Arizona republican., 1915-04-05
TO THE CITIZENS OF
 PHOENIX

The undersigned members of the city commission of the city of Phoe- nix feel that the time is now oppor- tune to present for the consideration of the citizens of Phoenix a brief statement of the truth as to their action in the removal of MT. Parish from the office of city manager. Pending the hearing and prior to the conclusion and our determination of the matter we felt that we could not with propriety make any public statement of our attitude towards the charges against N1r. Parish, notwith standing the fact that our motives and fairness were impugned through the press and otherwise and an effort made to misrepresent the members of the commission to the people of Phoenix.
 We now present. q plain statement of the proceedings and the facts de- veloped upon the hearing of the charges against Mir. Parish, upon which our action was based
 The charges presented at the meet ing of the commission on January I22 and the supplemental charges filed .)n February were considered by the commission to be of sufficient gravity and importance to demand a full investigation and hearing Tho substance of these charges went to the competency of Mr. Parish for city manager and his fitness for the office ifrom the standpoint of managerial lcapacity. Some of the charges re- lated to acts of alleged usur2ation iof authority in making expenditures before obtaining the approval of the commission in violation of the provi sions of the city charter: and other violations of the city charter were lcharged of a similar character
 There was no charge, nor was there any attempt at the hearing to impcach Mir. Farish's character for honesty and integrity Every con sideration was shown Mir. Parish by the commission both at the hearing and m the steps that preceded the hearing.
 The hearing was instituted, so fan las the commission is concerned, in the utmost good faith and was car Tried on with the sole purpose and desire that the truth whether favor fable or unfavorable to Mr. Parish should be established and that the commission should discharge it's full duty to the city under their oath of ioffice in determining whether or not cause really existed for the removal of the city manager
 ! tn ,f ai,a incompetency and a failure to achieve for the city results which ought req sonably to have been expected from the city manager under the charter q comparison was made in the char ges and in the evidence between the former city management and Mir. Farish's management under the new charter, the last six months of 1914 iand the last six months of 1913 being taken as the basis for comparison
 It was considered by the commic : sion that this was fair and just to MT. Parish inasmuch as he had had full control as manager for approxi- maieiy ten months at the time of the hearing, having taken office in April, 1914.
 1 The facts developed at the hearing in the judgment of each member of the commission sustained the charges l in the following respects:
 1. After making full allowance for the necessary increase in the ex- penses of the city due to salaries of new officers provided by the chartc. land an increase in salaries of cer- tain of the other officers, it was shown that there was q substantial increase in the expenses of the main tenancc and operation of the various departments of the city in 1914 over 1913 without corresponding benefits to the city.
 ?. It was shown that the police force during the six months ending December 3l, 1914. was approximately fifty per cent greater than in 1915, there having been carried on the rolls of the regular police force for this period of time approximately twenty four men in 1914 and approximately sixteen men in 1913 and that the reasons assigned by MT. Parish were insufficient to account for this in- crease. These reasons were that in the early part of the summer of 1914 there was a threatened uprising O. MeXIcans and Yaquis which required police protection for the city an.! that the partial closing down of the mines had resulted in an increase in the floating population of the city (which also required additional police protection, but no facts to support the manager in these particulars were shown and in the judgment of the commission they did not exist.
 ,. It was shown that the chief ol police was mere figurehead and that Mir. Parish personally controlled the police force by making appoint mcnts and removals, and 'otherwIsc with the result that the departmen, was disorganized and proper discip- line not maintained
 4. It was shown that for tht lperiod of more than three months lprior to the hearing there was made lquate fire protection for the city duo ito the failure of the manager {, tmaintain the fire equipment in a condition to afford adequate fire pro- lection, the large engine having beer out of commission for that length ai time awaiting a comparatively insig nificant repair.
 ,. It was shown that the stree1 department under his supervision was badly managed and unnecessari-