The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-11-10
DOUBLE SALARIES
Work EARNED Out in a
Municipal Office.
THE ANNUAL TAXROLLS.
Two Clerks Paid $3.50 Each for
the Job.
FREDERICK AND BEANSTON.
One Meas ure for the Educational De-
partment and Another for the
Auditors Office.


Considerable comment is made in City
Hall circles upon the action of Auditor
Frederick in passing favoraply upon claims
for services rendered by employees of his
office outside of their regular duties. Three
cases are specified in which the Auditor
has done this, and the records show that
the warrants were paid as stated.
The work for which this additional CON-
pensation was allowed was in connection
with the making out of the annual tax rolls
In August and September of each year
the Auditor is required to make out re-
port of the State, county and city taxes,
which the State Board of Equalization
sometimes changes, thus making a good
deal of additional work in the Recorders
Office aud a consequent corresponding in
crease in expense. This year, however.
the Board of Equalization made no changes.
During these months an extra force of
men is employed to do the increased work.
This year this plan was not adhered to as
vigorously as in times past, it is said.
However that may be when the work of
copying tn index came on William NJ. Ed
gar and S. w. Thomas, both at that time
employees of the office, secured the work
dUu tdCu WAS pa III lucitIOlo G1OO.
Mr.. Thomas is the Auditors chief dep
uty and receives for his services $3.50 a
month. MIR. Edgar was presumably paid
$50 month for his services as regular
clerk.
In addition to these two ins tances Eugene
c. BrOderck, son of the Auditor, Is
shown by the records to have received
S115 as compensation for copying, ETC..
volume II. real estate roll" Mr.. Broder-
IN n in
1t is asserted by men who should know
something about the matter that the gen.
tlemen who are accredited with having
performed the work, in reality did not do
it at all this assertion applying more par
ticularly TO the cases of MessrS. Edgar and
Thomas. While the work was progress
ing, il is said, the usual number OF hang
ers-on about the hall was considerably
augmented by outsiders, who appear only
when big piece of work is TO be done.
The index work, so the story goes. was
done by some of the temporary employees,
and their compensation, il is also said,
was decidedly small.
The explanation offered of the matter In
the Auditors Office Is that the work per-
formed was of an extra nature. was done
after night and between times. and was
therefore legitimate and of a nature that
the clerks could legally undertake.
1t now becomes necessary to recall the
Beanston case. In that instance the Aud
itor absolutely refused to audit an account
for extra services performed by the score
tary OF the Board OF Education, upon the
ground that he was already receiving a
salary from the city and could not legally
be paid another.
The similarity of the cases. Mr.. Broder-
lexis critics say, is apparent, and his in
consistency is thus brought out in strong
light.
Inquiry at the Assessors Office showed
that extra work received no extra compen-
sation in that department, and the same
information was given out in the Treas
urer's Office. This, of course, applied to
instances where deputies or clerks did the
extra work and did not apply to outsiders.
AS to the legal features OF the CASE there
s DO doubt as to the application of the law
in cases of this character On page of
the consolidation act the provision is ex-
pressly made apparent that city officials
shall not be entitled to extra compenSa-
ton for services rendered in addition to
the regular duties of their Office.
Auditor Broderlck, when seen yester-
day and asked for an explanation, said
that he didn't think that there was any,
thing rotten or illegal about the matter"
he added that 1t had been the custom of
his predecessors in the office to give this
work to their deputies and pay them extra
for IL for the past twenty years.
Mr.. Broderick claims that there Is no
similarity between the cases mentioned
ami that of Clerk Beanston of the Board
of Education, whose warrant for extra
compensation he refused TO audit some
time ago. In the latter case. the Auditor
says, ex ra compensation was asked for
work which the law especially stated
should be done by the Incumbent in the
the office.
Mr. Broderick does not claim that his
two deputies did the work of indexing
themselves. lie says they did portion
of it. The question now arises, if the two
deputies each received $3.50 for writing up
the index as prescribed by law, and neii her
of them did the work. but farmed it out,
did they pay their assistants out of their
own pockets, or were sufficient vouchers
drawn to recompense them? If the former
course was the one adopted the actual
workers must have done the labor for a
less sum than is provided by the statutes,
as 1t is not reasonable to suppose that the
deputies would handle the contracts"
unless there twas something in IL" for
them. In the event of the opposite course
being pursued the two deputies were each
paid $3.50 for merely experimenting the
work of indexing
1t is claimed by gentlemen who are
somewhat familiar with the Baanston
case that there is no practical differen ce
between it and the facts mentioned herein.
La the former instance Mr.. Beanston sought
to obtain recompense for clerical work
dOpe for various committees, etc., and
which was performed by him outside of
regular office hours. In the latter case
deputies. according to Mr.. Broderick's
own statement, were paid $3.50 to over
see" work which two men have hitherto
been able to accomplish without overseers.
ACKFPSON,S pETTTJON