Anadarko daily democrat. [volume] (Anadarko, Oklahoma) 1908-191?, 1910-05-02
THAT SCHOOL
BOARD REPORT
Seeks to Hide Rath
er Than Divulge

to show the disposition of the funds
derived from the sale of bonds. The
report begins by stating that the
matter had been informally dis
cussed. implying that there had
been no demanl made upon the Board
for an accounting.
The report as whole is no dis
appointment. Il meets the expecta.
tions Of the public by showing clear
ly upon its face that there will not
be funds enough to complete the
East side building. The report pur-
ports to show that contracts we're a.
warded for the school buindings, and
warrants drawn in favor of the con-
tractors for the material, yet by this
report we find the bosrd dealing in
lumber, brick and other building ma
terial. and would ask why this trans
action is necessary If contracts were
awarded to the lowest responsible
bidders. We find one firm was paid
approximately $500. Were the var
ious contracts representing this item
awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder? Another item of $945 was
paid to the Supt. of Construction.
Was the superintendent salary con-
tinued during the long period of time
that there was no work being done
on the building? The taxpayers are
certainly entitled to know now many
days we're served, and at what sum
per day.
The report shows contract award.
ed Van Orden for S26, 600. The re-
port also shows that Van Orden has
been paid s27, 1914, or s1,154.14
more than called for in the original
contract, without stating to the peo.
pie why this additional sum was paid.
Who is Ivie Stewart who has been
paid sum IN excess of $500 for ma
terial furnished, and what line Of
business is he in, il any, or was he
in the employ of certain member Of
the School Boardl The report shows
that under the contract the East
building was to be completed by Aug.
10, 1909. Business sence would sug-
gest that the Board, in the
handling of the peoples money, would
have seen that tSere was a good and
sufficient bond to guarantee the faith.
ful performance of any contract.
The report intimates that there is
grounds for a charge against Mr.. Van
0rden. If this is true, why not
make a specific charge? Or is it
true that the bund is of no value
Eight months and half having elaps-
ed since the building was under the
terms of the contract, to have been
completed, isn't it strange that Mr..
Morgan should state that, "the Board
does not think it wise or just to make
any change against the contractor. q"
Why not make the change, this being
business transaction, and a duty
intrusted to the board by the tax
payers. If this has been transacted
in business like manner the Board
should collect the penalty under the
bond. If this transaction will bear
the light the Board should take the
public into their confidence and let
the responsibility rest where il prop.
erly belongs.
The report fails to serve the pur-
pose for which it was intended, that
of hoodwinking the Taxpayers, and
simply assists US in our efforts to
show to the public the deplorable
state of School Board affairs. We
would ask the clerk of the School
Board why the report fails to make
any statement OF the disposition made
of the sum of SS2. SOS. go paid to the
Treasurer of the School Board by the
County Treasurer since Jan. l, 1908.
This sum represents the school taxes
paid in this District and has nothing
to do with the bdilding fund of $780,
900 the disposition of which Mr.. Nor
gan attempted to account for.
1t would have been much better for
the School Board or Mr.. Morgan the
clerk, to have voluntarily made a
plain, full and concise statement when