The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-05-15
Gross Carelessness of Various
City Officers Shown by Har-
ris and Hollingsworth.
Deficit During the Past Two Years.
How the Councilmen Rewarded
Themselves and Friends.

&AAAA+A - + AA-4AA ~ ~
y Since February last r. c. Harris =
and c. r. HolIingworth have been =
< engaged as special auditors, appoint p
= ed at the instance of former Mayor =
= William Glasmann. in investigating =
the affairs of Ogden City during y
= Glasmann's last term, 1904 and 1905. =
. Their report was completed yester- =
= day and last evening given TO the y
= city council.
Its salient features are the slipshod y
= method of conducting city affairs y
= that was disclosed, the tendency of y
. the council 10 give itself and its +
, friends extra pay, and the fact that =
= there was a deficit during that pc y
- Rod. =
beginning their report the auditors
plain the completeness o: their in
N--Ggation. which has been in progress
complete and covered every expenditure
iiOm Jan. 1. 1SO4. to Dec. 81. 1905 The au-
ultOrs say, in part:
I'm seeking authority for all disburse-
ments, We found several instances where
no authority OF the city council at all eX-
lsted Ior the making Of the disburse-
mentS; in other instances there were dis
CIepancles between the amount OF the dis
DuIsement as authorized by the city cOun-
en- and the true amount OF the subsequent
disbursement Then again, shown by
the auditor warrant register, warrants
were actually drawn on dates prior to the
authorization of their issuance by the
city council. We cite the following as q
Street department payroll allowed Jan
.. 1875 appears on the minutes of the city
city council as being for $3.50. whereas
the warrant register shows the total OF
such payroll to be S543.I0.
Warrant No $3.50, in favor of J. 2.
OeNeill. was actually for So l5O. 50. while
me minutes of Aug. .. 1905, show the
s 8,i5ol au'h0Ti1ed by the council to be
Warrants No 8. 99s to 52,Oo2 special pay
roll police department aggregate Sl32.45,
whereas, on Aug. .. 1894. the same was
allowed by the council for 1892
Warrant No: 81. 4S5. in favor Of J. H.
Sparso, is 1890 but the allowance BY the
council Aug. !, 1894. is S74 IS.
Warrant No. $3.50 in favor Of W. c.
Wilson. is 1868. but We fail find the
record OF any allowance of same by the
City engineers payroll. covered by war
rants No 52,1S3 to 2.z04 aggregating 81
1000, we fail to find any record OF the
allowance OF the payroll by the city coun-
VAR Warrant Nc Nc s. 9o5, in favor of l. G.
Kelsey. $lZolb-ll. is dated Dec 3. 1904,
while the minutes of the city council OF
that date show the presentation and ref
ere OF the claim 70 committee, and
port of the committee and the allowance
and payment ordered of the claim.
A miscellaneous lot of claims was paid
by warrants No. 81. SO to IS 81 same dat
ed Jan 30 1876. while the records of the
COUNCIL show that the same were al
lowed and ordered paid on Feb. 6. 1905.
Two payments Of interest upon bonds
OF Sl.5oo25 and SZr25I 81 were made by war
council allowed and authorized the pay
ment of same on Jan. % 1905
tsrest upon city bonds, is for 81 .oO3 50
While the city council minutes Of Oct %
1905. show the amount to be $3.50
Limit in CareIessness.
We cannot find words strong enough
manner in which the claims, vouchers
and pay-rols generally were prepared,
cred by the city council, approved by the
mayor and finally paid by the city au-
M nam Eere issa 70 Zee 81 L to
auditor, and this will give one an idea OF
the corresponding number of vouchers,
claims and pay-rolls- We are absolutely
safe in saying that not 10 per cent of the
total number are complete and free from
objection The law required all claims TO
be fully itemiZed and to be verified They
should be approved by the officer re-
ceviug the material or ordering the serv-
ice rendered. The city auditor should
then audit same. and before preSenta ton
TO the city council the claim should be
considered and approved by the proper
committee. The action of the city coIIn-
ell as to allowance or rejection should he
noted on each claim by and over the sig
nature OF the city recorder Next they
should be presented TO the mayor for his
action II he approves of the disburse-
ment. then. required by law. he should
endorse his signature on the claim or
payroll; then on their return to the city
auditor warrants are drawn in payment
4 most deplorable disregard of any uni
form system respecting these claims and
vouchers and pay-rolls is most apparent
in fact, in many instances no conception
at all OF the duties resting upon n public
officer seems 70 have existed Page after
page Of this report could be used in citine
claim after claim, payroll after payroll
which in fact are no claims or. pay-rolls
at all We. however, beg 10 call your at
teutiOn to the following. which illustrates
generally the conditions in this respect
found 20 exist The council has allowed
such claims as the following:
ogden, Utah, --, 80. Ogden City
Corporation 10 L. J. Butcher. Dr.: side
walk building, s21s. So This Is everything
that appears on the claim.
The payroll of the police department
for July 81, 1904. is not verified nor au-
dited. does not bear the approval of the
committee police does not bear the
signature OF the mayor. has no notation
thereon by the city recorder showing it:
allowance by the city council
PayroIIs Not Verified.
Payroll after payroll. particularly ot
the police and street departments arr
not verified or certified at all
Again we find a claim, No. So Isl E w
Nichols $50. which states, See minute:
OF council held. This claim is not item.
lied. verified. certified. audited. allowed
by the council. approved BY the mayor OF
Claim 1855. w. L. Maginnis. says. Re
tafner etc $3.50" II bears no notation
whatever showing IT ever to have beer
allowed by the council and was not ap
proved by the mayor