The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-20

|
March was dated at the university, May
z, reached board of control office May 81;
approved May 80, and went to the audi
;or's office; paid June 2.
Pay roll for the month of April
lated at university May 26; approved by
board of control May 80, and forwarded to
auditors office; paid June 2
Pay roll for the month of May dated at
June 10; approved by the board
If control June 80, and forfarWed to audit
or's office; paid July "A.
Pay roll for the month Of June dated at
July q; reached board of con.
troll office, July 90; approved by board of
control July 80, and: forwarded to auditors
office; paid July 80.
We believe the most merciless critic will
admit that there was no delay in this
office as to March and April salaries; as
to the delay in the payment Of May and
June salaries, we offer. the following, and
as we'll for a reply to the further state /
ment that "it was supposed that during
the summer the board of control had made
to pay salaries, etc. which
is unobjectionable were it not for the in
ference that it had made no effort to do
so.
&<.'..... 49,, A Makeshift. !
On or about May %, the governor, Judge
Clark of the board of regents, State Audi
tor Iverson. and Mr.. LeaVill of the board
of control held conference at the office
Of the governor for the purpose of pro-
viding. .aifss possible, a. way whereby the
salaries long Since due at the university.
could be paid. The conference resulted IN
u unanimous agreement that, in view OF
the fact that the taxes had been levied and
collected, and were then in the hands Of
the county treasurers, or in process OF
transmission thru the state auditors Of
hce the state treasurer should be asked
to pay warrants for salaries at the uni"
versity from other moneys in his hands,
reimbursement to be made from the pro-
ceeds of the June settlement. This plan
was carried out, and the salaries of March
and April aggregating $5S, 403.O9 were paid.
The state treasurer then determined that
under chapter 80, laws Of 1899, such pay
ments were Illegal and could no longer be
continued. :. For this reason, the salaries
for May and June were not paid until July.
Whether the }"board of control was equal
to such business problem" may be de-
tsgm'nSa od Py thsss Nhe pre- passing 'udg
aI In this connection it, should be stated
that no member of 1.-The above conference
believes that such payments could possibly
he, justified or repeated except, to meet
some urgent contingency They believe
the case in point was within such bounds.
The recipients of the salaries, as you say:
were ''for the most part poor men who
were in need Of. the money" The state
had a million and q half dollars In the
treasury. and could much better afford to
pay these claims than compel worthy en-
ployes toSwait longer for their money when
Fit was so soon to be reimbursed from funds
already collected. - ~. -. 1922"
l.. Cannot Borrow Money.
I Again we quote: .'"The professors were
| not formerly compelled to wait for their
salaries until an amount sufficient to meet
them was actually in the treasury. - The
board of control has no authority to Dor
row money on account of the state OF
Minnesota, and it would be manifestly i'm
proper for it to a tempt to do so; its mem
bers are not blessed with a sufficient
amount of this worlds goods to enable
them to- advance the money from THEN
private means necessary to pay the eX-
penses of the university, hence it fails te
see how it can pay salaries before the
money is actually in the. trea sury, espe-
cially as it has been already determined
as hereinbefore stated, that warrants viii
not be paid until funds for that specific
purpose are in the treasury. "A, 49," . 49,.
| Still further quoting from T h e o u r.
nal: cit was supposed that during the
summer the board of control had made ar
rarigements to pay salaries promptly, bu
it failed again on the first month Of thi:
college year. Salaries were promised las
Friday, but were not forthcoming; ther
! they" were promised for Tuesday; again
they were delayed, and now the promise
1 is that they will be paid next Friday
/ This is scarcely good business manage
ment.'' It is presumed that you refer t
the salaries for September. The pay rol
for September salaries was approved b.
the board of regents on Friday, Oct.
It reached this office late Saturday after
noon Of Oct. 10. 1t was checked up an
approved in this office on Monday, Oct
II, and forwarded to the state auditor
irer he
and paid on October IA. Surely, Mr.. Edi
tor such brief, necessary delay cannot b
fairly criticized. s--
AS above 1uoted Salaries were prom
Used last Friday. but were not forth
coming; then they were promised TO
y Tuesday, and again they We're delayed
and now the promise is that they will b
paid next Friday We think, Mr.. Ed;
tor, that such promises when made b.
!, an employee OF the. state, knowing the
cannot be redeemed, are reprehensibl
and cannot be too severely criticized
They were not however made by tn
} board of controls nor any of its employs
| or representatives, but by an employe a
, the university for whose retention in offic
the board of control is not responsible
) When demonstrated with by the purchas
| ing agent Of the board of control for max
ing such promises when he knew the
could not be fulfilled, such employe re
t piled: ...Oh, We must let them (referrln
to professors) down easy
;, Matter Of Supplies.
, Yet again referring to the supplies pu:
chased by the board of control for use
/ the university, the editorial in questio
3 says: Moreover, the quality has in so1l
: instances been abominable. = KNOWN
e that you based this statement upon If
e formation given you by a member Of II
l faculty at the university, we unhesita
t ingly pronounce the Information so give
wholly false and without foundation, ar
challenge your informant for proofs
substantiation of his statements to yo
Occasionally supplies will be sent to- a
+ institutions not UP to specifications b'
n so far we have never failed to cause tt
e return Of defective goods to shippers al
RI require them to ship as per contra
e specifications. This course has been 70
a lowed with the university people in ever
o case where complaint has been made as
quality, and found ito be valid.
The board of control is willing to tai
. itsgsfull share OF blame for delay in tt
: purchase of supplies, but a. careful, III
3 prejudiced investigation sof facts will il