Trustees to vote on two resolutions concerning Chief Illiniwek
Calls for board ratification of Feb. 16 decision for retirement, legal challenge against NCAA sanctions
By Se Young Lee
Posted: 3/12/07 Section: News
| |
| |
The board's agenda for Tuesday's meeting includes
two resolutions concerning Chief Illiniwek, added Friday: one that would ratify the Feb. 16 decision and another calling "
Resolution calling for the board's ratification of the Feb. 16 decision also calls for a "immediate conclusion" of any use of the Chief or related Native American imagery by the University and its athletics program. It also asks the Urbana-Champaign campus administrators to "manage final disposition of these matters" to remain in compliance with the NCAA policy on "hostile and abusive" mascots, nicknames and imagery.
The second resolution calls for the board to join Chief portrayers Dan Maloney and Logan Ponce in the suit asking the courts whether NCAA's sanctions levied against the University for the Chief Illiniwek symbol "are legal, valid or enforceable."
The resolutions come after several weeks of controversy following the Feb. 16 decision. Although Chief Illiniwek performed what was likely his final dance Feb. 21, during the final men's basketball home game, the legitimacy of the action has been under question.
Trustee David Dorris said on Feb. 26 that the Feb. 16 announcement did not constitute an "official action" because a full board vote is required to overturn the 1990 decision by the board to retain the "Chief Illiniwek tradition." University spokesman Tom Hardy disputed Dorris' claim, stating that the June 2004 resolution by the board to reach a "consensus resolution" on the Chief constituted a board action.
Dorris also objected to the fact that the Feb. 16 decision seemed to imply that there was a unanimous agreement among the trustees to retire the Chief; he said he would have voted against any resolution to end the Chief tradition.
State Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, has called for an investigation of possible violations of the Illinois Open Meetings Act in the decisionmaking process leading up to the Feb. 16 decision. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office confirmed that they have received a letter from Brady asking for an investigation on March 2 and are in the process of reviewing it.
The attorney general's office declined to say whether any action would be taken.
2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
Technograph
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 7
JERRY ZELDES, CPA
posted 3/12/07 @ 1:58 PM CST
It is time the Board shows some "gumption" and tell the NCAA to mind their own business. Someone should also tell the board that Illinois is an Indian name and the chief is as much a part of the university as corn is to Illinois. (Continued…)
David Velarde Jr.
posted 3/12/07 @ 2:53 PM CST
Here's one full-blooded Native American or American Indian that is totally against the Chief, the person dancing looks totally stupid and if you knew about real Indian dances, you would be embarassed by the dance at half-time. (Continued…)
David '90
posted 3/12/07 @ 6:15 PM CST
I find it strange that the Board of Trustees has two resolutions in front of it, one to affirm the executive decision, the other to go to court. Obviously, they can not pass both, as a decision to affirm the February decree would make the lawsuit moot. (Continued…)
Genevieve Tenoso
posted 3/09/08 @ 8:23 AM CST
This is just silliness, grown people who cannot seem to move on. Why would they even consider spending more money defending this in a lawsuit? It's been a year and the campus seems to have moved on, even if the BOT hasn't. (Continued…)
Post a Comment