The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-03-03
THE HALEAkALA
F|NANC|ER|NG
Disclosures OF Board Methods
in the HaleakaIa
Inquiry.

The Supervisors Road Committee, or
rather two members Of it, Quinn and
Kane, held the investigation in the
matter of the pay demand of Halea-
kala, certified to by Solomon Peck as
having performed fourteen days work
en- the roads of Koolaupoko during Jan
uary, when, it was alleged, he had
been working during that time for Peck
himself. The matter was brought to
the attention of the board and the pub
lie by Mayor Fern.
The explanation of it as made by Mr..
Peck TO the committee was naive
recital of the method Of mourning OBJ
legations for the public to pay by the
mere oral direction of committee of
the board-a system which prevailed
under the county and which the Su-
pervisors are trying to fasten on the
city and county.
Peck who was appointed road over
seer for Kcolaupoko by the Board of
Supervisors admitted that Haleakala
had not devoted his whole time to the
work of the city and county, but had
given part of his time to the work
of the Peck establishment. He explain
ed that last July he had applied to
Supervisor Dwight for some one to take
care of the county horses and rig,
which, as road oyerseer, he kept at his
own stable and used in driving about
the district overseeing the road work.
Thereupon Dwight had told him that
he would be allowed $1S month from
the county for the services of such
man provided he would make up the
balance, which he had, paying Hale
akala $25 a month-$1S allowed by the
county and 81 he paid out of his own
pocket. For this sum Haleakala took
care of the county horse and rig, and
also of Peck s own horse, and perform
ed such other services for Peck as the
latter required. Peck did not know
whether Dwight ever reported the ar
rangement to the board or not, and
there is no record in the board s pro-
ceedings that he ever did. All Peck
knew was that every month he put
Haleakala on the payroll not for SIS
month, but for twelve days labor at
$3.50 day performed for the county,
So that the board was never likely to
know of the SIS month arrangement
so long as Dwight did not report it.
Then came the change from the coun-
ty to the city. Peck says that one
day some time in January he told Su-
oh fba -
that he had had with Supervisor
Dwight. and that Quinn had said it was
all right and he could continue it.
Quinn said that Peck had spoken about
the matter to him and that he had said
it was all right, but it appeared that
Quinn had never reported it either to
the board or to his colleagues on the
committee, Supervisors Kane and Ay
| lett. Kane was very certain that he
had never heard of it.
Then came the explanation of how,
though he had only been allowed $1s
month, he had still got HaIeakala on
the payroll for $21 for the month of
| month ended January 81 and he want.
ed to quit. But Peck induced him to
stay until another man could be found
later so that Haleakala had two days ;
pay coming to him besides his month g
pay. AS he got his months pay by
being put on the payroll for twelve
| days at $3.50 day, two additional days
| made fourteen days at $50 day or
$21. Presumably if Haleakala had
worked twelve days beyond the end
| of his month before Peck found some
| one to take his place he would have
| been entitled to $3.50 day, or SIS for
| less than half a month s work. Mr..
Peck did not attempt to explain how a
man who was being paid at the rate
| of $1S a month was entitled to $3 for
| two days work, further than that as
the payroll had always been made out
for twelve days at $3.50 a day, by
| adding two more days it made fourteen
| days which still at the rate of $3.50
day made $21.
Mayor Fern stated that number Of
payrolIs had come to him for his coun>
tersignature in which the payroll failed
to make clear the kind or amount of
services or the rate of pay, and he had
| found on investigation that they de.
pended on some arrangement between
| some committee or member of the board
and the individual or the superintend-
ent of the department, which had never
been reported to the board; or that
they We're put on the payroll in such
way as to require an explanation be
fore they could be understood. He
thought such methods loose and un
businesslike, and he should do his ut
most to correct them. In the present
case $1S a month had been paid out
for several months with no authorize
ton for the obligation except the un
recorded direction of single member
of the board, and even the bin for il
came in in such way as to disguise
the real transaction. In addition, III
this case he could not understand why
the two additional days of service
should be paid for at the rate of $1.5(
day instead of at the rate of SIS