Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1881-12-20
MIR. Washburn's Salary as Treasurer Of
the Board of Education

BY reason of the published proceedings of
the board of mayor and alderman, the
charge has been publicly made that as
treasurer of the board of education, Mr.
"ashburn has been receiving a salary to
which he is not legally entitled. Is this
true? Ifso, let the public know it through
the same medium by which the original
charge was made in the newspapers. L am
unprepared to show the facts.
The board of education was created by
ordinance in December 1873. All pay
ments to teachers; employees, &c, under
that ordinance, were to be paid by the city
recorder The board of education
handled no money at all,
and for that reason it is
supposed, it was provided by section 10 of
the ordinances of 1873, that no member of
the board should receive any salary. By
the ordinance of 1875 the ordinance of 1873
was repealed and new one enacted By this
ordinance the treasurer of the board is on
Grated with the custody and responsibility
of school funds, and is required to keep
set of books showing receipts and disburse-
ments, and to give a bond in double the
amount of any monies that may be received
| by him. There is no provision that he or
| any other members of the board shall re-
ceive no salary. The ordinance ia absolutely
| silent on this subject, as l suppose also the
charter of the city is on the payment of a
salary to aldermen, for their valuable SER
vices.
1t may be replied that there is, however
a city ordinance (passed by the present
board) providing that the aldermen shall
receive certain salary per annum. This is
true and SO is it equally true that there has
been resolution each year of the board of
education that the treasurer should be paid
salary. The first salary ever voted 1877)
was when Mr. James Comfort was treasurer,
and he having served the half of year, re-
ceived one half of years salary. Since
that time Mr. WsshbHn has been treasurer.
This salary for his services as treasurer has
been voted to him five times, and SO far as
the present members of the board are con-
cerned, MIR. Rayl has been present on
every occasion; Mr.. Sanford on -four
occasions; Mr.. Thomas L. Moses
on three occasions, and Mr. McCroskey or
one occasion. So we have it, that every
single member of the board of education,
as at present constituted, has been present
and has voted to allow Mr. Washburn this
salary of 500 year.
If, in the Judgment of our wise, august
and scrupulous board of aldermen, MIR
Washburn should and must be punished fol
receiving salary in violation of law ther
how it is possible for this same body o.
men, so conscientious of money matters, to
avoid demanding the designations of the
whole board of education or from discharg
ing them, it is difficult to see. They have
all voted for it.
Section IA of the ordinance of 1875 is Of
follows:
Amy member of the board of education
for fne:rcusabie mts6easance in office, may bs
discharged = by a two-thirds vote o.
the city council"
Under the facts, as they exist, the charge
made is malicious, unwarraated and untrue
and the source of the accusation makes it al
the more cheeky. That men a0ho cote them
seloes a salary with no more color of au
thority (and less merit than the board OF
education has TO vote its members salary
should suddenly become so virtuous IS that
their eyes shink from beholding the
alledged violation of trust that the board Of
education has been guilty of inpayine
a salary of 800 yea
to its treasurer and book-keeper, is alarm
ing. The real use made of the charge made
against MIR. Washburn has served its pur
pose, but it is we'll enough for the truth t.
be known, in order that these two too virtu
GUS aldermen may inherit the happiness
that is virtues own reward.