The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-04-02
HE HIRED BUNTING'S SON
LEOPOLD MAYER MAKES CHARGES
AGAINST BUILDING INSPECTOR.
Repairs to a Condemned Building
That Cost S3,OOO-Bunting's SON
Was Paid $50

Mayor Taggart is investigating alleged ir-
Irregularities in the office of Building In
spector Bunting, reported by Leopold
Mayer. who complains that the inspector
used his official position TO procure a con-
tract for his son, George W. Bunting. jr.
This is the second time the mayor has had
the unpleasant task of investigating re-
ports that his subordinates were using their
positions to further the interests of their
sons. 1t is but a short time since Ed A.
Austin. of the Board OF Public Works. re-
signed as a result of an investigation of
that sort. Mayor Taggart did not care to
discuss the case until he had time TO in
vestigate it. He said that no charges had
been made. but that there were complaints
of some irregularities.
Mayors story is that the building in
spector m that his building at
PA and 2i6 West Washington street be con-
demned and torn down. because one of the
walls was out of plumb. Bunting suggested.
however, that if the building were repaired
to the satisfaction of the building inspector
ii would not have TO be torn down, Mayer
says. Mayer says that he went to Mr..
Bunting's office to talk the matter over,
when the latter suggested that his son was
an architect and that if he were hired to
make plans and supervise the work of re-
pairing the walls that it would save Mayer
money. Although he had not thought of
employing an architect up to this time.
Mayer said that he concluded he might be
able to save some money by employing the
building inspectors son and agreed to en-
gage him, the young man to receive 10 per
cent. of the contract price for remodeling
the building. This. Mayer says. he repre-
scented would not exceed i LEO. but the
actual expenses were 81. 800 and the building
inspectors son was paid $3.50. This increase
enraged Mr.. Mayer and when additional
walls were ordered torn down he refused
TO employ young Bunting further. This,
Mayer said, caused additional expense 10
be placed on him. He asserts that although
the foundation Of the building was in good
condition it was ordered torn out. but was
a~fterward allowed to remain. Subsequent
ly, he claims. the son of the inspector was
paid $40 on the order of the contractors who
had the foundation work. Mayer COM
plains that he has had TO pay $1,000 for a.
building that was not as good as the old
one.
Building Inspector Bunting admits intro
ducing his son to Mr.. Mayer as a man who
could fix mp the building after refusing
himself 10 do so because II was a violation
of the charter. He knew nothing about the
contract that was made and did not regard
il as any of his business. The building in
spector said that he had in some cases
recommended his son for small work when
he was asked to an architect
as he ala not regard mat as DelnS wrong
Mr.. Bunting says that Mr.. Mayer first re-
paired the front and rear walls. but re-
fused to repair the side wall until he was
informed the street foreman and a force
of men would be sent To tear it down II he
did not do so.
About the city hall IL is said that Mayer
employed the building inspectors son:
hoping to have favors shown that would
not be granted If some one else were en-
ployed, and that when he found the young
man was inclined TO require the work to be
done properly, Mayer got angry and made
the complaint. The junior Bunting was not
at his fathers office when a Journal re-
porter looked for him and his side of the
story was not obtained.