Temple University - Templar Yearbook (Philadelphia, PA)

Page 21 text:

President Gladfelter and Judge Charles Klein, Board of Trustees chairman, look on as the Governor finishes sinning the bill. ton told a group ol college editots that he was determined to wait lor the completed Master Plan before acting on the University's projwsal. The plan was not expected to he finished until the spring of I960. The litst of the State Council’s hearings was held in Pittsburgh in December. Pennsylvania State University President brie Waldci did not directly oppose the University’s proposal but said the real solution to the problems of higher education in a state which ranked 19th in |ki capita expenditures was to expand Penn State. On (an. 2X and 29. 19 f , the heatings moved to Philadelphia. An overwhelming majority of the (53 poisons Irom business, labor, educational and civic organizations who testified were in favor of the University’s plan and urged its quick adoption. City Council passed a resolution to that eflect. Following the hearings, Charles Simpson. State Council chairman, noted the unusual unanimity of feeling. Polls undertaken by the Temple Mews showed the faculty and students also [averred the plan. “The hearings moved to Philadelphia.” Charles Simpson, former chairman of the State Council, was in favor of the Temple plan. 17

Page 20 text:

MN - A Student Council representation reads a statement at the January, 1965 hearings. In February, 1964, ai the cornerstone laying for the Mitten Hall Annex, Dr. Gladfcltcr warned that tuition would l e increased again unless the state raised the amount of its assistance. The first real public word on the University's hopes and aspirations came shortly thereafter. Addressing the University's 80th Anniversary Dinner on March 8, Dr. Gladfeltei said. We ho| e that evolving circumstances will hurry the day bringing to full fruition the partnership between the University and the Commonwealth. But in May. the President had to repeat his sad tale of a year before: tuition would lx1 going up again in September, this time by $80. Behind the scene, officials were preparing a new and radical plan to present to the state. State Sen. Albert R. Pcchan beat them to the punch. In August lie announced that he was going to introduce a bill to convert both the University and Indiana State College into state schools. Sen. Pec ban's pro|x sal came as a pleasant surprise to University officials. Dr. Glad fetter said it was encouraging that a member of the legislature showed such interest in higher education. The University, however, was not relying on the Pcchan plan. On Sept. 25. 1964. it submitted its Pro-| osal lot Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the advisory State Council on Higher Education. The main feature ol the pto] osal was quite simple: the University would agree to lower tuition and enroll more students if the state would take on a greater share of the University’s financial burden. Specifically the plan provided that: Tuition be reduced from $920 for Pennsylvania under-graduates by $100 intervals so it would reach Penn State's $525 by 1970. The state increase its aid from $6.5 million to $8.4 million for 1965-66. By 1970. the state and the University would share costs on a 50-50 basis. The state would finance much of the University’s construction. The University would increase enrollment to 50.000 by 1970. The name of the University would be changed. . The Governor would ap| »ini some members of the Board of Trustees. In October, the State Council announced that it would hold hearings across the state on the general area of higher education and the University’s pro| osal s| ecif-ically. At the same time, the State Board of Higher Education hired a consulting firm to draw up elements for a much needed Master Plan for higher education in the state. It was the Master Plan that threatened for a lime to dash the University’s hopes. In December, Gov. Scran Two members of the State Council on Higher Education confer. 16

Page 22 text:

University of Pennsylvania President llarnwcll gives his views at the hearing. Five State Council members listen attentively. Another speaker at the hearings. In April, ihc Slate Council voted unanimously to recommend to the Governor that the University have closer tics with the state immediately and that tuition be lowered lor the September, 1965 semester. The Governor apparently was listening. On April 26. in his annual educational message to the General Assembly, he asked the legislature to begin immediately to make Temple part of the Commonwealth system ol public education. lie also asked for an additional appropriation which would, he said, enable the University to reduce tuition by $200 in September. University officials, however, didn't come up with the same figure for a lee drop when they applied the appropriation increase to their former request. The next few months were to be the most confusing and uncertain in the University's quest. It seemed as though everyone was jumping into the picture with pro|x sals and appropriation figures — no two ol which agreed. One Representative exen called loi the abandonment ol the University’s plan and the building ol a $75 million University ol Philadelphia. On June I. Gov. Scranton delivered a s| e ial budget message in which he included new appropriation to reduce tuition to $450 ’The Senate got tied lip in a hassle. for the year. But the Senate got tied up in a hassle over reapponionment and the University's bills remained buried. Then the Senate passed the enabling legislation which had to go to the House lor concurrence on Senate amendments. The tuition bill was still bottled up. The University, xvhiclt had planned to give tuition refunds, now said it would give credit toward fees for the folloxving semester. On Oct. 19, students' ho|x s xvere dashed when the Senate Appropriations committee turned down plans foi a retroactive tuition cut. A furthei scare came on Nov. 9 when the Senate passed over” the tuition bill as it was lejxmcd to the lloor. Some Senators objected to provisions which wotdd laise tuition lot out-of-state residents by $200. The next day. however, the Senate reconsidered and passed the bill ISO. On Nov. 16. the House approved both the state-status and tuition bills by a 204-2 vote. The total amount allocated xv.is SI 1.5 million — enough to lower tuition (starting in February, 1966) to $450 yearly (from S920) for Pennsylvania undergraduate, graduate and professional school students. Tuition for out-of-staters was raised from $1120 to $1350 yearly. I he Senate then passed the compromise state-status bill which provided, among other things, for a 36-man 18