The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1910-11-10

mitting to competitive bidding said
amount OF coal. OF the same or equally
good quality, could have been purchased
at a price not exceeding $3.50 to $3.75
per ton. The Committee considers this
bad business management.
We find a large amount OF bills paid
for repair and painting Of bridges. Very
little Of this work has been contracted
and none Of il has been submitted TO
competitive bidding; but the practice pre-
walls of permitting each Commissioner
to arrange and contract for such work
In division OF the County known as
4 his 'Own territory That many bills
for the payment of such contracts are sub
mitted to the Commissioners, of which
contracts they have 8hO official knowledge
until the submission of such bills for
| payment: and in no instance is the
faithful performance of said work secur-
| ed by a bond. Very little OF the work
performed under these arrangements is
submitted to the County Surveyor for
inspection, by the said Commissioners.
nor does the said Surveyor have any in
| formation as to it's execution nor does
he have any knowledge Of the letting
thereof Contracts made in this manner
are in viola ton of Section 2445 Of the
General Code, which provides,-"That no
contract entered into by the County
Commissioners. or order made by them,
shall be valid unless it has been assented
to at a regular or special session thereof
and entered on the minutes of their pro-
.ceedings." OF the bills paid for such
contracts, and some few written con-
tracts, during the year for which this
examination is had.-Mr. H. J. Fry.
Contractor has received the sum Of
Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred, forty
nine Dollars and thirty two cents
able to find a single instance in which
any of the work performed by him was
secured by competitive bidding. We
find that in some instances Mr.. Fry
did have written contracts, notably on
September 18TH 1909. when the Board of
Commissioners comprised Messrs. Brew
er, Sipple and Townsend,-he entered
tracts numbered 8S5 to 40 inclusive
all of said contracts being just under
100000 but in total amount of S2,770.17
by bond The bills for the above con-
tracts We're allowed and paid during the
of the present Board of
Commissioners The business relations
existing between the Commissioners and
this Contractor are redolent with sus-
picion, indicates an evasion of the law
and should be made the subject of
investigation by duly con-
StitutiOnal authority with greater pow
ers than are lodged in this Committee. The
Committee recommends that where
100000 they should be grouped
md submitted to competitive bid
ling; that the contracts be entered
INTO at regular or special meeting of
he Board and entered on the minutes of
their proceedings; that when the con-
tracts are awarded. bonds be given as
tIulltu DN ldN' ana LlldJ a TlSlO IN
'pection be made of the completed work
~ the County surveyor as provided by
Section 2793 of the General Code.
We find a voucher for $4,000 in pav-
nent of subscription to the Greenville
AdvOCate to January 1st 1919. This
dill may be in part for past due sub
'cription, but nothing appears to indi-
ider this a defective voucher and sug-
rest that subscriptions be not paid so
ar in advance.
II f1,at . 80 1F fl0z
Board of Commissioners to hold its sess-
Dns without reading the minutes of the
revious session, This is contrary to
ode These sections should be strictly
ompied with
We find that many agreements and
bligations involving the expenditure OF
money are entered into by the Board of
commissioners without the certificate of
he Auditor first filed to the effect that
he money required for the payment of
uch agreements or obligations. is in
he Treasury to the credit of the fund
rom which it is to be drawn, or has
een levied and placed on the duplicate
nd in process of collection, and not ap-
ropriated for any other purpose. This
: contrary to the provisions of $500 of
he General Code as amended in the 1O1
'hiO Laws, pages 81 and 3S.
We find bills for s96764 worth of
lumbing put into the Court House dur
lg the past year without advertisement
r competitive bidding This work was
rdered in separate amounts less than
10000 each although evidently it could
ave been let as one contract
We find that the question as to the le
ality of the proceedings criticised here
was never submitted to the Prosecut-
1g Atto"nev for an opinion although.
nder the Code. he is the legal advisor
f the Board We further find that the
Attorney has constantly en-
Favored to have the business of the
'ounty transacted as required by law
nd on sound business principles. but
hat his efforts in this direction have
cen in many instances without success.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Signed -
w. V. STETNMETZ
II. F. DERSHEM,
Committee.
JOHN F. MAHER.
Prosecuting Attorney and EX -OfflciO
Iember of Committee.
Greenville, Ohio Oct. 2Sth,-1910.
Nov. g 1910.