The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-12-31
is IT A SALARY GRAB?
Five Thousand Dollars for Back Pay
to the School Board.
All But Three Of the Members Received
Pay for Services Rendered When no
Salary Was Authorized by Law.

What is characterized in many quarters
as plain, unmitigated salary grab has
been developed at the two last sessions of
the board of education. Every member
of the board, with three exceptions, has
presented claims, which have been al
lowed, for services rendered during the
they have been in Office. Those
three exceptions are Messrs. Young, Bald
win and Dcke. Mr.. Duke, however, has
voted in favcss of allowing these claims,
and has given the programme his full en-
dorsement.
Not only have the present members
drawn back pay in full, but ex-members
of the board, whose terms expired year
ago, have presented claims which, in
some Instances, have been allowed. AL
together the back salaries aggregate about
So. 900.
No one begrudges the members of the
board the meager compensation now al
| lowed them by the board, but the law
under which the board was organized
and under which it operated prior to the
10th of last March provided for no COM
pensation whatever, and all the members
accepted Office and discharged the labors
! incident thereto with the full knowledge
and understanding that there were no
salaries attached to the positions.
Following is the enactment OF the last
! legislature, passed on the 10th OF last
March; section 104, page 1875, of the ter
ritorial laws:
The board of education may provide for the
compensation of its members. on duly verified
vouchers, under such regulations US 1t may
adopt, not TO exceed - each for each SESSION
OF the board actually attended, and 81 per day
| for each days services actually aud neceS-
] rf n~A
! 1t will be seen that there is nothing
whatever in this law to indicate an inten-
! ton to pay members OF the board for SER
vices rendered prior to the passage Of the
act. No law of this character is retro
active that does not contain a specific
provision to that effect. The members of
! the board simply take S.. 600 of the public
funds as compensation for. services they
have previously donated to the public,
and without the shadow of authority in
| law.
s'There is not the least excuse for any
such action,' said the attorney yester-
day The law is too plain to admit any
such construction. There is no reason
/ why they should take back pay because
the legislature decided that they should
draw pay in the future.'
The back salary members may cite the
! fact that School Commissioner Foreman
/ Olldb luS IlSulDcI5 VI lllC GSQCI
board were entitled to salaries. although
they were not authorized by law. Some
of the members also solicited and were
given an opinion by Judge Hardness,
although Williams & VanCott are the
boards attorneys. Judge Hardness was
of the opinion that they were entitled to
the back salaries, his view being based
partly upon the ground that their ser
vices were worth as much prior to the
passage of the act as they are now.
After everything has been taken into
consideration the fact still remains that
the members of the school board have
drawn $1,000 for back salaries not author
lied by law, and have made it possible foi
the public to charge them with having
acted in bad faith when they voluntarily
contributed their services-and this is
what the public is doing.
Had the school board been in existence
ten years prior to the passage OF the salary
act, instead of two and nslf, and hac
each member drawn the full amount OF
his back salary, it would have made {
good-sized hole in the school fund.