The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1919-09-05
Reply Of the County
Commissioners to
the Board Of
Education

commissioners
roll County desire to present to the
facts in reply to the statement Of the
Board Of Education recently made
public.
/. The tax levied for schools for
the school year 1918-1919 was 40 cents
ON the hundred dollars, although we
did not disapprove any particular
is. exactly what happened with re-
spect to the school budget for the
year 1917-1918, while the Board of
Education accepted the amount
levied for it, in 1917-1918, yet it de-
manded the full amount Of the budget
in 191S-1919, refusing to accept the
amount levied for it. Perhaps the
change of the political majority of
the County Commissioners had some
thing to do with this change of atti-
tude Of the Board of Education. This
present year the County Commits
sioners have had to increase the levy
for schools from 40 cents to s. cents
on the hundred dollars an increase Of
Is and not cents.
2. The debt of the Board Of Educa-
tion which came to the present Board
from the former Board was not a
debt contracted on account of the
Mt. Airy school building but on the
contrary was the balance yet unpaid
Of debt of $4,000 which the former
board got from its predecessor, and If
the amount Of $4,000 is the correct
amount Of that debt this board wish
es to advise the public that $4,000
has heretofore been appropriated to
the present Board of Education to
pay back debts. The Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners would also call at
tention to the fact that the appropria-
lions made for school purposes have
been increased from $500 for the
last year under the previous board to
$144 900 for the coming year, in other
words an increase of $4,000 in four
years.
3. This Board never did authorize
the expenditure of $51, 200 for the
Hampstead building, the President of
this Board did tell the Board of Edu-
cation, after the Hampstead building
had been begun that it would have to
be completed, that the building could
not be left stand and the work and
materials already put in the building
be wasted, but it was never contem-
could be appropriated for it.
4. We do not know either the
character or the cost of the new High
School building at Hanover, Pa
Some time ago, however, the informa-
tion was given out, not directly by the
Board Of Education, but in justif1ca-
ton of some of it's past and proposed
expenditures, that the school build
at I1rhA
a matter of fact it cost less than
$4,000, it is to be hoped that the in
formation with the respect to the
Hanover building is nearer the facts.
5. The amount which was agreed
upon, and this agreement is signed
by the members Of the Board Of Edu-
cation, for the Myers District building
is $4,000 and not $4,000 as alleged
i'm the statement of the Board Of Edu-
cation, this $4,000 together with
$4,000 for Pleasant Gap, $4,000 for Mt
Airy, $3250 for the Graceland build
ing, Westminster, $500 for Union
Bridge, $500 for White Rock and
$4,000 for other specified repairs,
amounting in all to $30,250 has been
appropriated by this Board, and the
same was offered to the Board Of
Education so that the improvements
could be made this summer, but the
Board of Education refused to accept
the money and do the work.
6. Martin ID. Hess, Treasurer did
agree to help audit the accounts of
the Board of Education and only de-
clined to do so when he found that
it was to be done at night during the
last week of December 1918.
T. The Board Of Education propos-
es to apply part Of the money which
it receives from the State for pur-
poses not authorized in the budget,
and then refuses to do work for which
the money is provided in the budget.
This Board is advised that this is
Illegal and that the money received
by the Board of Education from the
State is as much governed by the
budget as that received from the
County Commissioners, and we wish
to ask the Board Of Education pub
Ideally whether its counsel has adj
vised it that it has the legal right to
do as is proposed.
-Advertise