New Britain herald., 1918-01-29
CURTIS RETURNS ID
 ATTACK ON QUIGLEY
Offers Further Evidence Regard ing Waste in Building Barn
EXPOSES PR0DIG ALITY
Believes Economy Could Have Been Effected By Different Method of Awarding ContTact-Hcalth Board Knew of Heavy Cost.

Awarding Contract-Hcalth Board
 Knew of Heavy Cost
 Further charges of extravagance in the construction of the barn at the Town Home were made public today by Alderman O. F. Curtis of the third ward in which he seeks to show how, by practical economy, the city could have prevented a waste of money.
 Alderman Curtis was appointed by Mayor Quigley to the committee which investigated his charges in the com- mon council but he refused to serve because the committee conducted it's deliberations in secret. Soon after the report of the committee was submitted to the cOuncil-and the report was not entirely favorable to the Quigley administration-Mr. Curtis promised the public that he would produce further evidence to substantiate his charges.
 His complete statement, issued to- day, follows:
 To the Public:
 Pursuant to promise we make pub lie a. further contribution of the his tory of the Town Home Dairy barn. My former statement of it's excessive cost and disregard of the customary and prescribed methods of financing used by the board has been verif1ec 1 by the admissions of the Charity Con- i missioners and the report of the so- 1 called Investigation committee which l did not, and was not expected to in vestigate very far (by me at least) who also did state that $2,00O might | have been saved if one of the bids received by the board had been ac- l r.Y,I nY,to int n | I stated in the common council that several thousand dollars had l been wasted in this barn transaction and that I would prove it. This as- l sertion was made after it appeared : to me that the mayor and his packers ] in the council for some reason desired i to side track any further publicity in the matter.
 The appointed committee also in- vestigated in secret (if they did any | nvestigating), and declined as re- | ported by their chairman to accept or act on the lines that would get re- suits if there were any to get. If further probing would have developed anything may be judged from what i follows:
 The definition of waste by the 1 Standard dictionary is as follows: to 1 eXpend thought1essly, unnecessarily, or without return, cause to be lost i through neglect or improvidence, make prodigal or extravagant use of, spend to no purpose, squander as tc waste time, property or resources.
 A dairy barn was authorized to be built at an expense of $6,O0o, by the common council and city meeting in March and April, 1916. After secur- ing this appropriation the Charity
 board changed it's min as to what it wanted and had plans drawn for a differently constructed, larger and i more expensive building without securing the proper authority to dc 1 so.
 Said board commenced work on the structure in the fall of 1916, 1 thereby definitely committing or fore ing the city to finish it at whatever cost, completing the excavation and l foundations in January, 1917. In February, 1917, they appeared before the board of finance and taxation asking for S5,60O for 1917 to com p1ete it. expecting the total cost, they now say, to be from sS,00O to s10,- | 0OO At the end of the fiscal year. l March 31, 1917, the unexpended bal ance of the 1916 appropriation of T s6,OOO (some S3,3oO) reverted back into the city treasury so that for 1917 the board would have the $5,- 600 requested to finish the structure.
 (See board report and city docu- 1 ments) From statem ents from re- | liable builders and the city engineers l am informed that bids were ob- tained in March for the labor and materials for the completion of the 1 barn. which bids were turned over to the board. This was before any advance in labor or material cost III 1917 of any size. But the chairman and the superintendent told me when I asked to see them Cthat is the bids)
 that they did not have them or any recollection of having received them
 Since then I was informed that they
 had been received and turned over
 to the investigating committee. These
 would be of interest if seen.
 On March 30, 1917. immediately
 after the. approval of the 1917 eS~
 inmates by the common council the
 board advertised in the local papers
 for bids for the wood or carpenter
 work. painting, etc. These plans
 and specifications, requiring S5OO
 certified checks to accompany the
 bids. The board had five bids to i show in answer, four of which had
 the required checks. Their prices
 ran from $5,270. $5,880, in round
 figures $6.1OO, $7,5O0 and $S,2OO and