| |
| |
Caption: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1928
This is a reduced-resolution page image for fast online browsing.
EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:
748 BOAKD OF TRUSTEES [June 2 9 It appears to m e that, while the employees will, of course, receive material benefits without cost to them, the University on the other hand will receive benefits from the transaction far beyond the cost thereof, and the benefits to the University will be actual and substantial. It appears to m e that you may legally adopt the plan which you have outlined and be within the law, and in passing 1 might state that back of the fact that you will be within the law, the University will be supported by a strong public policy. It further appears to m e that your plan for taking care of the need through salary increase is perhaps the best conceivable plan in the premises, and you will by your said plan place the cost where it belongs in your bookkeeping and accountancy. Very truly yours, Oscar E. Carlstrom Attorney General It would seem that no further action is necessary since your Board has already taken out the necessary insurance. O n motion of M r . Trees, this report w a s received for record. MILK PASTEURIZATION BY THE UNIVERSITY (13) Early in March, 1928, the Department of Public Health made a demand on the University to pay a fee of ten dollars for the 1928 certificate of approval for the Milk Pasteurization Plant, under an act of the General Assembly relating to the pasteurization of milk, approved June 30, 1925. Heretofore the University had paid the fee until the matter was brought to the attention of the Legal Counsel. O n February 14, 1928, the Legal Counsel gave an opinion that the University should not pay this fee, on the ground that the University is not in the "business" of operating a pasteurization plant; that it does so as a necessary incident to the work of the Dairy Department in the College of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Station. O n March 27, 1928, the Attorney General submitted the opinion given below supporting the opinion of the Legal Counsel. Accordingly, I instructed the Comptroller to inform the Department of Public Health that the University, not being under the Act, would not pay the fee. O n M a y 15, 1928, the Department of Public Health asked the Attorney General for an opinion on the legal right of the University to retail pasteurized milk. O n M a y 23, the Attorney General suggested a conference with representatives of his office, of the Department of Health, and of the University, to determine the legal status of the matter. I requested the Legal Counsel to proceed accordingly and he and Professor H. A. Ruehe, Head of the Department of Dairy Husbandry, went to Springfield to take up the matter with the other officials. O n June 6, the Attorney General gave an opinion to the Department of Health, supplementing the opinion given to our Legal Counsel, and referred to above, to the effect that the University is not engaged in the business of operating a pasteurization plant in the sense of the Act concerning pasteurization and is within its rights in selling pasteurized milk as it does in connection with its educational and scientific work. The opinion follows:
| |
