Laserfiche WebLink
<br />47 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />and I haven't. <br /> <br />On the other hand, I really haven't spoken out <br /> <br />against it and it's just kind of been floating around the <br /> <br />halls for two months now going nowhere. <br /> <br />The Conference Committee feels very strongly about <br /> <br />it. They would like to put it in. They tentatively <br /> <br />adopted it yesterday on a unanimous vote and they would <br /> <br />look to the Board now for our favor or disfavor, as the <br /> <br />case may be. <br /> <br />My attitude in general would be that these kinds of <br /> <br />monies ought to be taken out for research before an <br /> <br />appropriation is ever made to the construction fund. That <br /> <br />would be a much tidier way to make that physical decision. <br /> <br />That was not the way it was done this year, however, <br /> <br />so we can either formally express our approval or <br /> <br />disapproval or bow out as the case may be. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Will they be back next year for <br /> <br />$200,000 again? <br />MR. McDONALD: I thirikprobably they will be back, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />but I've made my position very clear to Norm Evans and <br /> <br />that is that we -- I wouldn't support it. I would <br /> <br />recommend that they get that money before it ever comes <br /> <br />into the construction fund. Just a cleaner way to do it. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: Unless perhaps a provision can be made <br /> <br />on an annual basis for what is really applied research. <br />