The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1912-01-31
School Board Dumbfounded
Over Revelation Last
Night.
ACCEPT GARFIELD BUILDING
But Committee Named to
Investigate Mckinley
Location.
May Not be In City school District.
Claimed That Land Was Coded to
City District and Record IOst--In-
tcrcstlng Meeting of Board.

Is the new school building on I'm
capher avenue within the city school
district and has the Marion board Of
education legal right to accept the
building as it's property?
These were two very perplexing
questions which came up at a meet
Ing of the board OF education in the
high school building Tuesday night
and still remain unsolved. 1t was n
81 eclal meeting and all members were
present
The Garfield building at the corner
of North Greenwood und Mark streets
was accepted by the board; the Nc
1<lnley building of Uncapher avenue
and the Garfield building were paid
for in full except $4OO which was held
lack until w. c. Handshy & Son,
contractors, complete few minor
changes and custodian was elected
60 care for the two buildings until
they are occupied but the Mckinley
building was not accepted last night.
After Member II. j. Pennell renderd
n report Of the INSPECTION OF the build
ings, Member o. G.. Briggs moved that
10th buildings be accepted by the
board.
At this point, Member II. Il. Hill
surprised the other members with the
startling information that the Nc
Iiinley building might be outside the
city school district. He said, 81 want
to know whether you can accept
building II 1t is outside of the school
district. If that building is in Mar
ion township the people Of the city
Of Marion have no right to send pupils
there"
The members were dumbfounded so
unexpectedly did this assertion arr
Irivcd. Hill also stated that the board
had no right TO buy land outside the
city school district. At this, the eyes
Of the board We're opened wider. 1t
was feared that the old board had
Numbered in purchasing the building
site.
After some discussion as to the
legality of the transfer, Member
Tennell moved that the board accept
the Garfield building and pay the
contractors the amount due them for
the construction of both buildings
iHll seconded this motion and 1t car
ried.
| Relative to the acceptance Of the
Mckinley building, Member Hill stat
ed this morning. Rather than vote
| Iblndly for the acceptance of the build
| ing, | raised the question Of whether
I the building was I'm the school dis
trict and under our jurisdiction In or
der to avert trouble IN the future IL
| II should he found that the building
| Is outside the distdict. l hope 1t is
in the district and there is no one
n ore willing to accept the building
than / am. although / did not vote
for the placing of the building down
there as didn't think IL was the place
TO put it. Now since 1t is built and
built well, l hope it is in the dis
trict."
According to the records In the coun-
, ty auditors office, the land on which
| the building Is located was never
transferred from the township district
10 the city district. In order to make
such n change II Is necessary for the
township board to cede the land to
the city board and have the city board
accept it by resolution The transfer
should then be certified to the audi
tor in order that he may transfer the
land from the township tax duplicate
| to the city duplicate.
Some members of the board claim
I that the land in question has been
accepted by the city board but that
the proper transfer was never made
on the auditors books. Auditor
spaulding states that he has no re-
cord Of the transfer being certified to
him.