167
In May of the following year I summed up most of my grievances and
wrote a long letter to the State Board of Control. I am furnishing
you a copy. I am particulary proud of my observations concerning
the General College. The objections I offered were precisely
the same ones given for the abolition of the system two or
three years ago, almost thirty years after I had started my position.
Members of the Board of Control
State of Florida
Tallahassee, Florida
Gentlemen:
It has been reported to me that some time ago one of the deans of the University
appeared before the Board of Control and stated that a professor had raised objections
to the employment of the daughter of the former chairman of your board as secretary
in his office. As I was doubtless the professor concerned, and am no longer
connected with the University, I feel free to convey my views on this matter to you
directly. I feel it incumbent upon me to do this, since apparently my views were not
properly presented, and none of the other criticisms of the administration of the
University raised-were brought to your attention. Apparently there was some variation
in the account given to your Board and to a number of us who discussed the matter with
him, as to the responsibility for the appointment, but my objections to such
appointments apply regardless of the responsibility.
Let me emphasize that I made no personal objections to the individual concerned. I
raised no question concerning her efficiency; as far as I know, she was and is a very
efficient secretary. She has given every appearance to me of being a lady, and to
my knowledge she has always conducted herself as such.
As a matter of fact, it was the issue of nepotism, and not the individual appointment,
that was raised. The fact was brought out at that time--the summer of 1945--that
with only one or possibly two exceptions, every chairman of the Board of Control
since 1928 has had an immediate member of his family appointed to a University
position, and other similar appointments had been made during the same period. The
objections to this practice were three-fold. First, it sets a bad example for the
entire institution. If Board members are to have their relatives placed on the
payroll, then it becomes entirely proper for deans, directors, head of departments
and divisions, and others to recommend their relatives and dependents for
appointments. No great institution can be developed with such appointment practices,
and the University of Florida should be a great institution.
The second objection was the favoritism that almost inevitably follows such
appointments and the effect of such favoritism upon the morale of other employees.
I doubt that it was brought to your attention, that, up to that time, the secretary
in question had received by far the highest increase in salary, both in percentage
and in amount, of any clerical-stenographic-administrative assistant employee of