The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-13
PARK BOARD SPLITS ON
QUESTION OF A QUORUM
First Negative Vote in Years Is
Cast by Only Republican
Member.
CAN DEMOCRATS RULE :?
Present Interpretation viii Make
Minority Member the
Dictator.

y negative vote was registered at meet
ing of the Board of Park Commissioners
yesterday for the first time in the five years
that the board has operated under the pres
ent state law. This vate was cast by Charles
f. Coffin, Republican member of the board.
and was cast as a protest against the effort
of Hiram Brown, new Democratic president
of the board. to drag into politics the only
board that has always been considered out
side the field of partisan controversy, and
the members of which have heretofore act
ed in unison. with no hint of political divi-
sion.
The question that divided the board in
duced another question of Interpretation Of
a section of the park law, on which may
pend the decision of important questions
to come up before the board within the next
few weeks.
The vote of Commissioner Coffin was a
comparatively unimportant question, but
which has assumed proportions II did not
promise when first brought up.
Albert Stanley, foreman and florist at
Garfield Park, and III. II. Rodenbach, gar
dener at the park, brought a controversy
that had arisen between them and that had
resulted in a personal encounter 10 the Park
Board for settlement
The board considered this at a special
meeting last Tuesday and again yesterday.
Stanley is a Republican. Rodenbach DEM
Ocrat.
TAKES STAND FOR DISCIPLINE.
President Brown and Commissioner
Lauck. the Democratic members of the
board, voted for the discharge of both men.
Commissioner Coffin stood for the dismissal
of Rodenbach alone for the sake of dis
cipline. as the testimony showed that Stan
ley had dismissed Rodenbach for failure TO
obey orders.
On this vote Of two TO one, Chairman
Brown decided that both of the men were
dismissed, but Commissioner Coffin ques-
toned the legality of this decision, quoting
section of the park law to uphold his
point. The section Is as follows:
Section g. majority of the members
shall constitute a quorum, and no action
of said board shall be binding unless au-
thorized by a majority of the members
at a regular or duly called special meeting
thereof, and such meeting shall be open to
the public
I Commissioner Collins contention is that
the section provides that no action shall be
binding unless voted for by majority of
the members attending a meeting The
question was referred to the city attorney
for settlement.
If President Brown is upheld by Attorney
Warrum, the Democratic members of the
board and the city administration, through
them, can run the park board to suit their
pleasure, as Commissioner Merritt, the
other Republican member, is in California.
SECTION is CITED.
Inc statement was mace 10 the JOurndl
last evening that the section quoted by
Commissioner Coffin was incorporated in
the law with the express purpose of making
it impossible for two members of the board
representing one political party to dictate
at any time upon the absence of another
member the boards policy without regard
to the opinions of the two other members.
A hint of what the city administration
can be expected to do in the matter was
given by Mayor Hoffman last evening
when he said to a Journal reporter: L
haven't anything TO do in the matter. as it
is the Park Boards affair. But there ism t
any doubt in my mind that the section
ought TO be interpreted to mean majority
of the members present at a meeting.
The controversy on the Interpretation of
the statute overshadowed the report of the
decision of the city attorney that contracts
for the shelter houses at Riverside and
Military parks made by the Park Board
with August Wacker last September are
void. The opinion was expected ii having
been limited In his statement to the Journal
two weeks ago. Mr.. Wacker and his bonds
men will be Informed of the decision, and
il is probable that the board and the at
torney will meet with Mr.. Wacker and his
bondsmen early next week to see If an
agreement can be reached on the question.
The contractor was paid $4,000 on the
contracts last year. The ground on which
the attorneys decision was based was that
the contracts were for a sum exceeding
the boards appropriation for the year.