Arizona republican., 1915-04-05


 taining the approval of the city com mission, a fire alarm system costins, in excess of $3,000.0O and fire eq,lip ment at cost of more than $11 1,J0c. and made other purchases in excess !of $1,000.0O without first obtaining the approval of the commission, a. though the charter provided that the manager could make no eXpendi.ur in excess of $1,00O.OO without first obtaining such approval. It is true that these expenditures were Subse uuently allowed by the commisslcn but only after contracts had been
 made and in so far as the manage" was concerned the city definitely committed to such purchases.
 s. 1t was shown that in negGtlat ing the contract with the Pacific Gas and Electric company for city lighting Mr. Parish displayed poor business judgment and capacity. it being shown that he approved contract which contained provision oblgating the city to take over and purchase, in the case of the termiiia- tion of the contract before the time limit therein, from the lighting com pany equipment at a cost of ap- proXimately s36,000.00, which proVi- sion was eliminated from the con tract finally made upon the insis- tcnce of members of the commission, and that this elimination was for the best interests of the city.
 3. It was shown that i;r Fari5i's report with reference to the enlarge ment of the city water plant was unsatisfactory and incomplete as i basis for the expenditure of money by the city. That his report as t. the paving of Monroe street was not only unsatisfactory but inaccura;e. As illustrative of this, Mr. Parish recommended type of pavement based upon the experience of certain California cities and named among those the city. of Brawley in the Imperial valley, where the climatic conditions are similar to Phoenix, , whereas it q dcveloped in the hearing that Mr Far:shs information was erroneous and that the city of BraW
 ley had constructed no pavement Of any kind and that he was without personal knowledge or any knowledge of the experience of other cities hav- i ing climatic conditions and other conditions similar to Phoenix which
 warranted this recommendation. 9th
 CT suggestions embodied in the re-
 port were likewise found to be un supported and untrustworthy.
 l 10. And finally it was shown at the hearing 1'lat the management of Mr. Parish lacked system, method
 ana order. which resulted in a lack
 of proper ecoa"my in expendI ures. and of any proper coordination of
 the various departments of the city. and in a want of cooperation among
 the officials and employees of the
 city; and in addition to the specific facts developed, the testimony of Mir.
 Parish in his own behalf clearly
 demonstrated his incapacity and ti,at he did not possess the business and
 managerial ability needed for the proper governing of the city.
 In these respects, in the judgment
 of the commission, there was ample
 cause for the removal of MT. Parish;
 and we believed further that there was no reason to hope that if con-
 tnucd in office any substantial il- provement in the respects mentioned
 could be expected from him, and that the interests of the city would suffer J if action should be further delayed.
 For these reasons and these alone. f.I I, It must be remembered that MT.
 Parish was the .appointee of toe commission and that he went into
 office with the unanimous vote of
 the commission and the good will
 and the sincere wish on the part of each member of the commission that
 he should make good" and thus jus tify the appointment.
 It is not true that MT. Parish $
 failure to realize this expectation was
 due to any interference on the part
 of the commission, for there was no
 interference It must be remembered
 that under the charter the powers of
 the commission are limited and that
 the powers of the manager are prac-
 tically unlimited.
 It is true that in many things per
 taining to the duty of the commits
 sion under the charter the co-opera :
 tion of the manager is dsirable, if
 not essential; and it is true, as was
 shown upon the hearing. that MT Parish failed in this respect and II is likewise true that he declined evci to advise with the commission or } ma tiers of general interest to t'.e city; but these were not the reasons which prompted the action of the commission. The controlling reason
 was as above set forth the failurs Of MT. Parish, due to incapacity and want of business ability to success fully manager the affairs of the city
 In addition to what we have stated above as to our action in removing Mir Parish. we feel that it is due us to briefly outline our views ,lpof
 the proposed amendments to the cit, , charter. As result of our expert ence, we believe that it is to th, best interests of the city that n, manager should be subject to reca. , by the commission by majority vote of all of the commissioners Our reasons for this view ar, these:
 The appointing body will always : be held accountable for it's appoi.i.
 tees. In case of mistake in th, appointment of city manager, th, city commission will be held respon. Sible, even though under the cnarte.