The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-12-04
THB EXAMINERS
HAND In REPORT.
Findings of the Committee Ap'
pointed by the Court.
OvERDRAFTS ARE INCREASED.
In the Committees opinion. tho New
workbouse Building Not Authorized p
BY Law--Csutton as to .-a- Z
CC0ntracts. ..lfsz-s. ...

The committee appointed to examine
the commissioners annual report, filed
it's report, Friday morning, with Au-
ditor Reed and submitted copy to
Judge McCarty.
1t is shown that the overdrafts from
county funds on September 1 was ST.
935.72 an increase of $13,64520 over last
year. This Is accounted for by the ex
penditures arising from the decennial
appraisement, boards of equalization,
for which no provision could be made
by additional levy No such levy, 1t Is
said is authorized by law. The report
follows:
To the Hon. II. r. McCarty, Judge of
the Court of Common Pleas.
Your committee, appointed to ex-
anime the annual report of the COM
mssioners of Stark county for the year
ending September /, 1900, reports as
follows:
The total receipts, expenditures and
the bonded Indebtedness of said county
commissioners, we find, upon examina-
tion to be correct Said report further
shows that the overdraft in the county
fund was, on September /, 1899, $l4,29i.-
i3, and on September 1, 1900, $27,93572.
an increase during the year Of s13,64529.
This increase Is largely accounted for,
however, by the expenditures in pay
ing the decennial boards of equalizl-
tion for the cities of Canton, Masslllon
and Alliance, and the decennial ap-
praisers for Stark county, which
amounted in the aggregate to $l2, 300.
This was an expenditure which could
not have been avoided, and there was
no increase in the levy, nor could there
have been any with which to meet the
same.
In letting of all contracts for bridges.
If plans, draw .ngs, representations,
bills for material and specifications of
work and estimates of the cost there
of in detail and in the aggregate were
made, and all bidders were required to
conform thereto, we believe there
would be a large saving to the county
each year. 1t is true that this might
require extra compensation for techni-
cal services, but If the statute which
suggests these steps, is not a bene-
fetal one, II should be repealed, and
until then. we believe it would be for
the protection of the commissioners and
! Of the Taxpayers as we'll. that it's pro-
visions be complied with as nearly as
possible in every respect.
With these precautions taken, and
first ascertaining If the money is In
fund or in process of collection, and
appropriated for no other purpose, beS
fore the letting of contracts, much of
the trouble that has from time to time
arisen, would be avoided. .r-
There is another matter about which
we desire to speak, and that is, that
aside from the special enactment grant
| ing the county of Stark the power to
| construct workhouse, and creating a
| board of trustees for it's management,
| there has not been given to either the
directors or the commissioners any
power whatever to construct or erect
| any buildings, the only power granted
being that to the directors to operate
| the institution and make such contracts
| in connection with such operation as
| shall be necessary. We call special at
| tention to this because OF the fact that
\ nearly two years ago the contract en-
tered into calling for the construction
Of building, the cost of which, it Is
claimed, was estimated originally at
about $1,000, has exceeded the sum Of
$40, 600.
| Unless the precautions suggested are
taken and the provisions of the statute
followed more closely than In the past.
the time will shortly come when some
body will enjoin the payment of various
claims and expenditures made In
violation Of the statute, and under the
recent decision of the supreme court of
the state the party who has furnished
material or expended the money in SO
so doing can have no relief whatever.
| Respectfully submitted,
| ROBERT II. DAY,
/