Hogan will be highest-paid employee at UI-Springfield

Hogan will be highest-paid employee at UI-Springfield

SPRINGFIELD — The appointment of former University of Illinois President Michael Hogan as a history professor at the UI Springfield makes him the highest-paid employee on that campus.

Hogan, who made $651,000 as president, is now earning $285,100 a year as a professor, under a formula set when he was hired as president in 2010.

Only one other employee at UI Springfield earns more than $200,000, according to the UI's "gray book" of salaries. Vice President and Chancellor Susan Koch is listed at $220,000 annually. Former Chancellor Richard Ringeisen, who stepped down in October 2010, earned $281,705 as chancellor emeritus in 2011, but his appointment expired last November.

Hogan is spending a year on sabbatical, living in Ohio near family, and is scheduled to teach at UI Springfield starting in 2013-14.

He will be paid much more than other faculty in the history department, where only two of the 12 professors earn more than $100,000 (one of them a college dean). And he will have a lighter teaching load — two courses a year, compared with six for most faculty.

Salaries in Springfield typically lag those at the much larger Urbana and Chicago campuses. Urbana Chancellor Phyllis Wise, for example, earns $500,000, and more than a dozen history professors at the Urbana campus are above the $100,000 threshold.

The chairwoman of the UI Springfield history department, Professor Heather Bailey, said she doesn't anticipate any fallout and thinks faculty will welcome a scholar of Hogan's stature.

"Obviously his salary is not comparable with what we make," but the circumstances of his appointment were unique, Bailey said. "He's in a different spot.

"I think it's going to be a great opportunity for our students. I think he'll be a positive addition to the department."

Hogan, a noted historian and expert on post-World War II diplomacy, was granted a UI faculty appointment in the contract he signed in July 2010.

The contract stipulated that when he left office, his salary would be the average of the 10 highest-paid professors at the university, excluding faculty from the College of Medicine and College of Dentistry. When Hogan announced his decision to resign in March, after months of controversy, that number was determined to be $285,100.

Hogan was allowed to choose which campus to use as an academic base, and last week the UI announced he was joining the UI Springfield as a Distinguished Professor of History.

Hogan's salary is paid by university administration, rather than the Springfield campus, UI spokesman Tom Hardy said.

UI Board of Trustees Chairman Christopher Kennedy said last week that Hogan's employment arrangement is typical for an academic scholar with his experience.

"You've got an individual who has been president of two major universities, provost of a third, executive dean of one of the biggest colleges of one of the biggest public universities in the country, and a 40-year academic career in which he's the recognized expert in his field," Hardy said. "All those things get taken into consideration."

The offer letter from Provost Lynn Pardie said Hogan will teach a minimum of two courses per year, including at least one on-campus in 2013-14. His teaching load was to be "appropriate to a full professor actively engaged in research and professional service."

The average teaching load in Springfield is three courses per semester, or six in a given academic year, faculty said. But Lincoln scholar Michael Burlingame, also a Distinguished Pro- fessor of History at UI Springfield, has the same teaching load as Hogan, Hardy noted. Burlingame, who was hired three years ago, earned $103,000 in 2011-12.

Hogan's employment arrangement is comparable with ex-UI President B. Joseph White's, now a business professor at the Urbana campus. White, who stepped down in 2009 after the Category I admissions scandal, teaches two to three courses and is working on a book on leadership. He earns $288,700, with $186,400 paid by the president's office and $102,300 by the College of Business. The average salary for full professors in business is $198,175.

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 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. His salary is paid by the chancellor's office.

Bailey said officials haven't determined exactly what Hogan will teach, but she's confident they will find "courses that suit his interests and meet the needs of our students." The department has another professor who studies 20th-century U.S. diplomatic history, but it's distinct from Hogan's work, she said.

Hogan is expected to pursue "an active and productive scholarly research agenda and engage in professional service," according to the offer letter from Pardie.

"He has a very impressive scholarly record. I'm sure he's going to continue to build on that," said Bailey, who studies 19th-century European history. "To me, this is kind of an exceptional case. We'll leave it to the administration to determine the logistics."

Hogan has said he is working on several books while on sabbatical. He told The News-Gazette last month he plans to finish an edited volume on the historiography of U.S. foreign relations and later a second volume on "conceptual approaches to the study of international relations." He is also working on a book on John F. Kennedy. Hogan has written and edited numerous influential books and anthologies on the Cold War, the Marshall Plan and Presidents Harry S. Truman, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower.

Hogan said last week that he chose Springfield because of its access to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and its international reputation for online learning.

Barbara Hayler, professor emerita of criminal justice, said the teaching expectations in Springfield are different from those at the Urbana and Chicago campuses, which are large research institutions.

"Some of the faculty there devote most or all of their time to research projects, but at UIS the primary responsibility of every faculty member, regardless of the specific nature of their appointment, is teaching, which includes advising and mentoring," she said.

"I would hope that Dr. Hogan has the enthusiasm and the desire and the commitment needed to help us fulfill those expectations," Hayler said.

Kathy Jamison, professor of communication and vice chairwoman of the Springfield campus senate, expects the faculty to welcome Hogan as a colleague.

She said professors appreciated the interest Hogan showed in the Springfield campus as president. He seemed to understand its strengths and unique identity as a small campus and newest member of the UI system, she said.

"So that's a very good start," Jamison said.


News-Gazette.com 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

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 23, 2012 at 10:07 am

No wonder why tuition costs are unreachable for the middle class without years of debt resulting from student loans.  History is important.  Hogan, and others are making it.

Lostinspace wrote on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

Great morale booster for hard-working, competent, and honest university employees.

Meanwhile, TAs are living on starvation wages.

UIUCHoopFan wrote on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

I couldn't agree with you more!  Work hard in order to earn promotions in pay and profession?  Rubbish!  Lie, cheat, and steal.....that's your ticket to the land of the golden parachute!  So sad the state's flagship university continues to teach such life lessons running parallel to topics covered in the classroom.

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

I honestly don't think we can truly move on as a University with a clean reputation until Hogan, White and Herman are terminated from their positions. What disreputable messages are they teaching along with their core curriculums?

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on July 27, 2012 at 9:07 am
Profile Picture

Evidently no one wanted to be That Guy, so I will. The plural is cirricula.


This distinction might not be so important on chat boards about dogfighting. In a discussion about higher education, well ...


Sid Saltfork wrote on July 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm

What's with the Clark Kent caricuture?

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 28, 2012 at 8:07 am

OK then. I stand corrected. What disreputable messages are they teaching along with their core curricula?

Since you're "that guy" could you tell us all what "cirricula" is that you mentioned. Just saying

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 28, 2012 at 10:07 am

Bulldogmojo;  Don't let him get to you.  He is a child of local academics.  Got his law degree locally.  Does local opinions on the C-U mucic scene.  He is a failed Urbana mayorial candidate.  Just a local boy born into the local academia; and who stayed local.  We are not supposed to get it that he is "hip".  We are just peons according to the way he was raised.  We are that uneducated "blue collar" class which needs to be led by our bettters.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on July 28, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Profile Picture

Ow, you hurt my feeling.


Hey Bulldog, I thought your question was rhetorical. Wasn't it?




moderndaycowboy wrote on July 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm

There one reason behind all of this: tenure. Get rid of it.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Expect outrage for your comment.  I said something similar; and it provoked indignation.

moderndaycowboy wrote on July 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Oh, I expect it! But I'm 100% correct. They would no longer be employed if their administrative positions didn't come with joint tenure appointments.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on July 27, 2012 at 9:07 am
Profile Picture

Sid Saltfork wants to eliminate tenure for educators, but increase everything else for the blue collar guys in O&M and F&S -- you know, the people who really matter.


Correct me Sid, if I've mischaracterized your (anonymous) position.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm

You are corrected.  All groups matter.  The faculty matter.  The Civil Service employees matter.  The citizens of the state matter.  The U. of I.'s continued mistakes, and scandals have become an embarrassment to Higher Education in Illinois.  Where are all the scandals at the other universities in the state?  By the way; it is not "O&M and F&S".  Check your facts before attacking "blue collar guys".  Did you not learn that in Law School?  Now, you may correct me as you have others on spelling, terms, and grammar in your pompous manner.  How's your law practice doing?

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on July 28, 2012 at 7:07 am
Profile Picture

What's not O&M? What's not F&S?


Are you calling for more scandals at other schools? Do you follow the ongoings at other state school campuses, or do you just assume they don't have problems because n-g.com doesn't cover them? (Ignore the point that UIUC is our only major research institution, where ISU, EIU, SIU, NIU AND WIU  are teacher's colleges, and were founded as such.)


Why eliminate tenure if faculty matter? And -- to the crux of my criticism -- how can you simultaneuosly complain about tenure for faculty and reduced entitlements for the U's non-academic labor force?


(And sure, I'll address your ad hominem/hijack: What don't you like about my law practice?)

Lostinspace wrote on July 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Because all tenured faculty are incompetent or dishonest?

I can see valid reasons for eliminating tenure, but I don't see the connection here.  We pay fortunes to fired coaches, and that has nothing to do with tenure.

In any case, tenure is on the wane.

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

Tenure is a feature that protects faculty who may be pursuing research or ideas that may be frowned upon by government, administrators, or the general public. It's a means of encouraging discoveries that may otherwise be prevented by current opinion. There are drawbacks to the system, as you can see in the case of Dr. Hogan, but all in all it's a powerful tool for those who value freedom of thought and expression.

Lostinspace wrote on July 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Could you cite some research carried out by UofI faculty that a) has proven to be of benefit and b) would have been prevented by current opinion?

My sense is that research (not publication!) of value would be carried out with or without tenure: the people involved in such research would be retained and rewarded because of their value.

On the other hand, tenure protects a *lot* of meaningless publication (not research!) and a lot of deadwood faculty.

It is also the case that the university promotes and rewards the research/publication it deems valuable, whether researchers agree or not.

This is not a trivial matter: a tremendous amount of money is spent supporting research (at the expense of teaching, of course), including travel to conferences, that is of little value to anyone but the researcher.

This is not at all to belittle genuine research central or ancillary to the sciences, but the use of the scientific model of research by many, many disciplines is costly and insignificant, flowery rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

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

Really? I can probably count on one hand the number of truly "meaningless" research publications that I've seen come out of U of I. I have seen lots of publications that I don't understand, or that don't have direct relevance to my life, but I don't have the audacity to call their authors "deadwood" simply because I don't get it. If you read the summaries carefully it's usually fairly easy to see the significance to their field. Tenure protects researchers against the Sarah Palins of the world ("fruit flies?"), but in fact the thing that protects the quality of research is that no one wants their name on something meaningless.

Manny L wrote on July 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

I think it's interesting that Moore is second-highest paid when he promoted the inaccuracies in the letter he authored on Hogan. Of course, there's also his partner, Hurd in the top ten, who was in charge of the law college over not one but two scandals: the university admissions scandal and the recent law college scandal falsifying data that dated back to her administration.  Rumor has it that Moore was after Hogan for going back to Hurd's administration on the recent scandal and that's why he circulated the letter.  I don't know if anyone is looking into that inaccurate letter or if some of those who signed wished they hadn't now that the errors came out.  I heard that many faculty more distinguished than most of those who signed on refused to because of the errors in Moore's letter and his seeming desire to get even with Hogan over the Hurd situation.

I believe tenure is deserved by faculty who are engaged in fruitful research and scholarship.  But, maybe it's given away too easily.  I'm surprised that so many on the top ten list are either in the law college or business college.  Woese is certainly deserving as a Nobel winner for the way he changed science.  The others I'm not so sure.  I suppose I'm curious as to what life, science, or cultural changing research they've offered.  Was any of it risky as some have suggested tenure is supposed to protect?  Then again, maybe it's a market issue.  The ones in the law and business schools could probably go to a good law firm or move up in executive corporate positions with bigger salaries.  That might explain why they're in the top ten list.  I don't think that the market is a good reason for tenure though.

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

Mr./Ms. Manny L,

Would you please enlighten me regarding what was erroneous in the letter that some faculty signed calling for the president's resignation? 

The tenure inquiries are also of interest.  As others have stated tenure was created as a protection against those who sought risky scholarship and research which might brand them as aggitators, lunatics or even criminals.  However today tenure is not granted for at least seven or eight years in most instances.  Does this mean that for seven or eight years one may only conduct safe academic inquiry before venturing into more risky pursuits?  Does not free speech and academic freedom protect one equally as well as tenure?  I offer these thoughts to suggest that it may be time to rethink the idea of tenure and how it is bestowed.  I do not intend them to demean the good work many researchers do.


Sid Saltfork wrote on July 24, 2012 at 11:07 am

It is interesting that the concept of tenure is different in most European nations versus the U.S.  Tenured professors teach while un-tenured professors do research in most of Europe. The U.S. has seen a steady decline in tenure granting.  Ward Churchill woke most universities up on the issue of tenure.  I can understand the awarding of tenure to professors who came up thru the ranks at their university; and have continued to produce research in an area of economic income to the university.  However, the prevailing attitude at the U. of I. seems to be to award tenure as a recruiting benefit.  Hogan was in decline at U. Conn.  He had the opportunity to jump to the U. of l. with tenure.  The Board of Trustees had an agenda that needed a ramrod to get it thru.  Hogan was their man.  They even agreed to give him a Chief of Staff which he brought with him, and granted her tenure to get Hogan.  Hogan proved himself incompetent.  His Chief of Staff's unethical conduct assisted in doing him in.  The Board of Trustees were stuck with him due to his contract, and tenure.  They gave him a golden parachute.  Dr. Easter will man the helm until the Board of Trustees can find another ramrod to get their agenda thru.  Nothing really has changed; only the players.  This pattern of giving tenure to attract "top faculty" has become standardized in some fields.  Administration is the best example.  The next president will have agreed to the Board's agenda before they start with a contract, and tenure.  How about removing tenure for administrators in the future?  If they want the job; they accept a contract, but give up or do without tenure.

rsp wrote on July 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm

A big problem is the BOT suffers no consequences. They do as they please and hand out rewards for failure and they don't have to answer to anyone. Hogan's contract called for him to be here for five years before he earned his year-long sabbatical. Where is he now? They could switch to a clause of instead of automatic tenure it comes after say two or three years. Then if they haven't made it to that point they don't get it. Of course getting the BOT to stick to it would be a different story. 

Manny L wrote on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Foster:  The Moore letter made a number of statements that have never been substantiated and others that are outright lies.

For example he said that president Hogan was concerned with trappings of high office -- no evidence provided; he said that administrators were being given raises -- no evidence provided and a colleague of mine in the budget office says she has documentation that Hogan refused to approve raises for administrators in the budget office.  Moore said Hogan took over chancellor functions when those functions were handled by Stanley Ikenberry previously when he was president.  Moore said that Hogan went around the chancellor to meet with the deans when the deans asked to meet with him alone (I know this one for fact personally).  Moore said that Hogan engineered the enrollment management report.  This is an interesting point but you have to know that in a board meeting right after Hogan started Kennedy asked Hogan to go ahead with these measures without a report.  So maybe it's Kennedy who was the engineer.  I have hever seen where Hogan stated he spied on the faculty.  That's just silly.  He doesn't have to spy. He can get whatever information he wants.The anonymous email situation involving Troyer reported that Hogan had nothing to do with it.  Now that Kennedy and the board paid Troyer to stay silent, we might never know what was really going on.  Others on these news gazette posts have given some information that suggests that she probably didn't send the emails but who did? Moore also claimed that Hogan gave Troyer a professor job.  She already had tenure in psychology before that whole email mess.  One of my colleagues says she is suing Moore and some others for this statement.  It's interesting that Moore and the others aren't protected by her settlement from UI. The recent reports on the law school scandal might mean that the Hurd-Moore-Hogan fight will be outed.

The last piece of Moore's letter that is false is that Hogan bullied the chancellors.  The records show that Kennedy told Hogan to get the chancellors lined up with the board agenda. How is it bullying to tell subordinate chancellors to get on the boat and row or get off and drown?

I appreciate your cautious approach. There is just so much more to this than a bunch of cowering chancellors and a few UI faculty not wanting to be accountable.  Until the UI board gets tough and the chancellors and faculty get serious about delivering a quality education and meaningful research instead of continuing to get favors from each other the UI will wallow in controversy.



Foster wrote on July 25, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Dear Mr./Ms. Sid Saltfork and Mr./Ms. Manny L,

Thank you for responding to my post and my questions. 

I suppose there are many questions to be answered and many which may never be answered.  You both have offered interesting posts on these issues.  I would hope for more transparency on the Troyer matter as Mr./Ms. Manny L noted may be possible as a result of Ms. McNeely's statements that it is an open matter.  A payment to silence her of this amount seems to bespeak a cover up.  I would also like to see more reported on the matter of what Mr./Ms. Manny L has referred to as the Hurd-Moore-Hogan fight.  I was not aware of this issue.

I have little knowledge of the European tenure system of which Mr./Ms. Saltfork describes.  Is it a system that would be better for the University of Illinois?

What I also am reading into your comments and those of others is that the Trustees seem to want substantial changes.  This seems reasonable in today's higher education environment.  However there seem to be many faculty and some administrators who would rather that there is no change.  The question seems to be whether the University of Illinois can survive under its old model of business that Hogan tried to change under the orders of the Trustees.

I would like to be sure to state once more that I believe there are many faculty, staff and students who work very hard.  Though I am not sure that tenure as it is currently managed has a positive effect on the success of a university like the University of Illinois I do not intend any of my comments to be a criticism of those who work hard.

I will once more thank you for providing me with more information.

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm

The ever nebulous Academic Senate demanded he be removed as President because they couldn't "work with him". Now they have to actually WORK with him...as in bumping into him at the coffee pot. So they should enjoy the results of that half measure.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Yeah, they were going to do something about the unethical conduct alleged in the Troyer incident also.  Notice that nothing was done.  The Board of Trustees helped them avoid any action by paying off Troyer.  Oh, excuse me......  They wrote an indignant letter, and some of them signed it.

Manny L wrote on July 25, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Sid:  You make a good point.  Why the pay-off to Troyer?  What did the faculty and board want to avoid having come out?  Several lawyers behind closed doors negotiated who would and would not be protected, what would and would not be said, and how much it was all worth. This is hardly the transparency the board claims it stands for.  I still agree with some others that Donna McNeely the ethics officer has surrendered the fort by claiming there's no confidentiality.  Shouldn't we get to see her records and Troyers and anyone else's records on this matter?

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 25, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Manny L;  While I agree with you on the need for full transparencey on the Troyer incident; it is a done deal.  My concern is what will be next.  The Board has not changed it's agenda, centralized control.  I doubt that the faculty have changed their opinion on the Board's agenda.  Dr. Easter is babysitting the university until a new president takes office.  The new president will be given the Board's agenda to accomplish just as Hogan was given it.  Will the same things happen with the exception of phony e-mails?  Of course if a new president is not hired until after the next gubenatorial election,  new appointed Board members may result.  Either way, the problems that the Board wanted addressed will remain.  I really do not see anything changing at the U of I for years to come.  It will only be more, and more problems; and scandals.  In any place other than academia; it would be change, or leave.

Orbiter wrote on July 26, 2012 at 8:07 am

Anyone know if Hogan's status as the highest-paid UIS employee includes athletic coaches? Or are they excluded from this comparison?

Manny L wrote on July 26, 2012 at 10:07 am

Coaches aren't included in the comparison.  Others excluded are other administrators who also have faculty positions, like the current president, campus chancellors, deans, vice chancellors, special assistant to the president, and vice presidents. I think just about all of them who have faculty positions make more than Hogan.  They also excluded all the dentists and doctors at Chicago. Fact is that Hogan's salary won't be that big if the whole universe is taken into account.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on July 28, 2012 at 7:07 am
Profile Picture

The article concerns UIS. The coaches are not relevant. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 28, 2012 at 9:07 am

Since Rob has proclaimed me as against tenure, and an advocate for the "blue collar guys"; I would like to explain my position.  I do agree with a previous commentor that not all faculty are dishonest, or engage in misconduct.  However, one needs to look at the number of professors who lost tenure in the past due to dishonesty, or misconduct.  Tenure is only revoked for cause which is usually misconduct.  The revocation of tenure is an internal matter within universities.  There is no overall professional organization that handles the revocation of tenure.  There is an overall professional organization that defends faculty members facing tenure revocation.  In 2010, 75 out of 280,000 professors had tenured revoked.  That is .00027% who lost tenure for misconduct.  The Ward Churchill affair with the Univ. of Colorado taught universities that it was cheaper to buy off professors who engaged in misconduct rather than revoke their tenure.  When the Troyer e-mail incident came up this year; it was admitted that the "rules would have to be dusted off" since no tenure had been revoked at the U. of I. for many years.  The buy offs come out of the universities budgets.  It is a drain on the universities, and states money.  When you add up the costs for Herman, White, and Hogan annually; it is a whopping sum.  Add the pay offs like Troyer to the sum.  My point is that there should be a better system whether it be handled by a state, a university, or a professional organization that deals with misconduct in academia, and can result in loss of tenure.  Yes; I am, also, an advocate for the Civil Service employees.  They have done without raises while administrators, and faculty have received raises.  They can be fired much easier than tenured individuals for misconduct.  Of course, there are some who feel that the more education one has entitles them to more privileges which provides immunity for misconduct.  Now, the local attorney can respond. 

Manny L wrote on July 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Whether or not tenure is a good thing I think the situation at Illinois is alarming.  Regular working people don't have any protections. Also, it's not the case that there hasn't been a case involving removing faculty tenure at the University of Illinois.  Professor Wozniak has been under tenure dismissal proceedings for several months before Troyer's case and that's still going on.  What's odd is that suddenly Wheeler tried to change the rules when it came to Troyer.  Why?  It is no secret that Wheeler the interim provost was banned from applying for a permanent job as the provost by the president.  Did Troyer play some kind of role in that in advising Hogan?  Was this Wheeler's attempt to get even with her? There is no way that it would have cost the university $350,000 dismiss Troyer which is probably closer the real cost of the Troyer settlement not even counting the outside lawyer's fees.  I've never figured ut why the gigantic staff of university lawyers needed an outside lawyer anyway. The reasons for a settlement need to be put out in the open but the gag order stops it  Sid I'm not arguing with you that tenure needs a fix but I think the whole system needs a fix.  Civil service employees and anyone in a union were getting raises when faculty were on furloughs.  Contracts assured that.  Why should any employee of any company including the university have guaranteed raises and jobs?  Buy offs do come out of all of our hides and this is why we should be given the details.  Why is Herman a named professor?  Why is Hurd a named professor?  Why is White a named professor?  These people broke the law and became distinguished professors as a reward. Troyer didn't break the law but the Board of Trustees paid off Troyer to get her silence. Why?  There is something very wrong at Illinois.  You don't need to be a PHD or professor to see that it all stinks.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Professor Wozniak's issue has been going on for years, and years; at least ten years.  The sole thing defending him is his tenure.  It is only indicative of universities governing themselves.  If a private university does that, they may have the right to do so.  However as others have pointed out, private universities do receive Federal grants.  Other State of Illinois universities whether they be "teacher colleges", or not, do not have the frequency of misconduct, and scandals as does the "flagship" U. of I.  It is just one problem after another.  The U. of I. may feel picked on; but they have brought continued scrutiny upon themselves by the state wide media.  It does need to be cleaned up.  The Troyer incident should have not been left with the university, private sources, and attorneys to handle.  All U. of I. employees whether they be civil service employees with a union, faculty, and administrators are State of Illinois employees.  The matter should have been turned over to the State of Illinois Inspector General, or the State of Illinois Attorney General.  A violation of ethics by a state employee is a punishable offense which can result in employment termination.  The State of Illinois Auditor has found repeated violations only to find that they were never corrected by the time of the next audit.  The U. of I. simply ignores findings.  The only authority that the university answers to is the Board of Trustees.  That compounds the problem.  There is no transparency for the public.  The recent flap on the bid for the Natural History Building is due to rules being ignored.  When a public supported institution rules itself with no public oversight; violations of rules and laws, scandals, and financial waste occurs.  No; you don't need to be a Ph.D., or a professor to see that it all stinks.  However, it is appalling that so many academics criticize public comments when the U. of I. messes up.  Basically, their attitude is that it is no one's business what happens at the U. of I.  Not all academics at the U. of I. have that attitude.  In private; they will complain about the university, and agree that it needs change.  However, they do nothing about it as a group.  No public institution should be self governing.      

Manny L wrote on July 29, 2012 at 12:07 pm

We may be on the same page on much of this Sid. I agree that there seems to be a lot of arrogance among UI faculty, administrators and some staff about things thinking they are above the law and all. I don't think you're the only one who has suggested that the Inspector General or some other political super-hero needs to step in to look at what's going on. But isn't it true that anyone can make a formal complaint or call the Inspector General to ask for an  investigation. Have you done that?  I'll admit I haven't. But maybe it's time. I'll have to think about it. I didn't grow up in Chicago but the reputation for inside politics is known throughout the world. Can the attorney general or inspector general be trusted?  Are they just Kennedy lackeys who would participate in a cover up?  I don't think it would be the first time. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 29, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Manny, don't do it.  There is a Whistle Blower's semi-sort-of thing; but it is not worth it.  If a group of individuals feel that an investigation is needed, they should step forward; but not individually.  You need to think about your career, and family.  I know that I have commented on the lack of transparency, and the possible cover-ups; but I, also, have 40 plus years of employment experience with the State of Illinois.  When I was faced with similar situations, I used a network of individuals that shared my views.  My advice to you is not to leak anything by yourself.  I am sure that others share your information.  It really depends on how important the information is that the group possesses; and to who, and how it is leaked.  Is the Troyer incident really worth it?  It may seem like it now; but it may not be 10, 20, or 40 years later.  Best drop it.  Let "what goes around comes around" deal with it.    

Manny L wrote on July 30, 2012 at 9:07 am

Thanks Sid I appreciate your concern for me. I'm not as experienced as you with working for the university.  It sounds like you think it's risky to report misbehavior by employees though. I was a little surprised because your comments on Troyer have consistently called for the inspector general or attorney general to investigate. Now that there is a pay off to silence her it seems even more important to have it investigated. I also noticed that the inspector general will accept anonymous complaints and follow up on them and that may be the way to go if the risks are what you say they are to anyone who makes the complaint. My concern isn't so much whether or not Troyer sent any emails. That whole issue seems  silly. The weirdness of the report the ethics officer gave is also odd to me and I wonder what Troyer might have on her. What concerns me most is the fact that she was paid off with my taxpayer money for something so trivial and why they wanted to keep her quiet. She obviously knows something that the board of trustees doesn't want to come out. At the price we're paying probably $350k or more for this we have a right to know don't you think?

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Manny; As I said; a group needs to ask for an investigation based on information that they may possess.  Do not use university (employer) computers for your comments to the media, or e-mails to the Inspector General's Office.  No complaint should be made without adequate information to back it up.  Many years ago; a group of idealistic agency employees were disgusted with a corrupt agency director.  The director used agency money to pay a former college roommate hundreds of thousands of dollars for phony employee training programs.  The young employees decided to do something about it.  They thought that if the director was fired, an honest director would be appointed.  They did their homework.  They found budgetary information for the various statewide training programs.  They individually drove to various locations in the state, not their own communities; and mailed the information along with the resume of the director, and the resume of the private business training program director with the greek letters designating the fraternity that both belonged to while in college to the legislators of both parties which oversaw the agency's budget.  Nothing was traceable. After two months time, the director abruptly left state employment with no reason provided.  Yes, it was covered up; but the corrupt director was gone.  The assistant director who was honest manned the helm for one year.  He was replaced by another director just as bad as the corrupt director.   There was no Whistle Blower Act at that time.  There is now; but you, and others must have creditable information to provide.  An individual doing it by themself does not stand a chance.  You may not be fired; but you will pay a price for "doing the right thing" in Illinois.  Yeah, we are all paying the price for the U. of I.'s mistakes.  However until enough people stand up as a group, nothing will change.  My best advice to you is to let it go.  It is over, and done with.  There will be more mistakes, and scandals which will add up to something finally happening.

cruieo wrote on July 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm


I am somewhat surprised with your concerns for Manny with respect to filing a complaint with the Inspector General.  From the beginning of this "Anonymas email", you have been calling for the university to refer this off to the Inspector General.  As far as I can tell you never voiced any concerns about not doing it as an individual nor concerns of retribution which you seem to be implying could be a risk for filing a complaint with a state agency.  Go ahead and file.  If you don't want to do it individually then get together some of your fellow posters who have a similar viewpoint on the whole affair and file as a group.  Why discourage Manny when you have been advocating this for 8 months?