Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-09-29
HIS ANSWER TO CRITICISM
DELAYIN CONSTRUCTING SCHOOL
BUILDING EXPLAINED.
District Inspector Ashford's Version.
Places the Blame on Board
of Education.

III dISN IT 10 criticism OF MS department
| for the delay in the construction of the
/ annex to the Mckinley Manual Training
! School, for which $4,000 was appropriated
/ in July. 1906, and for the foundation fol
which building ground has not been
! broken, Mr.. Snowden Ashford, Dis
! trict building inspector, who has super
| vision of the construction of all buildings
| for the local government, has Issued a
/ statement. In It he explains that his de-
/ partment IS in no way to blame for the de-
! lay. and he has no hesitanCy in blaming
J the board of education. He contends that
| had the board not interfered and insisted
/ ON change in the second plans drawn for
/ the school annex the work would have COM
| menccd last April
| His statement follows:
The site for the Mckinley was acquired
| in July, 1906. The president of the board
| OF cduCa ton advised me to consult with the
/ director of manual training to the
| plans for the building and a very compre-
| henslve and good plan was submitted by
| him, and the architect began the working
plans in October, 1906. The old frame buiIu-
lnSS We're removed from the site in De-
cember. 1906, preparatory TO starting the
work.
January -. 1907 the Engineer Commits
stoner wrote to the board of education call
| ing attention 10 the insufficiency of the APP
preparation for d building of the size indi-
/ Cdl'u 10y tUe sketches submitted by the
director of manual training, and the archi-
tcct estimated that on the plans prepared
by him. the building would cost 100000
more than the appropriation.
Halt in the Work
January 81 1907, the director of manual
training informed the Engineer Commits
sioner, by letter, that the board had de-
| clded to ask for an additional appropria-
ton, and that the architect will do nothing
toward completing the plans until it is
| known whether or not there are to be addi-
tional funds and suggesting changes in
plans prepared In respect to an assembly
hall
February 13. 1907, the Engineer Commits
sioner wrote to the director of manual train
ing, who had previously Communica eds wi tn
| him and expressed the wishes of the build
ing committee of the board calling atten-
ton to the fact that the appropriation had
not been included in the Senate appropria-
ton bill and asking what the board desired
to do as 10 the plans, with the money avail
able.
April 3 1907. the assistant superntend-
ent of schools asked for copies of the plans
prepared by the architect and the second
set of revised plans was forwarded to him.
"A bout April 10 a conference was held be-
tween the assistant superintendent, the
director of manual training, the principal of
the school and the architect and the in
spector of buildings in the Engineer Com
sired further changes In the plans The
Engineer Commissioner directed that the
plans be prepared according to their wishes
and the architect was allowed additional
compensation for the third set of plans.
Objections Filed.
April 10 the president Of the board of
education wrote to the Engineer Commits
sioner and said that they objected to the ar
rangement of the assembly hall and wished
the plans changed so that the corridors on
the first and second floors would run
straight through and cut off the assembly
hall.
April %, 1907, the Engineer Commissioner
wrote to the president of the board of edu-
cation, referring to the conference with the
above-named school employees and explain
ing their wishes as to change in the assem-
bly, hall, and explaining that the change de-
sired by the board of education would re-
duce the seating capacity by $50 seats, and
asking that all suggestions from the board
of education be sent in at once, to avoid
further changes in the plans. No reply was
received to this letter, and May 20, after
trip to Boston and other cities, the Engi-
neer Commissioner again wrote to the
school board, calling attention to the prac-
tice in other cities. and asking If the board
of education still wished the assembly hall
reduced In size.
May q, 1907, the inspector of buildings
wrote to the Engineer Commissioner, calling
attention to the fact that the delay In an
swerlng the communication to the as
sembly hall was holding back the plans and
would throw the work into winter weather.
May 2s, 1907 the Engineer Commissioner
called attention to the fact that answer
had been received from the school board,
and asked that the matter be brought to
their attention.