Details outlined of Hogan's UI faculty appointment

Details outlined of Hogan's UI faculty appointment

CHICAGO — Former University of Ilinois President Michael Hogan will be paid $285,100 to teach two history courses at the Springfield campus next year, one of them possibly online, under his employment arrangement with the UI.

A letter dated June 15 from interim UI Springfield Provost Lynn Pardie outlines Hogan's appointment as a Distinguished Professor of History, which took effect July 1.

Hogan, who resigned under fire, is on paid sabbatical for the 2012-13 school year. He is living in Ohio, working on writing and research projects, said UI spokesman Tom Hardy.

Beginning July 1, 2013, Hogan will be responsible for a minimum of two courses each academic year, with at least one to be on campus in 2013-14. Specific course assignments and the "method of delivery" will be determined by the department and college dean, the letter said.

Hogan is also expected to "pursue an active and productive scholarly research agenda and engage in professional service."'

He will be eligible for annual pay raises along with other faculty, the letter said.

The general terms had been outlined in the employment agreement Hogan negotiated with the university when he announced his resignation in March, but he had not yet chosen a campus for his teaching and research.

In a statement, Hogan said he chose the Springfield campus because of its access to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and its "international reputation for online learning."

That agreement said his teaching obligation had to be "appropriate to a full professor actively engaged in research and professional service."

Hardy said Lincoln scholar Michael Burlingame, a Distinguished Professor of History in the same department at UI Springfield, has the same teaching load. Burlingame, who was hired three years ago, earned $103,000 in 2011-12.

Former UI President B. Joseph White, who resigned in September 2009 following the Category I admissions scandal, teaches two to three courses a year as a professor in the College of Business. His salary is $288,700.

Former Chancellor Richard Herman, who now lives in Chicago, resigned in October 2009 but still holds a faculty appointment at the Urbana campus, at $244,000 annually. He initially worked as a special assistant to then-President Stanley Ikenberry until June 2010, then worked on several STEM programs before taking a one-year sabbatical. He didn't teach any courses until this spring, when he was scheduled to teach a two-month online course on educational leadership and professional development.

Board of Trustees Chairman Chris Kennedy said Hogan's agreement sets out minimum requirements that are consistent with his tenure and academic standing as well as standards at other universities.

"If somebody has (achieved) a level of respect as a historian and scholar, outside of his presidential duties, this is what you get," Kennedy said, noting that Hogan is the "definitive historian" for the Truman years and Marshall Plan.

"Michael Hogan in his life has never done the minimum to get by. Some would say he's done too much," Kennedy added. "My belief is he will be a great asset to the Springfield campus, to our senior leadership team and to our development work."

UI Springfield Chancellor Susan Koch called Hogan "an accomplished scholar in history," adding, "we expect he will be a positive academic addition to our outstanding faculty.

Hogan was hired from the University of Connecticut in 2010 to replace White, who had resigned following the Category I admissions scandal.

Hogan quickly ran afoul of faculty, particularly at the Urbana campus, through his efforts to centralize some administrative functions and talk of a "one university" model.

Then his former chief of staff, Lisa Troyer, a colleague from UConn, resigned during an investigation into anonymous emails traced to her computer. The emails were sent to a faculty senate group studying Hogan's contentious plan to centralize some enrollment practices. She has denied sending the emails.

Those disclosures and others eventually led more than 200 prestigious faculty to call for Hogan's resignation. He officially stepped down July 1, but interim President Robert Easter had already taken over most of his duties, records show.

Troyer retained a faculty appointment in psychology when she stepped down from her $200,850-a-year administrative post in January. But she recently reached a $175,000 severance agreement with the UI, resigning her faculty post as of Aug. 15.

Comments embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

moderndaycowboy wrote on July 19, 2012 at 8:07 am

Wow! What a waste of $817,800 keeping these three clowns "employed," all because they have tenure. What a joke! Just think how may faculty they could hire to teach full loads, at least 12. Patehtic, simply pathetic.  

rsp wrote on July 19, 2012 at 8:07 am

UI Springfield Chancellor Susan Koch called Hogan "an accomplished scholar in history," adding, "we expect he will be a positive academic addition to our outstanding faculty."

Why does it feel like having an expensive textbook on a shelf that few students can access? Is it just me or has academia always had things upside-down, with the most qualified and highest paid not teaching and the least qualified (grad students) and least paid doing the most. 

Lostinspace wrote on July 19, 2012 at 8:07 am

Yes, well, I think I remember him saying, when he was president, that these are tough economic times and we have to look at ways to cut back without damaging the quality of academic programs.  For the good of the U of I "family," of course.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 19, 2012 at 9:07 am

I used to feel empathy for the U. of I. regarding the state not funding the university as it should.  I do not anymore.  The state would be better off not funding any of it.  If the university wants to act like a private school, let it be one.

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 19, 2012 at 9:07 am

Is Chris Kennedy drinking some of his bootlegger grandfather's hooch?? I can think of a lot of Historians who Springfield could hire who haven't embarrassed the reputation of this University. This is what we get for hiring tenured Professors who are only “serving” as administrators. They can do all they damage to the Administration offices and the reputation of this University they want and keep a job for life, but no raises for anyone who haven't violated ethics. This board is starting to sound like the self-congratulatory board that got ousted before. I'm all for recycling but come on.

skiparoo wrote on July 19, 2012 at 10:07 am

chris kennedy was illegally elected as chairman.  i was there.  just listen or watch the vote that Quinn rammed through.  kennedy did not have the oral votes!  this state is pitifully corrupted!  hogan should have been arrested.


irritateduiworker wrote on July 19, 2012 at 10:07 am

What a shame to keep these jokers employed at the UI at these salaries when the little peons that work here can't even get more than a half-percent raise every year!! It is just ludicrous!

gbw wrote on July 19, 2012 at 10:07 am

Another sad day for the taxpayers of this once former great State of Illinois. It appears that the Board of Trustees continue to live in the "Ivory Tower". How can they justify their continued awarding of improper behavior by administrators who should be fired with minimal severance.

The State is hopelessly underfunded and bankrupt yet we continue to grant tenure and pay outlandish benefits to these Bozo's (I mean distinguished professors and administrators).

Can anyone see now how some of the outlandish events happened at Penn State for years.  I am truly believing that many of the BIG board members have any sort of backbone other to just rubber stamp approvals and not question why we are doing this?

Rubby wrote on July 19, 2012 at 11:07 am

Shamefull ! Simply pathetic ! Fat cats like these getting rewarded instead of being locked up. You simply cannot shame these kind of people ! They have no consience ! I don"t know how they sleep at night. They remind me of the Syrian dictator, Assad. The board of trustees should be really proud of themselves. Truth be told, the board of trustees should be locked up!

SARdog00 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

My wife and I are alums, and soon we will be in the position where we could act as benefactors to the University. But why would we want to do something for an institution that pays outrageous salaries to men and women that do very little. I'm sorry, but merit and wisdom and scholarly prestige mean nothing when not deployed at the most fundamental level. I now see an academic institution that uses TAs to do the most work, and the top-tier faculty command a salary equivalent to that of a very skilled surgeon, yet they do very little to merit such a financial award. At least we see most surgeons putting in long hours doing difficult procedures. I'm disgusted and outraged by such a practice, and everyone else attached to the University should be, too. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Well... the faculty sure do not feel that way.  I applaud your comments.  What would happen if tenure was abolished?

Alexander wrote on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

This again? Maybe this will help: what if all employees were made "at will", so everyone can be fired with or without cause (and since you like a single tier system, I mean everyone)? I'm not going to bother analyzing after putting out there my one one-liner idiotic question. Since you never do starting from yours.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 7:07 am

Alexander;  Take the time to look around.  In most all other occupations; wrong doing, or incompetence results in employees being fired.  Sometimes without cause.  Academia is one of the few occupations where something like tenure protects; and even at times, rewards wrong doing.  I would tell you that you are not paying attention to the world around you.  My "one one-liner idiotic question" is on the minds of other professionals, and workers.  The times have changed.  You will see more, and more "taxpayers" supporting no tenure for school teachers, and academia as more, and more stories come forward like Herman, Hogan, Troyer, White, Penn State, the U. of I.; and the list goes on across the country.  The public be they "idiotic", or not feel no sympathy for academia.  They are starting to feel scorn.  Academia should be getting it's act together instead of circling the wagons.  

Alexander wrote on July 21, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Sid -- You don't like academia. Perhaps you've been sassed by professors in the past; I'm sorry if this was the case. You don't like that professors have the ability to earn tenure. I get it. Can you at least be forthright in citing this motivation for your anti-tenure sentiment, rather than the false pretense that it is somehow a wasteful idea, or that you're trying to help out academics see how the "real people" see things?    

In the same way, some "real people" like myself might (hypothetically) not like how even non-academic university employees are supported. A "real person" like myself can go and cherry-pick some incident or way of doing things that is demonstrably dubious (like how F&S conducts business on campus). Then a "real person" can say -- these damn university employees have all this "stuff" that I don't have (like a job, or maybe a pension, etc). Why should that be? Let's make them all "at will". "I'm a taxpayer! I own you, and so I should be able to fire you whenever; yeah!" (...and it *is* hard to fire a civil service employee even if they are quite incompetent if not unethical).

Do you agree that based such reasoning I should say "let's take away Sid Saltfork's pension, and/or healthcare" because some extreme examples of people like him did some wrong? I'll bet not, because it's not fair to generalize to include you based on the example of some university staff worker who did something wrong. You weren't lazy and undeserving because someone else was, were you?

If not, then why do you think it is fair to apply the same illogic to academics? Picking off extreme examples that don't represent the vast majority of professors to ask to strip a group's benefit? 

You've had enough exchanges to have read that these are indeed non-representative (just look at the number of professors and their positions compared to these ones). Yet you choose to ignore that fact everytime you go back to the "one-liner". That's why I characterize it as such.

In summary, if we made all university jobs have no pension, no health care, and everyone "at will" then they'd be pretty unattractive, yes? Would you have taken such a job? Would you not have taken your talents elsewhere?

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 10:07 am

I had professors that I respected; and I had a few that I did not.  On the whole, I had great professors.  My point is that tenure is becoming an issue.  You have the same protection as I did regarding employment.  You have the State of Illinois Personnel Rules.  Whether you like it, or not; you are a State of Illinois employee.  Tenure gives you the added advantage of not being fired for wrong doing.  It has become an expensive practice to all of the states.  Tenure at a private university is another matter.  They are not state funded.  You are a taxpayer just as I am a taxpayer.  You feel that I pick on academia; and you become defensive.  Sorry if you fell that way.  My point is that tenure will end.  You will probably keep yours; but at some point in time, no tenure will be granted to professors in state universities.  You did not cause the problem.  Others like Herman, White, and Hogan caused it.  They are "administrators"; but they were tenured professors before that.  You don't like me, the messanger; but the abolishment is coming due to economic times, and abuse by a few notables.  Sorry about it; but it is coming.

Alexander wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

"My point is tenure is becoming an issue" -- so is cancer, obesity, educational standards, right vs left wing politics. You've chosen to indiscriminately bring up one issue (tenure) even when it really has little to nothing to do with these cases (Hogan, Troyer etc), as I've attempted to explain to you repeatedly. Why don't you isolate your criticism to "overfed adminstration" rather than academics in general? No, you'd rather generalize with limited reasons to do so. 

By the way, your dream is anyway coming true. Tenure is not being abolished, but the percentage of adjuncts is rising everyday. With the decline in the number of tenured positions, more unsecured, transitional faculty and yes, grad students, are demanded to teach undergraduates. As talented as these unsecured people are, by the nature of their non-permanence, the quality has to suffer as a whole.

So, in summary, the standard complaint is that not enough tenured people teach classes. Actually its more that there are not enough tenured people to teach classes. So congratulations, complainers like you have achieved your long sought end.

Other notes:

1. You have no evidence that tenure is "expensive" as an entire matter of cost/benefit (even financially). For example, have you precisely accounted for grant money brought in by tenured people? Do you think big grant winners will come to take an untenured job when they can go elsewhere (and for god's sake, yes they can).

2. As I've told you before, private universities ARE tax payer funded. They lie on tax-free land and their research grant revenue comes from places like the NIH and NSF. 

Please get your facts straight on the most basic issues that you use to support your argument.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

The article which you, and I are commenting on is Hogan's U of I Faculty Appointment.  He did not get that sweet deal because he was incompetent.  He has tenure.  The "overfed administration" has tenure.  Herman, White, Troyer, and the others in the past had tenure.  The faculty did not have to do anything about Troyer because of the deal that the Board of Trustees allowed.  It saved the faculty from having to deal with an issue that they did not want to deal with since it was tenure.  Once tenure dries up; the "unsecured, transitional faculty" will be secured.  They will not be "non-permanence" searching for tenure.  Keep defending it.  It allows the non-academic public to get a better understanding of how their state universities work.  By the way; why are there not comparable scandals at the other state universities.  It seems it is always the flagship U. of I., not the others.  What's up with that?  Why did Mark Taylor's comment disappear about the same time that your comment appeared?

Alexander wrote on July 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm

In your "argument" are you going to respond to my precise points and cricitisms or are you just going to continue with your usual diatribe?

Continuing my enumerated points: 

3. You have no understanding of the adjunct world, obviously. Please admit it and stop acting like you do.

4. Other state universities: Penn State for one, U. Virginia for another. Do a google search and see how many university presidents around the country have had to step down recently.

Honestly, you show with each sentence that you have no precise understanding of the issues. If you really did, how could you even not see my precise points 1,2 or 4? Can you be self critical for a moment and wonder if you really know what you're arguing?

(I might have been editing a comment causing something weird to go on with Mark Taylor's message.)

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm


Alexander wrote on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Well, I suppose the institution for all of its faults helped produce alums like yourself.

1. TA's do not do the "most work", not even with teaching -- then there's research and grant writing etc etc.  

2. Most faculty do not make the amount of money that these people do -- and moreover, these guys do not make surgeon salary.

3. "At least we see most surgeons putting in long hours doing difficult procedures.": that's insulting, is all I have to say. 

If you want to not donate to your alma mater, then fine. But do it for informed reasons. I'd didn't much care for our previous president (and maybe you don't care for our present one). That doesn't stop me from loving America.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 7:07 am

What does "loving America" have to do with it?  He was talking about the U. of I.  Please don't wrap yourself in the flag when your defending your profession.

Alexander wrote on July 21, 2012 at 8:07 pm

It's called an analogy. Let me draw a diagram:

UIUC -------------------- Hate of Hogan etc ------------------- ??

America ---------------- Hate of president XYZ -------------- Love of America

If you don't replace "??" with "Love of alma mater", then one should inspect the logic of loving your country because you hate such and such (former) president. That's all.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 10:07 am

Work harder on your analogies.  No one is hating Hogan.  They are disgusted with him.  They, also, are disgusted with the U of I for handling Herman, White, Hogan, Troyer, and others over the years in the manner they have.  When you use the term "president", it is confusing whether you are referring to the "president" of the university, or the "President" of the United States.  Either way, your reference to loving America is over used.  People, and I for one, get tired of the use of "veteran", "American", "patriot", etc. when someone tries to make their point.  Most of us feel that we are all of those things without going on about it. 

Alexander wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Nothing you said properly criticizes the analogy. 

1. "No one is hating Hogan." -- Are you serious? Is "disgusted" vs "hating" a real invalidation?

2. Use of "president": there are two uses, one for each line of the diagram. What could be confusing?

3. "Love of America" etc: let me grant you that this "love" is trite. Isn't that the point of an analogy -- to reduce an unfamiliar case to an all too accepted one?

Work harder on your critical analysis.

Mark Taylor wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

You academic elitists don't get it. If Sidney can use something like the Penn State abuse scandal to attack academics, your elitist logic, reason and facts aren't going to be of any use here.

Alexander wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm

My right wing friend -- it beats reading People magazine.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm

There is your new comment.  I thought that you withdrew it; but you only changed it.  Mark, I don't stalk you; but you do me.  What's with the personalizing of your comments?  It does not bother me; but it does make me curious.  There are people with the name Mark Taylor at the university; but I doubt that you would use your name in comments.  I wondered if you are Alexander for a while.  There is no reason to use the Charlie McCarthy / Mortimer Snerd routine.   

Mark Taylor wrote on July 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm

The comment was removed by the admins but your sockpuppet conspiracy theory sure is more believable. And you're right, when I make a comment that responds or refers to you, I'm stalking. But when you do the same to me its so obviously not stalking that you don't even need to provide any evidence for the claim. Nor is it stalking when you look up my name in the university employment rolls.

No one can argue with your logic.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Whatever you feel toward me has no bearing on comments on articles.  I do not have any animosity toward you.  I found your ridicule of locals offensive along with the right wing baiting.  I responded to that along with others.  Let's stop our mutual immaturity.    

Mark Taylor wrote on July 23, 2012 at 7:07 am

Sure, Sidney. From now on, I'll get your approval before I post any comment (starting with my next one).

Or, I'll keep posting as seems appropriate and you can either skip them, read them them but not respond to them, respond to them as you see fit, or even proclaim that I don't have the right to comment. It's your prerogative.

Orbiter wrote on July 21, 2012 at 12:07 am

Congratulations, SARdog00, on finding yourself in the 1%.

I gotta say though... I work long hours, on stuff that is every bit as intricate and difficult as your "skilled surgeon", and I only wish I was paid a fourth as much. Lord knows I've got just as much education debt as those fresh med-school graduates. Perhaps a bad choice of example on your part, becuause I do agree that the U of I admins are outrageously overpaid.  But then so are most CEOs, COOs, CFOs, bankers, stock brokers, and others among the "best and brightest" who are plundering our businesses and ruining our country.

ClearVision wrote on July 23, 2012 at 3:07 pm

In reply to "Sid's" screed about getting rid of tenure, I agree completely. At the same time, we need to get rid of all those corrupt unions. They "circle the wagons" at the drop of a hat, violate laws while picketing, walk off the job for petty power-play purposes, and just take and take and take until the state goes broke. It's time honest, independent individuals came to the forefront.

rsp wrote on July 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Which unions are corrupt? Walk off the job? When was the last time you heard of union members walking off the job? Skip the sound bites, please. They sound too much like quotes from proud union members Rush and Glenn. All union contracts include all the hoops that the union has to go through before they can walk off the job. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 24, 2012 at 9:07 am

I have been in AFSCME for 18 years and we have never walked off the job. Having been in civil service for all those 18 years I make a whopping $38.512.50 a year gross wages and I have made all of my pension payments. I have never broken any laws while picketing which is not the same as a strike. This is a form of protected speech. Its one of the many ways we defend ourselves from a very real threat from charlatans like Hogan who line their pockets with cash while abusing the access and authorities they were entrusted with by the public. I AM an honest independent individual. I perform my work that I was hired to do in the development arm of this University bringing in donor money and I have never been the subject of an ethics investigation either. I proudly know which side of the labor table I stand on because the other side clearly is disreputable.

rsp wrote on July 24, 2012 at 9:07 am

Many years ago my father fought to bring in AFSCME to the city of Champaign and was the first President. Before that they didn't have any health care.