<strong>Gerald</strong> W. <strong>Smith</strong> 210this to, say, California, Florida, or New York where a Master Plan hadjust preceded ours. I can only relate what took place in Illinois. .Q. But the broad involvement of the public in different sectors and bheleadership in the different sectors and segnents of society--this is veryunusual. The Land Grant College Act, when that becarne law, didn't beginto compare to this. It was on a much mre limited scale.This is where Gerry's and nly conversation ended this morning on Wednesday,September 1, 1976. This discourse has brought us to the point where wenow have the proper point for the next phase of the story that Gerry wantsto share with us.This is now being transcribed on the morning of Septenher 7, 1976, followingthe extended Labor Day weekend. Gemy and I are seated here in our usualplace at the dining room table.Gerry, as I recall, we were ready to start talking today about the reaction,the various Wnds of reaction, *om dffferent groups and different individualsto the publication df the Master Plan. Is this where you would liketo begin this morning?A. Yes. As You know, the first Master Plan was released in January orFebruary of 1964 and soon after its release, it became the subject of aseries of public hearings conducted by Dr. Bmwne, Dr. Glenny, with membersof the Bowd of Higher Education, in several sites across the State of Illinois;and then the final form was published in July of 1964. When theGeneral Assenhly convened in January of 1965, it was then tk for actionwith regard to the implementation of the recomndations in the total MasterPlan, but we're referring specifically to those in Chapter 4 dealt withthe c m t y colleges. It turned out that Governor Kerner decided tobrYing an advisory cormnittee into his office, made up of representatives ofthe General Assembly and the public at large, to which I have spoken previously,to address themselves to the recommendations of the Master Planand to make decisions, or to make recomndations with regard to decisions,on specific points within the Master Plan to be draf'ted into a bill. TheGovernor also elected to give his leadership for the introduction of thehillWhat I want to talk about now are some of the issues that surfacedthe period of tfme I have just described, from Januaryflebmazy 1964,ti1 the bill came out of the General Assembly in June of 1965. We haperiod there of some 15 months for discussion and reaction, beforefic bill became a reality.Q. And this bill that was produced in h e of 1965 was then thetive enactment on which the two houses & the State Legislatureable to agree.A. Yes. And this was signed by Governor Kerner on July 15, 1965, to beknown as the Junior College Act. In those days, however, it was House,Bill 1710, (laughter) across the State. I
<strong>Gerald</strong> W. <strong>Smith</strong> 211Q. There was lots of rocky traveling between those bases in those 15months.A. Yes. Now, coming back then to the Master Plan, you will recall thatwe have already put on the tape the specific recornendations of 30, $1,32 and 33, that had to do with the cornunity college. In geneml, therecommendations were favorable, that is, the general idea of a system ofjdor colleges in Illinois to be under the direction of a State JuniorCollege Board as a planning, a study-coolrr32nating agency, the idea thatthis was to be a part of the higher education structure and the plan tostrengthen the programs so that the c m t y colleges becam more trulycomprehimsive in tern of the concept of a conq3rehWive tw-year collegethesethings were all quite favorably received by the existing cornunitycolleges, by the various boards of the higher education system, the Univeristyof Illinois, Southern Illinois University, State Teachers Collegebard which was in existence at that time, by such statewide agencies asthe Illinois Agricultural Association, the Chamber of Comrce, the Leagueof Women Voters, etcetera. Organizations of this type in general becamefavorable. The editorial comnt in the newspapers across the State wasgenerally favorable to the plan. The issues were, of course, in ~sgect tospecific topics.Q. Would it be a fair statement to say, Gem, that the objectives andthe goals and the spirit of the law weye accepted, but the chief dffferencesensued when they got into questions of "How are we going to do this," and"Who is going to do this?"A. Yes, and with particular points. For example, the Master Plan had pr*posed that districts must contain a population of at least 30,000 or havean assessed valuation of 75 rilllion to be fomd. The reaction to that wasdiverse. There was one school of thought that those standards were toolow, that the population base should be higher and that the tax base shouldbe higher. Now that came, of course, generally &om the more populousareas and the wealthier areas of the State. By constrast, in southernIllinois the objection was that those standards were too high because ofthe sparsity of population and the standard ought not to be so rigid. Sothat was a point of discussion throughout the public hearings, particularlyin the winter and sping of 1964,Q. Would it distract you, Gerry, if I raised specific questions as wego along?A. No.Q. The negative reaction of the most populous areas-was that directedat the probability or at the certainty that they, because of the wealthwhere there was a concentration of population, would be called upon topay a large part of the cost?A. It was from a different point of view. !The general feeling in theearly 1960's was that Illinois had suffered too long from too many sraallschool districts. We had come up into the 1940's with 12,000 school
- Page 1 and 2: University of Illinois at Springfie
- Page 3 and 4: Gerald W. Smith 201A. I would like
- Page 5 and 6: Gerald W. Mth 20 3One of the outcom
- Page 7 and 8: Gerald W. Smith 20514-Ipeople who h
- Page 9 and 10: Gerald W. Wth 207Master Plan and th
- Page 11: Gerald W.Smithof them have retired.
- Page 15 and 16: Gerald W. Sr~Lth 2131As a counte~pr
- Page 17 and 18: Gerald W. Smith215IWge tuition at o
- Page 19 and 20: Gerald W.SmithA. And m n I'll speak
- Page 21 and 22: Gerald W. Smith 219to continue with
- Page 23 and 24: Gerald W. Smith 221A. The principal
- Page 25 and 26: Gerald W.SmithQ. And who was it tha
- Page 27 and 28: Gerald W. SMth 225who was skilled o
- Page 29 and 30: Gerald W. Smith 227A. Generally spe
- Page 31 and 32: Gerald W. mth 2 29climate fop it. B
- Page 33 and 34: Gerald W. Smith 2 31discuss this as
- Page 35 and 36: Gerald W. Smith 2 3Education; I'm t
- Page 37 and 38: Gerald W.Smlth23Fjbut we would say
- Page 39 and 40: Gerald W. Smith 237point out that i
- Page 41 and 42: For example, when they met on the a
- Page 43 and 44: Gerald W. Smith 241Hawk Cammity Col
- Page 45 and 46: Gerald W. Smith 243was there wlth a
- Page 47 and 48: Gerald W. Smith 245The following is
- Page 49 and 50: 1people who were working wfth me a
- Page 51 and 52: Gerald W. Smith 249I was looking in
- Page 53 and 54: Gerald W. Smith 251.developnents ea
- Page 55 and 56: Gerald W. Smith 253Secretm for the
- Page 57 and 58: Gerald W. Smith 255He and I then wo
- Page 59 and 60: Gerald W. Smith 257One of the peopl
- Page 61 and 62: Gerald W.Smith259we always indicate
- Page 63 and 64:
Gerald W. Smith26rCentralia, 1940;M
- Page 65 and 66:
Gerald W.SmithJdor College Act ax i
- Page 67 and 68:
Gerald W. Smith 265districts, also
- Page 69 and 70:
Gerald W. Smith 267A. Yes, I think
- Page 71 and 72:
Q. That's an unbelievable record.A.
- Page 73 and 74:
So this is the story of Danville. I
- Page 75 and 76:
Gerald W. Smith 2 73Of course, you
- Page 77 and 78:
At the far south, a junlor college
- Page 79 and 80:
Gerald W. Smith 2 77FIe ad, In fact
- Page 81 and 82:
me, but he was not happy about it t
- Page 83 and 84:
Gerald W. Smith 281Q. Let me ask ya
- Page 85 and 86:
not understanding the le@slative pr
- Page 87 and 88:
Gerald W. Mth 2 85I tbhk it 2s inte
- Page 89 and 90:
Gerald W. Smith 287Board received a
- Page 91 and 92:
Gerald W. Smith 2 89land they were
- Page 93 and 94:
Gerald W. Smith 291Q. Now there was
- Page 95 and 96:
Q. Was there sane particular reason
- Page 97 and 98:
At any rate, it was a year before t
- Page 99 and 100:
A. Yes. He was the prbe mver and le
- Page 101 and 102:
Gerald W. Smith 9opportunity to org
- Page 103 and 104:
Gerald W. Wth 30 1of Cook County is
- Page 105 and 106:
A. ... even though the statutes pre
- Page 107 and 108:
Gerald W. Wth 30 5who actually, as
- Page 109 and 110:
Gerald W. Smith 30 7Their feasibili
- Page 111 and 112:
Gerald W.Wth309There were two quota
- Page 113 and 114:
Gerald W, Smith. -The referendum fo
- Page 115 and 116:
Gerald W. Smith 31 3In the Galesbur
- Page 117 and 118:
Gerald W.Smith315Q. This is perhaps
- Page 119 and 120:
Gerald W. Smith 317proposal - just
- Page 121 and 122:
Gerald W. Smith 319I would poht out
- Page 123 and 124:
Gerald W.Smith321$0 they were to go
- Page 125 and 126:
They enunciated a pollcy that was n
- Page 127 and 128:
Gerald FI, Wth325A. I have never se
- Page 129 and 130:
Gerald W. Wth 32 7A. Yes, the count
- Page 131 and 132:
Gemld W. Smith 329A. Well, yes, I a
- Page 133 and 134:
Q. This is a continuation of the in
- Page 135 and 136:
Gerald W. Smith 333were workin@; to
- Page 137 and 138:
Gerald W. Smith 335perhaps to take
- Page 139 and 140:
Gerald W. Smith 337'Rut north in Un
- Page 141 and 142:
Gerald W. Smith 339A. Speaking now
- Page 143 and 144:
Gerald W. Smith 341A. Well they are
- Page 145 and 146:
Gerald W. Smith 343opportunity to d
- Page 147 and 148:
Gerald W. Smith 341This district wa
- Page 149 and 150:
Gerald W. Smith 34 7When Cahokia pe
- Page 151 and 152:
Gerald W. Smith 349Q. This is tape