The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1913-04-17
MAYORS LETTER
Con tinued from page |.

Con tinued from page |.
tee, failed to comply with the law
when they failed to advertise for bids
and when they awarded contract to
Mr.. Fluck. We also showed that
the new boiler has been more expen-
siye to operate than the old one was.
There is no one that comes out and
disputes us in regard to these state
ments.
As to the payment of the the claim
why was it necessary that the order
for the payment of the boiler installed
should be signed and delivered when
other claims allowed at the same
meeting should GO over for several
days. There was rumor that an I'm
iuction was to be served to stop pay
ment of the order and this injunction
would have been served the day fol-
lowing the meeting if the order had
not been signed and delivered. This
much is fact.
In reference to our article on
Leasing Public Buildings we still
maintain that the Mayor acted con-
trary to rules, when he overruled the
objection of Alderman Bryan who OPP
posed the taking up of the lease
proposition when it had been laid
over until the next meeting. Any
one who knows anything about par
limentary rules knows that an adj
journed meeting is simply a continual
ton of the meeting and that the next
meeting would be the meeting follow
ing the one at which the proposition
was taken up. Had the council TAX
en- an adjournment for only fifteen
minutes instead of for a few days it
would have been the same thing.
The adjournment was taken express
lively for the purpose of taking up
road matters at the suggestion of
Alderman Amply. At the adjourned
meeting road matters were not dis
cussed but instead the lease PROPOSE
ton was taken up. We agree with
the mayor that the Council could
have called this matter up at this
meeting, but he acted contrary to
rules when he overuled the objection.
Had the objection been sustained by
the Mayor the council could by a
majority vote, have take up the
leasing proposition. The council, as
it was made up on the evening in
question favored the lease, with the
full council present it might have
been otherwise.
We are indeed surprised to learn
that the Mayor did not know the con-
tents of the lease, only in a general
way. Here we have city leasing a
piece of public property and no one
knowing who drew up the lease.
The clerk did not see the lease until
it was handed to- him by the party
leasing the building. 1t had already
been signed by the Mayor and by the
officers of the bank and with the
clerk signature would have been
complete. Mr.. Clausen did not sign
his name to the lease for several days.
The mayor, according to his letter,
supposed that the city attorney drew
the lease, the clerk supposed it was
drawn by the Mayor or some one act
ing for the Mayor for when in wa:
handed to him the Mayors signature
had already been attached.
Now if the Mayor or the clerk OF
the city attorney or any of the alder
men did not have this lease drawn
who did draw it?
The lease when drawn did conform
to the proposition as submitted by
| by the Bayfield, County Bank. HaC
it been acted upon in the due course
of time it is not likely that there
would have been much objection t