Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1902-12-04

amounting to S615.0O, and the salary
of an assistant for thirty-six days at
| -. 90 per DAY amounting to $500.
| ). That the bill for the salary of
the supervisor of assessment, to wit:
Solo.OO, the district attorney aud judi
clary committee find Is d legal charge
against the county, the supervisor be-
ing entitled, under the resolution of
the county bo~rd for his appointment,
to the sum of 81 90 per DAY for each
! and every day actually aud ueCessa-
rily spent by said officer III the dis
charge of his official duties. The
verified bill OF J. w. Cochran. super
visor, showing the number of days so
actually employed entities him 10 tne
amount stated
4. AS to the claim for So o. pad
an assistant by the supervisor OF
assessment the district attorney Is vi
! the op1ulOn that SAID dmouuL dad an,
claim tor such purpose not d icy al
charge against the county and inc
| judiciary Committee suurco III tIlIs
opinion
Sec. AS of the laws OF 1901 provid-
ing for the office of supervisor of
| assessment provides that the county
board may authorize the county super
visor OF assessment to appoint one or
more deputies with the same power as
said county supervisor whose cOupeu-
| satlOu and term of service shall be
liked by the county board, Which shall
not exceed the compensation or term
OF service OF the supervisor OF assess
meut." The county board did not pro-
vide Tor any deputy, but on the con-
trdry passed d resolution that mo
| p n hsa n I'D fnr
supervisor Of assessors" page 3 pro-
ceedings of county board, session
November, 1901
! The claim here made is not for the
salary of d deputy but for an assist
ant who did clerical work. This, no
doubt, was one of the expenses of the
! office.
Sec. 3, Chapter AS providing for
the salary Of d supervisor of assess
ment says: But the compensation of
said officer shall not exceed the sum
of $500 for each day actually en-
plOyed in the work of sucn office,
which shall include all expenses"
This would clearly exclude any and
all bills for extras by the supervisor.
| We have chosen, however, to submit
! the question Of allowing this charge
!
claimed was actually expended for
| the benefit of the public in good faith
and not for personal ends, and for the
further reason that the State Tax
commission, which has supervision
over the different supervisors, IN its
recommendations suggests the advis-
ability OF employing an assistant to
complete the Supervisors work III
time for the meeting OF the county
board, but the Tax Commission does
not, however, direct such employment.
While the county board did nOl pro-
vide for any assistant or any deputy
1t did not limit the amount of the sup
ervlsor's salary, except as to the
amount per day for each day actually
employed and III fixing this amount
the board provided for the very liberal
compensation which the law placed as
the limit but not too liberal perhaps
for the qualifications and exaCtiug
duties required of an officer who faith
fully and conscientiously performs
the duties of this important Office as
MIR. Cochran seems to have done.
We therefore recommend the allow
ance Of S615.00 Claimed by Mr.. Coch-
ran as Supervisor of Assessment, and |
as to the allowance of So 90 claimed
for the salary OF an assistant we sub
nit the matter to the full board for
It's Consideration.
All OF which Is respectfully sub |
mitted. H. " IPPERMAN,
District Attorney.
THEO. w. BRAZEAU,
Chairman of Judiciary Connittee |
d. D. CONWAY.
MI. Conway moved TO allow the |
bill in full at 1857. Seconded.
Mr.. Conner moved to amend the |
motion by allowing the bill aG S6l5.
The amendment was lost by roll
calls as follows:
Ayes-Ommodt, MechIer, Rausch,
COnnor-4.
Nays CoweIl, Berg, HiIeS, Arpin,
Brazeau, Scott. Rowland, Bassett.
Conway, Nels johnson, GieSe. Colds
worthy, Hoffman, Christensen,
Specht, Juno, FechlIelm, Hooper,
Eicbsteadt, Bennett: Brown, Clack,
COtey. NOlUner, Davis, Provost, POr- :
ter, IyersQn, Claus Johnson, Mullen,
jackson, AyerS-32.