(See also: Section 80.010 F.4) Bd. Min. 12-13-57, p. 12,081; Amended 7-28-20.
WHEREAS, question has been raised as to whether the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act (Sections 290.210-290.310, V.A.M.S. 1965) applies to the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ, and
WHEREAS, the General Counsel of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ has rendered to the Board an opinion that under a proper construction of said law The Curators of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ is not covered by said law and that, second, if it be held that the law is applicable to The Curators of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ, it is an unlawful invasion of the constitutional rights of the Curators, and
WHEREAS, the Board has heretofore employed Messrs. Richmond C. Coburn and Kenneth Teasdale to render their opinions upon the applicability of said law to The Curators of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ, and
WHEREAS, the opinion of both of said counsel is that under proper construction of said law it should not be held applicable to The Curators of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ and that if it is held applicable to the Curators, it constitutes an invasion of the constitutional rights vested in the Board of Curators of the 91Ï㽶¶ÌÊÓƵ, and
WHEREAS, in view of said opinions it is believed by this Board that it is not subject to the provisions of said law and that it is not in the best interest of the University for it to comply with said law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the policy of the Board of Curators relating to University construction be continued and that it not be modified to meet the provisions of the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act.
