Viewing page 460 of 520

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

that the number of regular Trust Fund employees had been limited to 36. 

Mr. Bow also inquired about the number of employees under Public Funds, and was told that if the National Zoological Park employees and those of the National Gallery of Art were excluded, the number of permanent positions under the "Salaries and Expenses" appropriation in 1965 is 1,582. The Secretary explained that the National Zoological Park operating appropriation was not included in the Federal Budget of the Institution because its operating expenses are paid by the District of Columbia. The Secretary recalled that when the Regents allowed a request to be made for capital improvement appropriations for the National Zoological Park it was with the understanding that operating funds would come from the District of Columbia. The National Gallery of Art's employees are carried under a separate appropriation for the Gallery's operation. 

On motion by Dr. Greenewalt, seconded by Mr. Cannon, and carried it was 

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves the budget of the nonpublic funds for the fiscal year 1965 as recommended by the Executive Committee. 

RESOLUTION ON INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 

On motion by Dr. Fleming, seconded by Dr. Greenewalt, and carried it was 

VOTED that the Board of Regents appropriates for the service of the Institution, to be expended by the Secretary, with the advice of the Executive Committee, with full discretion on the part of the Secretary as to items, the income of the Institution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965. 

VACANCY IN OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT

The Secretary reviewed the precedent established when a vacancy had occurred in the office of Vice President, stating it had been the custom to invite the President pro Tempore of the Senate to attend the meetings of the Regents. In reply to a question by Dr. Fleming, the Secretary advised that this was simply a courteous custom. 

A discussion followed on the question of whether the invitation should be extended to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in view of the law of succession. It was