with McChesney's proposals. Unbeknown to the president, significant opposition to his leadership had developed. It first surfaced in the form of a letter dated February 5, 1930, from Rev. R.W. Ustick, D.O., to Board Secretary S.c. Wright, who read the letter to the trustees. This letter revealed that a group of alumni had met in Xenia on December 26, 1929. They had selected Attorney J.A. Finney, Rev. Gavin Reilly, and Dr. Ustick as a committee to make certain recommendations to the college Board of Trustees. It became obvious the alumni were unhappy with the administration. Their key recommendation said: Moved that the Board of Trustees of Cedar– ville College be asked to consider the drafting of a constructive policy for Cedarville College and report the same to the alumni. If such poli– cy meet with the approval of the alumni, ade– quate financial support for its execution will be sought among the members of that body.9 Action on Ustick's letter was delayed while the trustees approved McChesney's fundraising campaign, but Board Secretary S.c. Wright, to whom the letter had been drafted, introduced the subject again. After heated discussion Wright moved that a three-man committee "be appointed to cooperate with the Alumni Committee and prepare a constructive program for the college and report this to the board." The motion was carried. 1o Moments later, an enraged Professor Jurkat indignantly resigned as treasurer of the college. The anti– administration attitude of the alumni group, and the obvious sympathy it received from a faction on the Board left McChesney and Jurkat stunned. Rather than accept Jurkat's resignation, the Board merely referred it to the newly formed committee on reorganization. Immediately after tabling Jurkat's resignation, the Board authorized their distraught treasurer to borrow from the Endowment Fund in order to meet current expenses. This marked the first time in the history of the college that the Endowment Fund was invaded. Unfortunately, it would not be the last. The final action of the Board that day was the appointment of the individuals to compose the special committee to cooperate with the alumni in the development of a reorganization plan. Board Vice President M,J. Marsh, who was presiding, appointed William R. Collins, who had seconded Wright's motion, along with Wright and W.P. Harriman. Despite the unrest caused by the events of the winter Board meeting, McChesney carried 72/Chapter IX on his executive responsibilities. He called a special meeting of the Board to deal with a series of eight recommendations he had made in a special report. As the men gather~d in the Exchange Bank for the meeting, it became apparent that the Board's special committee on reorganization also had prepared a special report. After a tension-filled discussion, the Board determined to hear their president first. McChesney's report began with a recommendation that tuition be raised from $50 to $75 a semester. This significant increase indicated the financial pressure under which the college was operating. McChesney further urged an intensive campaign on the part of the Board and alumni to find new students. This key recommendation was that Cedarville College be returned by the Board of Trustees to the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Synod, if the Synod would guarantee financial support. McChesney believed that a Christian college needed a church constituency. Instead of acting on their president's recommendations, the Board chose to hear the report of their special committee. Committee Chairman William Collins presented six specific recommendations which reveal the level of dissatisfaction that existed among the alumni and the special committee members. The first recommendation was expected, but the second filled the air with electric-like tension: First - the college remain at Cedarville. Sec– ond - that Dr. McChesney be transferred to the position of president emeritus of the college and retained as a teacher at not less than his present salary. Third - that no member of the faculty or executive officer of the college be a member of the Board of Trustees. Fourth - that a trust company be made treasurer of the col– lege. Fifth - that a constructive financial pro– gram be inaugurated and that an executive be secured with that end in view. Sixth - that the Board of Trustees be called in special session immediately to act upon these recommenda– tions and transact any other business that may come before and that an urgent'appeal be made to the alumni to support the board's program. ll The essence of these recommendations was obvious. The committee wanted McChesney fired as president, they wanted Jurkat ousted as treasurer, and they wanted both McChesney and Jurkat removed from the Trustees Board. The committee clearly blamed McChesney for the financial problems the school was experiencing. Along with the dissident alumni, they wanted an executive who could develop "a constructive financial program"; the obvious implication being that McChesney had failed to do so.