The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-10-05
SHOULD ADVERTISE
CITY C0UNSEL'S OPINION ON
SCHOOL TELEPHONES.
Board Might Be Within Rights in Not
Doing So, but Public Policy Re-
quires Competition.

pared his opinion on the legality of tn
action of the repairs committee of tn
Board of Education in splitting up con
tracts so as to bring the cost of the por
lions of the work within the $3.50 limit 50
as to obviate the necessity of advertising
for bids. The opinion was requested os
Mayor Haussling when the repairs com
mittee awarded contracts for telephones II
ten schools and gave the job to the same
man, piecemeal instead Of in the aggre-
gate.
The city counsel old that the commit
tee has not laid itself open to having
violated the law or evaded 1t. because OF
the fact that installing phones does not
come under the head OF repair work.
but he states that in his opinion such ac-
ton as was taken by the committee was
wrong. and that all contracts of the mag
nltude of the one in question should De
advertised.
City Counsel Nugent says:
In your communication of SEPTEMBER
q. you submit two questions and ask me
to advise you thereon.
t'First-Whether the contemplated action
of the Board of Education of Newark, IN
giving separate orders or contracts with.
out advertisement. for the installation or
telephone systems or wiring in ten schools,
at a cost of about two hundred ana seven
ty-five ($275.00 0 dollars for each school,
but all to one contractor, and all ten
given out and to be done at about the
same time. the total cost approXimating
$40 to 5000 is a violation or evasion OF
law?
"Second-Whether it is a violation or
evasion of law for city departments to
purchase supplies In small amounts, when
it is obvious that amounts In excess of
the statutory restriction are then, or short
ly will be required? 3
"As to the first question the counsel
quotes paragraphs 80 and 80 Of the school
/ QuFc rntaf.no ~ tha rr,p a fraatE
by the school authorities, and goes on to
say:
The Board of Education then is not re-
CURED to advertise, except for supplies,
building a new schoolhouse, enlarging a
schoolhouse already erected, or repairing
such schoolhouse where the amount is over
$500
81 do not think that installation of a tele-
phone system or wiring therefor can be con-
Strued to be supplies within the fair mean
Ing of the language of the above quoted
section, nor of charging an existing school
house.
Can it be considered to be within the
repairin of an existing schoolhouse? That
is, that the new wiring of an existing
~schoolhouse for the installation of a tele-
phone system, entirely new, is a repairing
of such SchOOlhouse?
The word repairing in its largest and
good something already existing. 1t i'm
plies the prior existence of the thing re-
paired, not an addition thereto.
$50 l very much doubt whether this Sec
ton could be SO construed as to make it
obligatory upon the Board of Education TO
advertise for bids for the work and ma
terial for installing and wiring for these
telephone systems in the schools.
The Board of Education In taking this
contemplated action will probably be
within their strict rights, and If they do
the work by separate contracts for each
school, will not probably be liable to any
=. 10 IT. l., A, 11-rol .-r
but l have no hesitation in saying that,
whether or not they are legally obliged to
do so, the board should advertise for pro-
posals for a contract involving so large an
expenditure as this.
The whole policy of municipal govern
ment now is, that contracts for public
work should be let in public, be open to
all competitors, and under the scrutiny of
the public. In this way, and only in this
way, can the public be reasonably sure
that public work viii be done at reason
able rates and without improper consid-
%erations influencing the giving of the con
tract.
The Board of Education or any otheI
public tody or officer cannot be morally
Justified in letting a large contract il
private n removed from public scrutiny
simply because the Legislature may have
failed to inhibit such action.
THE very fact that such contract is LEI
In private and without competition neces
sarily raises doubts as to the propriety Of
the action and the motives of the actors
AS to the second question:
City departments, in purchasing sup
plies and in making contracts, are gov
erned by the law of 1899, approved Marcel
"a 1898.
quire all city contracts over $500 ii
amount, ave where an exigency makes II
unwise, to be let by public competition
and under public scrutiny.
What would constitute an evasion Oh
violation Of the law must often depend
upon the particular facts, but 1t is GER
tain that it is the duty of the various
city boards and departments to advertise
in all cases where the amount involved
is over $500 or likely to be over thai
amount.
Splitting up the purchase of needed
supplies into small quantities is a cleal
evasion of the statute. Where it is OBJ
vious hat quantities whose total value
will be in ercess of the statutory limita-
ton are then or will be required within
reasonable period there should be adver
tisement and competition.
For instance, II a department will neeI
for the year a certain amount of blank
or of ordinary supplies, the aggregate 0
which would exceed in value $500, /
would be an evasion of the statute tt
purchase in small lots and from time Il
time. There should be advertisement an
competition for the whole supply