The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-16
A CONFLICT IN THE BOARD.
A Protracted and Stormy Session of the
Board of School Commissioners.
The Difference Between Treasurer Frenzel
and the Finance Committee Becomes the
Subject Of Heated Controversy.

fire at the regular meeting of the usually staid
and serene Board of School Commissioners, last
evening, and for time things were scorching hot.
The session began as mildly as it ever did in the
July evenings, when the proceedings commenced
and ended with the finance committees report
of expenditures but the proceedings grew more
and more animated until the sulfurious outburst
finally came with full force All the members
of the board were present except Commissioner
Stratford, and fun, doubtless, was expected
In the opening proceedings Mr.. Greenstreet
offered resolution requesting the county
treasurer to deduct from the money to be
turned over to him on the 25th inst. the amount
of two notes each for $4,000, payable to the
treasurer on Feb. l. He explained that the at
tofney of the board had recommended this meth
cd of settlement as the best Mr. Frenzel said
that such proceeding would be contrary to the
rules and very improper. He moved, as sub
stitute, that two warrants should be drawn on
the treasurer Of the board for the amount of
the two notes to pay the obligation to the coun-
ty treasurer The substitute was accepted by
Mr.. Greenstreet, who thought himself that this
would be the proper thing to do, but he
was simply following the advice of the boards
attorney in offering the resolution which he had
Submitted
President Merritt innocently suggested that
he thought it would be proper for the commit
tee OF the whole to present a report OF its pro-
ceedings at the meeting held on Monday night.
The suggestion brought Mr.. Bingham to his
feet at once. He said that no such meeting was
authorized and therefore no report of
its proceedings necessary. A spirit
ed discussion followed. DR.. Carey
thought it best that the matters discussed in the
meeting of the committee of the whole should
not be brought up, and he favored establishing
at this time, as precedent, that such meetings
are without any authority In these views Mr..
Frenzel and Mr.. Conner concurred. President
Merritt thought that the censure of the finance
of the wholes action, and on this proposition
various questions of parliamentary law were
raised. Mr.. Bingham said that it was
not intended that anything should be
suppressed, but he thought it improper to bring
anything before the board IN the manner pro-
posed, because meetings of the committee of the
whole are unauthorized by the rules, and no
record of such proceedings is kept. He called
for ruling of the chair upon the question of
whether or not he thought it in order to cali for
such report The president ruled that it was.
Mr. Frenzel appealed from the decision. Mr..
Conner thought that the responsibility for the
meetisg Of the committee of the whole should
not be thrown entirely upon the president
when all the members of, the board partici-
pated IN it. If it was wrong to hold such
a meeting he thought that all should assume a
share of the blame. and, therefore, he moved
that the appeal be laid the table. This mo-
ton was lost by q tie votes to B.
the commissioners voting in the afirma-
Conner, Greenstreet and Vonnegut Those
voting in the negative were Messrs. Bling
ham, Frenzel, Kuhn, Merritt and Thompson.
On the question of sustaining the action of the
Il. 80 -,o1o< 30 h. &c h.
mittee of the whole the vote stood five to two
in the negative. The commissioners voting
aye were Messrs Bamberger and Vonnegut.
At their own request, Messrs Conner and
action is interpreted emphatic disapproval
of the star chamber" sessions which the
board has been holding against the protest
of newspapers and those who are opposed to pub
lie business being transacted privately.
Mr.. Greenstreet chairman of the finance COM
mittee, presented written statement of the
manner in which the committee had proceeded
in negotiating the loans it had been authorized
to secure, the explanation of the transactions be-
ing offered as answer to the criticisms made
BY Treasurer Frenzel. The statement
set forth the fact that Sept.
10. 1885, the finance committee, acting under
authority of resolution of the board, directing
1t to negotiate the loan of money needed for the
next year, arranged with II. w. Miller, the
treasurer of Marion county, to secure a loan of
sac, 600, to be paid Feb /, 1885, and 800 600, in
six separate loans, to be paid June 80 1886. A
loan of $4,000, payable in Boston Jan. I, 1886,
was also obtained from S. A. Fletcher The rate
of interest on these loans is per cent "The
arrangement was SUCH the statement ex-
planned, that at maturity of the note due S A.
Fletcher 81 Co., Mr. Miller would take il up and
carry it for us until Feb /. for which he
was to have the boards note payable to himself.
This agreement was complied with, except the
note was made payable June 30, 1885, instead of
Feb. ], 1886. The committee has proceeded un-
der the advice and direction of the boards at
torney as to the law, and the officers of the
board as to the course of procedure heretofore In
use, and have endeavored, with this advice and
our own sense of right, to faithfully perform
the duties devolving upon u.s. The $50, 600 note,
which has been declared illegal, was accom-
panied by the written opinion Of the boards at
year IN precisely the same man
ner as the committee did last
year. The money was obtained last year in the
same manner as this The notes were executed
and used with no authority of the board, other
than this resolution, and new notes were execu-
ted from time to time, while other notes were
outstanding and unpaid. Finance committees
have proceeded in this manner for the past three
years. during which period our treasurer and
president were both members of the finance
committee of this board. As the du-
ties of the office of treasurer requires much work.
without pay, other than the use of the money
the finance committee resolved at the outset TO
favor our treasurer In making loans, as far as
consisten. with the interest of the board. and
with this view of the matter we in each and
every instance submitted the loans to him for
his acceptance. First the $4,000 wanted to
carry Us over until definite arrangement for
money corld be made This was declined, and
we got the money from s. A. Fletcher & Co.
Then We offered him the loan for the entire year,
which he offered to take later at z
per cent. to which we could not
agree. Then again we offered him the
S. A. Fletcher & Co. took it. This he declined
also. We found the treasury empty
before the schools opened for the year. and the
changes of the law. placing the city funds in the
hands OF the county treasurer, caused some
doubt "a to when our money would be paid to u.s.
and, unfortunately, just at this time the Indiana
trustee swindies were published to the world.
which had the effect to diseredt all school
bonds. We were al this time notified By loan
4 4 - - -aas - a