,700 for the Food Pro- 
duction and Research Program (Food for Century 
Three). Included in this appropriation were construc- 
tion and equipment funds for three major projects begun 
in FY 1978: the Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences 
Building ($21,027,800) ; the Agricultural Engineering 
Sciences Building ($7,612,900) ; and equipment for the 
Veterinary Medicine Research Buildings ($75,000) . 

The original FY 1979 request for Food for Century 
Three included an additional $1.9 million in equipment 
funds for the Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences and 
Agricultural Engineering Sciences buildings. It was 
agreed that these funds would not be needed in FY 1979, 
since construction of the buildings will be in initial stages, 
and the equipment funds could not be expended until at 
least FY 1981. It is anticipated that these funds will be 
included in the FY 1981 and 1982 requests. Similarly, it 
was agreed that the funds to complete nonbondable 
items would not be appropriated in FY 1979. When re- 
quired, the funds will be included in the recurring Oper- 
ation and Maintenance Supjxjrt arrangement discussed 
earlier in the Operating Budget section. Planning funds 
for the Greenhouse Replacement project, and the bal- 
ance of funds originally removed from the FY 1978 re- 
quest by the General Assembly were not added for 
FY 1979. Table D provides a history of the FY 1979 
request for the Food Production and Research Program. 



TABLE D 

FOOD PRODUaiON AND RESEARCH COMPLEX (FOOD FOR CENTURY III) 

FY 1979 APPROPRIATION 

(Dollars In Thousands) 

Board of IBHE 

Category/ Project Trustees Request Approved 
Buildings 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences $20,913.2 $20,913.2 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences 7,519.2 7,519.2 

Greenhouse Replacement (Planning) 193.0 -0- 

Veterinary Medicine Research Buildings 36 . 7^ -0- 

Subtotal ($28,662.1) ($28,432.4) 

Funds to Complete 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences 168.4 168.4 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences 94. 7 94. 7 

Subtotal ($ 263.1) ($ 263.1) 

Equipment 

\eterinary Medicine Basic Sciences 1 ,560.0 1 ,560.0 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences 340.0 340.0 

Veterinary Medicine Research Buildings 75.0 75.0 

Subtotal ($ 1,975.0) ($ 1,975.0) 

Utilities 

Veterinary Medicine Basic Sciences 10.0 10.0 

Agricultural Engineering Sciences 56.1 56.1 

Subtotal ($ 66.1) (8 66.1) 

Remodeling 

Dairy Farm Consolidation 14.6' -0- 

TOTAL $30,980.9 $30,736.6 

* Includes utilities; also includes addition of .5% for works of art as directed by new legislation. 
' Funds removed hy General Assembly from FY 1978 request. 
' Included in Builoing appropriation. 



Amount 
Appropriated 


$21,027.8» 
7,612.9« 
-0- 
-0- 


-0- 
-0- 


-0- 

-a- 

75.0 


10.0' 

56. P 

($ 66.1) 


-0- 


$28,715.7 



General Rules Revised by Board of Trustees at May Meeting 

REVISION INCREASES ALLOWABLE SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATION FOR ACADEMIC STAFF 



The Board of Trustees on May 24, 1978, approved a 
revised version of the General Rules Concerning Univer- 
sity Organization and Procedure — the first general re- 
vision since December 1957. The new version contained 
changes of three general kinds : 

1. Substantive changes recommended by the Presi- 
dent of the Universit)-. These changes include recom- 
mendations relating to preferential treatment for agencies 
sponsoring research and distribution of income to in- 
ventors in sections dealing with patent matters (described 
in another article in this issue) and a complete revision 
prop)osed by the University Committee on Copyrights 
and Records in the section dealing with copyrights. In 
addition, with the concurrence of the University Sen- 
ates Conference, changes were made in Article III, Sec- 
tion 4, defining allowable sick leave in terms of work 
days instead of calendar days and increasing the maxi- 
mum allowable accumulation of sick leave from six 
months to 180 work days. 

2. Amendments already approved by the Board. In- 
formation concerning the numerous changes approved 
by the Board over the past twenty years has appeared 



in University publications and in the press and most have 
been shown in supplementary "tip-in" pages which were 
distributed widely. But no new printed version has been 
produced which reflected such changes. 

3. Changes brought about by structural and title al- 
terations. The University has experienced extensive or- 
ganizational change over the past twenty years, primar- 
ily due to the advent of the chancellorship system. New 
units have been organized; some already existing units 
have been assigned to the campus and some to the Uni- 
versity level; and many administrative titles have 
changed. For the most part, these changes are reflected 
in the elimination of the first ten sections of the 1957 
version of the Rules and the substitution therefor of a 
general overview of the organization of the University 
and the campus and the functions of the general ad- 
ministration of the University. However, the effect of 
such organizational changes is found throughout the 
new version of the Rules. 

Copies of the revised General Rules are available 
through the chancellors. 



General Rules Revision Benefits University Inventors 

DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT CrVES INVENTORS INCREASED PROPORTION OF PATENT INCOME 



From time to time during the normal operation of a 
university, an idea will emerge that might be valuable 
to a large number of users. The Board of Trustees of the 
University of Illinois has considered such eventualities 
and has adopted policies and procedures to be followed 
in order to commercialize inventions. The University en- 
courages development of useful and valuable inventions 
by arranging payment of the costs of patenting, by assist- 
ing as much as possible with necessary papervvork, and 
by marketing and licensing the invention. It then dis- 
tributes a part of any income to the inventors. 

In a meeting on May 24, 1978, the Board of Trustees 
adopted revised General Rules Concerning University 
Organization and Procedure, and one of the major re- 
visions was the determination by stated formula of the 
amount of patent income to be distributed to inventors. 



The inventor will now receive 50 percent of the first 
$50,000 net income, 35 percent of the next $50,000, and 
20 percent thereafter. The formula shall apply to the net 
income received by the University of Illinois Foundation, 
or the net income available to the foundation or to the 
University after all costs and expenses of securing a 
patent and of development and administration of a 
patent. The dollar values are cumulative regardless of 
the time of receipt. 

This revision will result in a general increase to the 
inventor of 27.5 percent on the first $100,000 net income 
over previous distribution agreements. 

A one-page handout entitled "Guidelines for Prepar- 
ing an Invention Disclosure" is available from the chair- 
man of the Research Board at each campus or from any 
member of the University Patent Committee. 



State Health Insurance Plan Expands Benefits July 1 

UNrVERSFFY BENEFITS OFFICE REPORTS MORE CHARGES PAID UNDER HIGH, LOW OPTIONS 



Benefits under the state group health insurance plan 
are greatly improved. For instance, there is an increase 
in the hospital room and board rate to be paid as well 
as increased benefits related to coverage under Medicare. 
Many of the new improvements in the group health in- 
surance plan were proposed in fall 1977 by representa- 
tives of the University of Illinois Insurance Office par- 



ticipating in State Employees Group Insurance Advisory 
Commission meetings. Through their efforts, more 
charges are paid under both high-option and low-option 
coverage. 

AH University faculty and nonacademic staff em- 
ployed at 50 percent time or more and eligible to par- 
ticipate in the State Universities Retirement System re- 



cently reenrolled in the group health and life insurance 
plan, with co\erage under the expanded benefit program 
beginning July 1, 1978. 

With medical costs increasing on every side, it is a 
pleasure to report that the group health insurance 
premiums for the high-option and low-option (one de- 
pendent) plans actually went down, and that premiums 
for the low-option (two or more dcp)endents) plan only 
went up 14 cents per month. 

HIGH OPTION BENEFITS 

All eligible University faculty and nonacademic staff 
receive high-option group health insurance coverage 
without charge, and many elect such coverage for their 
dependents. Following are highlights under the new high- 
option plan. 

Hospital Room and Board 

Before July 1, 1978, if your hospital room and board 
rate was more than $125 per day, you had to pay the 
difference. Now, if the charges are more than $125 per 
day, you pay a one-time-per-year $50 deductible (it is 
the same $50 deductible used for prescription drugs) 
and the group health insurance plan pays 80 percent of 
the difference between $125 per day and actual rate 
charged. 

Surgery Claims 

Before July 1, surgerv' claims were paid at the rate of 
80 p)ercent of usual, reasonable, and customary charges 
of the first $1,000, 90 percent of the next $2,000, and 
100 percent for charges over $3,000. The benefit has 
been improved to pay 80 percent of the first $1,000 of 
usvial, reasonable, and customary charges, and 100 per- 
cent of any remaining charges. 

Physician Fees 

Formerly eligible physician fees were paid the same 
way as surgery charges. Since July 1, there is an annual 
$100 deductible for physician fees, then reimbursement 
at 80 percent through $1,000, and 100 percent thereafter. 
Under the improved benefit, routine office visits will be 
covered; previously these were covered only after $200 
of expense, and then at only 50 percent of the charges. 

Prescription Drugs 

Prior to July 1, prescription drugs, physical therapy, 
and medical equipment costs each had an individual $50 
deductible. Once this was satisfied, reimbursement was 
80 percent for the first $1,000 of claims, 90 percent for 
the next $2,000, and 100 percent thereafter. Now, staff 
can get more money back. Prescription drugs and other 
medical costs have been combined into what is termed 
"major medical" with only one $50 deductible. This is 



followed by a reimbursement of 80 percent through 
$1,000, and 100 percent of the charges thereafter. 

Medicare 

A major improvement has been made for staff with 
Medicare benefits. Before July 1, staff paid a deductible 
and 20 percent of the charges. Since July 1, a person en- 
rolled in Medicare and the group health insurance plan 
normally will not be required to pay any deductible or 
coinsurance amounts. 

LOW OPTION BENEFITS 

There are also many improvements to the group 
health insurance plan for those who elected low-option 
coverage for their dependents. 

Major Medical 

Prior to July 1, major medical had an all-inclusive 
$100 deductible. Then payments were as follows: 80 per- 
cent of the charges up to $15,000, 100 percent of the 
next $10,000, with a maximum of $25,000 per contract 
year. Since the new contract year started July 1, all this 
remains the same except for the maximum; it has gone 
up to $250,000 per contract year. 

Obstetrician Fee 

Payment for the obstetrician fee paid by the group 
health insurance plan has gone up $25 for a normal de- 
livery, that is to $200, and that paid for caesarean sec- 
tion has increased by $100, that is to $400. 

HANDBOOK, CLAIMS, COUNSELORS 

The above highlights some of the changes made in 
the state group health insurance plan; there are more. 
You are urged to read your Illinois State Employees 
Group Insurance Program handbook for complete de- 
tails. These books are available on a limited basis in the 
University Benefits Center at the UIUC campus and in 
the insurance offices of the UICC and UIMC campuses. 
As more handbooks are received by the University they 
will be mailed to faculty and nonacademic staff. 

Those with claims problems at the UIUC campus 
may dial a new local phone number (359-3594) that will 
connect with a Blue Cross/Blue Shield claims representa- 
tive in Springfield. Those at the UICC and the UIMC 
campuses should continue to call the Chicago Blue Cross/ 
Blue Shield telephone number which appears in the 
group health insurance program handbook. 

Faculty and nonacademic staff are encouraged to 
telephone the Benefits Center or Insurance Office to talk 
with one of the counselors concerning questions about 
any aspect of group health insurance plan benefits. Tele- 
phone numbers follow: Chicago Circle, 996-2870; Medi- 
cal Center, 996-6470; Urbana-Champaign, 333-3111. 



.^ iru-i-^a_ 





.ULTY LETTER 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



TH! 



LIBRARY OF TH£ 



OCT ^^4iy78 



No. 277, October 4, 1978 



President Corhally's Rcsi motion 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

TEXT OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE G. W. HOWARD IJIiPRfiSftlENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



September 1, 1978 
Dear Bill: 

I have been contemplating my personal career plans 
for some time, particularly because of my belief that 
one's tenure in a chief executive's position in a major 
and comprehensive organization should not exceed six 
to eight years. By August 31. 1979. I will have served a 
total of ten years in university presidencies — two years 
at Syracuse University and eight years at the University 
of Illinois. While such a position always will contain 
more unfinished than finished business, there are a num- 
ber of accomplishments at Illinois in which I take some 
pride. I do feel, however, an increasing sense of repeti- 
tiousness in the tasks of my position. It is, then, clearly 
time for me to de\elop new career opportunities which 
I can undertake with a renewed enthusiasm. 

I have great respect and affection for the University 
of Illinois and I have explored with appropriate indi- 
viduals the possibility that I might join the faculty at 
Urbana-Champaign. I am pleased to know that the pos- 
sibilitv' is available to me. The University of Illinois 
Foundation is about to undertake a major capital funds 
campaign. While the leadership of that campaign will 
need to come from the Foundation staff and especially 
from the President of the University, I believe that with 
the concurrence of the President and of the Foundation 
staff I can be of assistance in that effort. I could and 
would explore other ways in which I might be of assis- 
tance to the University, but my primary goal is to return 
to teaching, research, and outreach activities in the aca- 
demic fields of educational administration, higher edu- 
cation, and educational policy. It is this work for which 
I prepared myself through graduate work and to which 
I have devoted only about three years since joining the 
facult)' at Ohio State in 1955. 

I believe that under our policies I would be eligible 
for an administrative or sabbatical leave which I would 
request for the academic year 1979-80. It is then my in- 



tention to accept a faculty position at Urbana-Cham- 
paign in August, 1980. My resignation as President of 
the University of Illinois would be effective on August 
31, 1979. 

One of the difficult tasks facing a university president 
who is confident in and who enjoys the confidence of 
those with whom he works is to decide when the time 
has come that new leadership, new vigor, new ideas, and 
even a new personality will benefit the university. There 
is a strong tendency to de\elop a sense of well-being and 
of indispensability which persuades one to overlook clear 
signs that the time has come for a change of positions 
for the president and for a change of leadership for the 
institution. It is also clear that many will seek higher 
motives or causes for such a decision because of their 
inability and unwillingness to understand the demands 
of such a position and the limits upon an individual's 
ability to meet those demands with the constant peak 
effort they require and deserve. 

I want to assure you and my other colleagues on the 
Board of Trustees and my friends and colleagues within 
the University that there are no hidden motives for my 
decision. The Board of Trustees has been, is, and I am 
sure will continue to be supportive of me as an adminis- 
trator and as a person. I sense a great deal of support 
from the faculty, staff and students of our three cam- 
puses. I simply find myself in need of and ready for a 
change. In justice to what I consider to be the best posi- 
tion available in the administration of higher education 
— the presidency of the University of Illinois — I believe 
that the time for that change will be here on August 31, 
1979. I intend to pursue my duties vigorously during 
1978-79 and look forward to another excellent year for 
our University of Illinois. 

With warm regards and with appreciation. 

Sincerely, 

John E. Corbally 



Board of Trustees Reaffirms Position on Discrimination 

TEXT OF RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT ITS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1978 

Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the University effects of historic societal discrimination; and (c) to 

of Illinois that it reaffirms its commitment and policy comply fully in all University activities and programs 

(a) to eradicate prohibited and invidious discrimination with applicable federal and state laws relating to non- 

in all its forms; (b) to foster programs within the law discrimination and equal opportunity, 
which will ameliorate or eliminate, where possible, the 




, A L I -< ^ w y : A "^ ? J s 



jLty letter 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



OCT 2 7 1978 
Nexv Copyright Laxv Affects Policy y^ivERsirY of Illinois 

TEXT OF REVISED COP^TUGHT PROVISIONS FROM UNIVERSITY S GENERAL RULES 



No. 278, October 18, 1978 



The General Rules Concerning University Organiza- 
tion and Procedure have been amended in the light of 
the new Copyright Law (Public Law 94-553, 94th Con- 
gress, 17 use 100 et seq.). The vice-president for ad- 
ministration has been given responsibility for copyright- 
ing and marketing copyrightable works belonging to the 
L'niversity, other than those administered by the Univer- 
sity Press. 

It is important that staff members become familiar 
with the new General Rules, which also set forth policies 
related to the PLATO s\-stem usage and developments. 
Accordingly, the text of Article II, Section 9 ("Copy- 
rights'") of the General Rules follows: 

SECTION 9. COPYRIGHTS 

(a) Copyright in a work protected under the federal 
Copyrights Act (Public Law 94-553, 94th Congress, 
17 use 101 et seq.), vests initially in the author or 
authors of the work. 

(b) In the case of a "work for hire," the employer or 
other person for whom the work was prepared is 
considered the author. Accordingly, except as other- 
wise specifically provided in this Section, the Uni- 
versity shall have all ownership rights in "works for 
hire" as herein defined. 

(c) A "work for hire" is ( 1 ) a work prepared by a Uni- 
versity employee within the scope of his or her Uni- 
versity emplo>'ment; or (2) a work specifically 
ordered or commissioned if the University and an- 
other party expressly agree in a written instrument 
signed by them that the work shall be considered a 
"work for hire" or otherwise owned by the Uni- 
versity. 

(d) With respect to employees in the academic ranks 
recognized in Article IX, Section 3c, of the Univer- 
sity of Illinois Statutes, a "work for hire" does not 
include individually produced material such as 
books, articles, theses, dissertations, art objects, or 
musical compositions, except when a member of 
such academic rank is specifically commissioned in 
writing by the L^niversity to prepare the work, or 
except when the terms of the University grant or 
contract, if any. under which the work is being pre- 
pared provides that the granting or other party 
shall have ownership rights. 



With respect to employees in said academic ranks 
a "work for hire" does include materials (such as 
videotapes, films, recordings, slides, microfiche, 
microfilms, and computer generated material) pre- 
pared for the purpose of use in systematic instruc- 
tional activities. "Work for hire" shall also include 
all material produced under terms of a grant or 
contract for the purpose of producing such material. 

(e) The original records of an investigation for a grad- 
uate thesis or dissertation are the property of the 
University but may be kept by the student at the dis- 
cretion of the student's major department. The 
completed thesis or dissertation is the property of the 
University. The right to publish and copyright the 
thesis or dissertation shall remain with the author. 

(f) PLATO lessonware. Policies governing ownership, 
copyright, and royalty distribution differ for various 
authors and may be governed by (c) (2) above. The 
policies are summarized in paragraph (k) of this 
section. 

(g) The administration of University-owned works and 
copyrights will be as follows : 

(1) University Press Publications. The University 
Press shall be responsible for copyrighting the 
works owned by the University and published 
by the Press, and for administering contracts 
with authors. Such contracts shall define the 
rights and obligations of the author and of the 
University, and shall state the basis on which 
royalty payments are to be made to the author 
and the basis on which receipts from the sale of 
secondary rights — reprints, foreign transla- 
tions, serial, dramatic, motion pictures, radio, 
television — are to be divided between the Uni- 
versity and the author. A copy of the printed 
agreement in use by the Press shall be made 
available upon request. 

(2) Other Copyrightable Works. The Vice-Presi- 
dent for Administration shall be responsible for 
copyrighting and marketing copyrightable 
works belonging to the University other than 
those administered by the University Press. 
Each campus shall be responsible for establish- 
ing a mechanism for regularly transmitting to 
the Vice-President for Administration lists of all 



works that bear a copyright notice and three 
copies of each work immediately upon its 
publication. 
(3) On the recommendation of the Vice-President 
for Administration, the Comptroller and Secre- 
tary are authorized to execute on behalf and in 
the name of the Board of Trustees contracts for 
marketing of University-owned copyrightable 
work when the estimated net receipts under any 
single contract do not exceed $10,000 in any 12- 
month period. 
(h) Materials and copyrights belonging to the University 
shall be noticed and registered in the name of The 
Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and 
not in the name of the unit or individual (s) who 
prepared the work. 
(i) The University, on copyrights owned by it, may 
assign to the author(s) or developer(s) a propor- 
tionate share of the net income, that is, the income 
after deducting expenses directly attributed to mar- 
keting or other requirements for use and sale of 
materials outside the University, 
(j) A University Committee on Copyrightable Works, 
appointed by the President, will review the circum- 
stances involved in any case that might arise under 
(i) and make recommendations to the President and 
the Board of Trustees. 
(k) The PLATO system is a highly sophisticated and 
effective system of computer-based education. A 
large number of computer-based lessons have been 
produced on this system by authors at the University 
of Illinois and at other institutions. This portion of 
the General Rules described policies for ownership, 
copyrights, and royalties as they apply to PLATO 
lessonware. Established policies, as set out elsewhere, 
are intended to apply to other materials, indepen- 
dent of the policies for lessonware and associated 
materials. 
( 1 ) Definitions. 

a) "PLATO system" shall mean a computer- 
based system comprising one or more cen- 
tral computers and one or more interactive 
Display Terminals and/or Plasma Display 
Termials remotely located therefrom and in 
communication therewith, which system is 
covered wholly or in part by the claims of 
U.S. Patent No. 3,405,457. 

b) "Lessonware" and/or "Courseware" shall 
mean all materials developed for the pur- 
pose of presenting instruction or informa- 
tion via or associated with the PLATO 
system developed by the University of Illi- 
nois, or any future developments or en- 
hancements thereof. These materials shall 
include, but are not limited to, the follow- 
ing: 

1 ) Lessons and/or units in a form readable 
by the PLATO system software and/or 
associated software. 



2) Ancillary materials, produced by the 
Author, necessary or supplementary to 
the lessons or units which are developed 
for use with one or more lessons or units. 
Such materials shall include, but are not 
limited to: 
i) Course syllabi 

ii) Microfiche materials and/or other 
photographic presentation materials 
iii) Audio/visual materials, both com- 
puterized and for other media 
iv) Course workbooks 
v) Course handbooks and/or similar 
printed materials for use by stu- 
dents, authors, or instructors 
vi) Evaluation materials and any ac- 
count of the pedagogical methodol- 
ogy used in testing, diagnostic, or 
prescriptive activities related to the 
use of such materials 
vii) Programs developed for the man- 
agement of lessons or units or for 
linking the delivery of instruction to 
other media or education prescrip- 
tions, both computer-based and non- 
computer-based 
"Participating Institution" shall mean any 
other institution or organization which 
leases or purchases PLATO terminals con- 
nected to the University of Illinois PLATO 
system, and which pays the full costs asso- 
ciated with the provision of such access to 
such system. 

"Joint Venture Institution" shall mean any 
institution or organization which collabo- 
rates with the University in a program which 
utilizes the University's PLATO system and 
which shares the costs of such program with 
the University. 

"Author" shall mean any person who has or 
is given access to the University of Illinois 
PLATO system for the purpose of produc- 
ing Lessonware. This document is intended 
to cover Lessonware produced by a variety 
of Authors defined as follows : 

1) "Noncommissioned Author" shall mean 
any Author who is an employee or stu- 
dent of the University of Illinois, but 
who is not specifically commissioned by 
the University or one of its departments 
or units to produce Lessonware. 

2) "Commissioned Author" shall mean any 
Author who is employed by the Univer- 
sity to produce Lessonware or is given 
released time by the University for the 
purpose of producing Lessonware. 

3) "Other Author" shall mean any Author 
who is not an employee or student of the 
University and who is given access by 



the University, at no charge, to the Uni- 
versity's PLATO system. 
4) "Participating Institution Author" (PI 
Author) shall mean any Author em- 
ployed by, or given access to, the Uni- 
versity's PLATO system by a Participat- 
ing Institution. 

The policies governing ownership, 
copyright, and royalty distribution differ 
for the various tj'pes of Authors as de- 
fined abo\e. These policies are sum- 
marized in accordance with the type of 
Author in the following section. 
(2) Policies for ]'arious Author Types. 

a) Noncommissioned Author. As a condition 
to receiving access to the University of Illi- 
nois PL.ATO system, Noncommissioned Au- 
thors shall agree to transfer to the Univer- 
sity full right, title, and interest in and to 
all Lessonware developed by the Noncom- 
missioned Author, including all copyrights 
and intellectual rights in and to such Les- 
sonware. The Noncommissioned Author 
shall have the sole right to designate whether 
or not the Lessonware developed by such 
Author is suitable for and ready for distri- 
bution. The University shall have a period 
of seven (7) months, except that, in the 
case of Lessonware developed prior to May 
1, 1976, the University shall have twenty- 
five (25) months, from the date of such 
designation, to elect to act as the distributor 
or marketer of such Lessonware. In the 
event the University elects to so act as dis- 
tributor or marketer, the above transfer of 
rights to the University shall become ir- 
revocable and perpetual and the University 
shall have the right to determine in its sole 
and nonreviewable discretion, the time and 
manner of distribution or marketing, if any, 
and the amount of royalties to be charged. 
The University may use Lessonware for 
its educational or internal activities without 
pa^TTient therefor. In addition, the Univer- 
sity' may make Lessonware available to 
others, without payment, for use on an ex- 
perimental PLATO system operated by the 
University. 

In the event the University elects not to 
act as such distributor or marketer within 
the specified period, all rights to such Les- 
sonware, including ownership and all rights 
of assignment, and collection of royalties, 
etc., will be assigned and transferred to the 
Author, provided, however, that, in all 
events, the University shall retain a royalty- 
free, nonexclusive, unrestricted, irrevocable, 
and perpetual license for use of such Les- 
sonware on PLATO systems operated by the 



University of Illinois and provided that the 
Author shall pay to the University twenty- 
five (25) percent of any gross royalty income 
that might be received by the Author sub- 
sequent to such assignment and transfer. 

In the event tlie University elects to act 
as distributor or marketer, Noncommis- 
sioned Authors shall receive seventy-five 
(75) percent of gross royalties received by 
by the University for use or sale of such 
Lessonware. In exceptional cases, and by 
mutual agreement of the Noncommissioned 
Author and the University, the percentage 
distribution of royalties may be altered so as 
to improve the benefit to both parties. 

At any time after the election by the Uni- 
versity to act as distributor or marketer of 
Lessonware, the University may give written 
notice to the Author of its intention to dis- 
continue marketing or distributing such 
Lessonware and immediately upon such 
notification the University shall have no 
further obligations of any nature to market 
or distribute such Lessonware. The Univer- 
sity will assign and transfer to the Author, 
without warranty of any kind, the Univer- 
sity right, title, and interest in and to such 
Lessonware. Such assignment and transfer 
shall be subject to the following conditions 
and provisions : 

1) The University receive, within six (6) 
months of the notification to the Author 
of the University's intent to discontinue 
marketing or distributing such Lesson- 
ware, the Author's written request to 
transfer title. 

2) The University shall receive twenty-five 
(25) percent of gross income received 
by the Author in relation to the use of 
such Lessonware that results subsequent 
to the assignment and transfer of Les- 
sonware rights to the Author. 

3) The University shall retain an irrevo- 
cable, unrestricted, perpetual, nonexclu- 
sive, and royalty-free license for use of 
such Lessonware on PLATO systems 
operated by the University. 

4) The assignment shall be subject to any 
rights, licenses, and sublicenses granted 
by the University to third parties and 
which are outstanding at the time of 
such assignment. The University shall 
continue to be obligated to distribute 
royalties received with respect to any 
such continued use of such Lessonware 
in the same amounts and upon the same 
terms as provided for elsewhere. 

The Noncommissioned Authors shall 
agree to diligently affix the words, 



"Copyrighted by The Board of Trustees 
of the University of Illinois," to all Les- 
sonware produced by the Author, to take 
such other action as the University may 
request to assure protection and registra- 
tion of copyright and renewals thereof, 
to cooperate in the prosecution of in- 
fringers, and to take other actions re- 
quired or requested to effectively market 
and distribute Lessonware. 

The Noncommissioned Author shall 
agree to promptly correct all errors 
which are of a technical nature. In the 
event the Noncommissioned Author fails 
to correct such errors, the University 
shall have the privilege of correcting 
such errors and to withhold and retain 
the Noncommissioned Author's share of 
future royalty income in the amount of 
the cost of such correction. The Non- 
commissioned Author shall have the sole 
right to determine whether or not errors 
or claims of errors in the intellectual 
content or the Lessonware shall be cor- 
rected. 

The Noncommissioned Author will be 
required to warrant that the Lesson- 
ware, submitted to the University for 
consideration for marketing or distribu- 
tion, shall be the original work of the 
Audior and free from infringement of 
existing copyright. If the Noncommis- 
sioned Author incorporated copyrighted 
materials in such Lessonware, the Non- 
commissioned Author shall provide proof 
of release from copyright holder. Fur- 
ther, the Noncommissioned Author shall 
be required to agree to take no action or 
enter into any agreements or arrange- 
ments, under which any other person 
or organization might develop rights in 
Lessonware, without the prior written 
approval of the University. 

b) Commissioned Authors. The policies for 
Lessonware produced by Commissioned Au- 
thors, and the obligation of Commissioned 
Authors, are the same as those set forth for 
Noncommissioned Authors in Section (2) a) 
above, with the exceptions that the Univer- 
sity of Illinois has the right to designate that 
Lessonware is suitable for and ready for dis- 
tribution, that the percent of gross royalties 
received by the University to be distributed 
to Commissioned Authors shall be forty 
(40) percent, and that the University shall 
have the right to correct errors of a tech- 
nical nature and/or errors in intellectual 
content. 

c) Other Authors. The policies for Lessonware 
produced by Other Authors, and the obliga- 



tions of Other Authors, are the same as those 
set forth for Noncommissioned Authors in 
Section (2) a) above, with the exception 
that the percent of gross royalties received 
by the University to be distributed to Other 
Authors shall be twenty (20) percent. 

d) PI Authors. The Participating Institution 
shall be provided the opportunity to request 
that the University represent the Participat- 
ing Institution for the purpose of marketing 
distributing Lessonware. If the Participating 
Institution requests and the University 
agrees to provide such representation, the 
policies for Lessonware shall be the same as 
those set forth for Noncommissioned Au- 
thors in Section (2) a) above, with "Par- 
ticipating Institution" substituted for "Non- 
commissioned Author" or "Author" in such 
section, and with the exception that the 
University will not participate in royalty in- 
come received for use of Lessonware that 
reverts to the Participating Institution. 

If the Participating Institution does not 
request the University to provide such rep- 
resentation, the Participating Institution 
will retain all rights in all Lessonware pro- 
duced by PI Authors, except that, in all 
events, the University shall retain a royalty- 
free, nonexclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, 
and perpetual license for use of such Lesson- 
ware on PLATO systems operated by the 
University of Illinois. 

e) Joint Venture Authors. The institution em- 
ploying Joint Venture Authors will be pro- 
vided the opportunity to request that the 
University represent such institution for the 
purpose of marketing and distributing Les- 
sonware. If such institution requests and the 
University agrees to provide such represen- 
tation, the policies for Lessonware shall be 
the same as those set forth for Noncommis- 
sioned Authors in Section (2) a) above, 
wdth the "Joint Venture Institution" sub- 
stituted for "Noncommissioned Author" or 
"Author" in such section. 

If such institution does not request the 
University to provide such representation, 
such institution will retain all rights in all 
Lessonware produced by Joint Venture Au- 
thors, except that, in all events, the Univer- 
sity shall retain a royalty-free, nonexclusive, 
irrevocable, unrestricted, and perpetual 
license for use of such Lessonware on 
PLATO systems operated by the University 
of Illinois and with the exception that any 
gross royalties generated by the Joint Ven- 
ture Institution's marketing or distribution 
of such Lessonware shall be shared equally 
between the University and the institution. 



(3) University Seal of Approval. The University 
may establish review bodies, similar to the Press 
Board, to review I^ssoiiware de\-eloped by Non- 
commissioned and Commissioned Authors and 
submitted by the Author for such review. Re- 
views may lead to the granting of a "University 
Seal of Approval." Failure to obtain this seal 
will not imply that the University will not mar- 
ket or distribute Lessonware — it shall be, 
rather, an additional indicator of quality. Other 
persons or institutions using the University sys- 
tem may be encouraged, but not required, to 
seek the "University Seal of Approval" for 
lessons offered for distribution. 

(4) Foreign-Language Translations. The Univer- 
sity shall ha\e the right to prepare or have pre- 
pared foreign-language versions of Lessonware 
which it distributes or markets. One-half of 
gross royalties on such foreign-language versions 
may be retained by the University to recover 



translation expenses, until such expenses have 
been fully recovered. During and after this 
period, remaining gross royalties shall be dis- 
tributed between the University and the Author 
according to the percentage applicable to the 
original Lessonware. The original Author shall 
be notified and given an opportunity to inspect 
the translated version before it is distributed. 

(5) Marketing of Similar Lessonware. The Univer- 
sity shall decide to act as the marketer or dis- 
tributor of Lessonware on an item-by-item basis. 
Other Lessonware covering the same or similar 
subject matter may simultaneously be distrib- 
uted or marketed by the University. 

(6) Exception for Particular Contracts and Grants. 
These policies are subject to exceptions ap- 
proved by the University in accepting partic- 
ular contracts and grants such as these for 
PLATO development. 



State Group Life Insurance Plan 

INCREASE IN BENEFITS/REDUCTION IN COSTS 

Changes were recently made in the State Group 
Life Insurance Plan which in many cases reduced 
premium rates and increased insurance amounts. All 
L^niversit\' facult\' and staff employed at 50 percent time 
or more and eligible to participate in the State Univer- 
sities Retirement System recently reenrolled in the group 
health and life insurance plan, with newly elected cover- 
age beginning July 1, 1978. 

In the September 15, 1978, Faculty Letter we an- 
nounced, "It is a pleasure to report a reduction in 
premium for the group health insurance plan," and we 
are now pleased to announce the following changes in 
the life insurance program : 

1. A reduction in premium for the employees' optional 
life insurance plan. 

2. A reduction in the rates for the children's optional 
life insurance plan. 

3. An increase in the benefit amount for the spouse and 
children's optional life insurance plan. 

EMPLOYEE BASIC LIFE BENEFITS 

Eligible employees (including disability recipients) 
and immediate annuitants under age 56 are provided life 
insurances equal to one-half their annual salary, rounded 
up to the next higher $100. For full-time employees, the 
minimum is $2,000. At age 56 the amount of basic life in- 
surance is reduced 20 percent, with further reductions of 
20 percent on each subsequent birthdate, to a minimum 
of $2,000. When an eligible employee elects retirement 
under the State Universities Retirement System, the 
minimum basic life insurance coverage continues to be 
provided without cost. 

EMPLOYEE OPTIONAL LIFE BENEFITS 

Employees qualifying for the state life insurance bene- 



fit may elect optional life insurance equivalent to one- 
half their annual salary. At age 61, the 20 percent an- 
nual reduction procedure described above applies, wath 
a minimum of $2,000 at age 65 or sooner. 

The premium for this life insurance benefit is paid by 
the employee through a payroll deduction, and as of July 
1 this premium was reduced approximately 9 percent to 
56 cents per thousand. Other than during an open en- 
rollment, coverage may be acquired by completing an 
Evidence of Insurability application. 

SPOUSE OPTIONAL LIFE BENEFIT 

Employees, immediate annuitants, and their survivors 
may elect spouse life coverage equal to 50 percent of the 
amount of total life insurance coverage (basic plus op- 
tional) in force on the life of the member (excludes any 
accidental death and dismemberment), but limited to a 
maximum of $5,000. The premium for this life insurance 
benefit is paid by the employee through a payroll deduc- 
tion, and as of July 1 the premium increased to 64 cents 
per thousand. Except during the first 30 days of employ- 
ment or an open enrollment, you will be required to 
complete an Evidence of Insurability application to par- 
ticipate in the plan. 

DEPENDENT CHILDIREN) LIFE BENEFIT 

Employees, immediate annuitants, and their survivors 
may elect child life coverage equal to 50 percent of the 
total life insurance coverage (basic plus optional) in 
force on the life of the member (excludes any accidental 
death and dismemberment) to a maximum of $2,000, 
except: 

1. Each eligible dependent child under 14 days of age 
has no benefits. 

2. Each eligible dependent child age 14 days to 6 months 
will have $100 in benefits if elected. 



As of July 1, 1978, the insured amount increased 
$1,000, and the premium decreased 40 percent to 30 
cents per thousand. As with the other optional coverages, 
the premium for this life insurance benefit is paid by the 
employee through a payroll deduction. Except during the 
first 30 days of employment or an open enrollment, com- 
pletion of an Evidence of Insurability application will be 
required to participate in the plan. 

ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT LIFE BENEFIT 

Employees, immediate annuitants, and their survivors 
may elect accidental death and dismemberment equal 
to either of the following: 

1 . Amount of the basic life benefit. 

2. Amount of the combined basic and optional life bene- 
fits (optional life must have been elected) . 



HANDBOOK, APPLICATIONS, COUNSELORS 

The above highlights som