The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-08

Opinion OF the presidents eK1fdVagdnce
1t says IN part:
"Th supreme president received from the
moneys of the association during the three
years from 1901 to 1904, as shown In the
ST. Paul report, the sum of $17, 218.4 Al. $500
of this amount was salary and the re-
mainder of more than s11 600 is set down
for official visits, rent, trustee meetings
and part clerk hire. This total does
not include telephone service. stationery,
supplies or office furniture. There is In
addition to all this a separate monthly
voucher of $50 for clerk hire, supreme
presidents Office
1T is difficult to ascertain the total cost
of maintaining this office on account of the
a In which the items of expense are en-
tered In the report. 1t would be more
satisfactory TO the general membership IL
there was a uniform system and If the
supreme officers gave more specific infor-
nation as TO the expenditures from the
general fund. It cannot be determined
whether or not a per diem charge is made
by the supreme president. when away from
Buffalo on official visits and attending trus-
tees meetings.
ut was never intended that per diem
charges should be made by salaried officers
and the association should know whether
such a charge has been made.
Whether or not such charge is made, the
above statement seems to Indicate an I'M
conduct of the office"
The supreme recorder comes in for her
share of criticism and the circular states
J NhAh a. R0H0hE1t VI tllC OhlACtiiG DttEiAGiL
were economical as compared to that of the
supreme recorder. The circular says:
''The supreme recorder received from the
general fund In the three years from 1901
to 1904 the total sum of 500, 1863. 96; 1900 of
this was for salary. The remainder. of
more than $4,000. was drawn for office and
travelling expenses > > > But $4,000 In
three years, or 5000 a year, for travelling
corder makes the outlay Of the supreme
president for the same period seem eco
nomieal by comparison"
Referring to the large sums spent out of
the general fund for trustees meetings,
held four times a year, the circular says:
There was paid out of the general fund
for trustee meetings in the three years
from 1901 to 1904 the enormous sum of S2l,-
941.50. This total does not include the ex-
nenses of the supreme president nor of the
supreme recorder for attendance at those
meetings.
THE charges, however, Of certain of
these trustees ran far beyond this average.
Trustee Ward. Of Chicago, received the
sum OF S,O62 2. Trustee Burns, Of New
York, received $3.6i4.03. and Trustee Young
blood, of New Jersey. received the enor-
nous sum of 81. 1888. TO-"
These charges are, of course, simply
outrageous.
"A glance at the places where trustee
meetings have been held partly solves the
mystery of the extravaganza connected
with them. Meetings have been held In the
portland, Me, 1.-TWO meetings);: At
lanta, Ga. washington, DC, -four meet
Denver, Colo, and New Orleans, La.
None of the trustees lived in any of
these places. Six of the nine trustees lived
Buffalo. The following cities are the resi-
dences of the trustees:
Buffalo. N. Y, one; New York city,
two; Chicago, H. one; Cleveland o.. one:
''There never was a branch In Portland,
Me-, nor In the State OF Maine, yet two
meetings were held there at an expense Of
'"There is no branch in Georgia. The cost
of the Atlanta meeting was approximately
$1,000.
9TH combined membership of New Or
leans and the State of Louisiana is 152.
This meeting, the last regular one held by
the board, in March, 1907, cost about 1880.
"Charleston s.. c., has no membership.
The meeting there cost about $1,1OO.
Washington, D., G., has q membership
Of 90. -Four meetings were held in that city
at an estimated cost each of $500.
Denver, Colo, was honored by a trus-
nine branches with g total membership ship
meeting was approximately 5000.
''These meetings should be. held at more
convenient and central locations; The ex-
tent of the saving to the association, which
would result from holding trustee meetings
in some central place, is shown by the ex-
pense Of the meeting held at Buffalo on
1tttliDtI oNf ibul. iONaA 1OG " Nhae
meeting was $417.So.
o course 1t affords greater pleasure and
enjoyment to the trustees to hold theiI
meetings In various parts of the United
States. but Ii is UNFAIR to the general mem
bership to compel them to bear the burden
Of the expense connected with these pleas
ure trips. Economy and not individual en-
ioyment should determine the place OF
holding trustee meetings"
Perhaps the most glaring facts made
known is in the negligence of duty with
which the supreme auditors are charged.
The writers of the circular do not hesitate
TO give names and figures and furthermore
claim that they are in a position TO sub
~stantiate the charges they have made. o.
the supreme auditors they have this to
say:
The Buffalo meeting of the trustees,
above cited, is held out as an example or
economy. 1t is so, however. only by COM
parison. On close examination the expense
Items 1t contains seem difficult to explain.
The meeting was held in Buffalo, the home
Of the supreme president, and consisted
OF a morning and afternoon session, held
In the Genesee House.
yet the supreme president was allowed
S22 for this meeting. Mrs. Y~oungblood and
Miss Burns, the former from Newark,
N. J.. and the latter from New York city,
each received $64 for attendance at this
meeting. Railroad fare and meals for this
trip could not well have exceeded $50, and
there is left to be accounted for in each
case 1874. 1t would be interesting to learn
bow these items of expense were audited.
Again. compare the expense charges
of the various trustees and others who
attended thel meeting held at Cleveland,
O.. on October 10, 1903. This meeting con-
sisted of an afternoon and evening session.
The charges allowed by the auditors are
as follows: Mrs. Youngblood. Newark, N.
j., $107. 70; Mrs. Quinn, Newark, n. j., $52;
Miss Burns. New York city, $107. 10; Mrs.
Costelloe. New York city, $50; Miss Cal
lagher. New York city. $71.S5; Miss Ward,
Chicago. Ill. $645O: Miss Mahoney, Troy,
N. Y, $685.
ION what theory do the auditors ex-
plain the difference in the charges of Miss
Burns and Mrs. Costelloe. both from the
same city? The formers expense is en-
tered as s107. rs, the latter's at $52. Or
same difference in the charges of Mrs.
Newark, N. J.2
Mote again the items Of expense con-
nacted with the revision committee's'
meeting. This meeting was held in 1901
at Buffalo. The following sums were al
lowed by the auditors: Mrs. Roger, Erie,
Pa. $6013; Miss Blaney, Buffalo, n. y,
$40. 3S; Miss Burns, New York city. $09.50;
Mrs. MCGOWAN, Buffalo, N. Y, $50; total,
$4,000.
when it is remembered that two OF
the four members of this committee are
salaried officers, the expense to the So
cietv for this work will be better UNDER
stood.
Auditors who allow such varying
| charges should be called seriously to task
for the slipshod manner in which they
perform their work. Scrutiny on the part
OF the auditors is absolutely essential to
an economic administration of the associa-
- - .f al. -