Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-06-24

fC0ntfnue0 r. rage Ohe.l
zen are based largely O. the big sum
paid out to the holders CT the contracts,
while State officials have objected 10
them on the grounds that Sll5er cannot
legally be an employe Of the b., and
still be interested as a member Of the
firm Of Snider & ROtz, in a contract with
the board
RI Several months ago Q. s. Lesh, attorney
general Of Indiana, gave an opinion to
this effect to the State board of accounts
This opinion caused quite a Juror in the
school board and the matter was referred
to Albert Baker, who was at that time
attorney for the board. Mr.. Baker sub
mitted an opinion similar in character
to that Of Attorney General Lesh. hold
ing that -Snider legally had no right to
act as building advisor aLd at the same
time be interested in the Snider & ROtz
contract.
len Member. of the majority factions Of the
board. who have been strong defenders
OF the two contracts, pointed out that
Mr.. Baker had prepared and approved
the contracts that he now criticized. How
= ever. Mr.. Bakers approval on the con-
tract was worded: Approved as to
form" and he apparently was careful
not to approve them as to legality or
advisability. This opinion did not please
the majority members Of the board and
they employed Merle n. A Walker to
give an opinion in the matter Mt
Walker held that the two contracts were
perfectly legal and were not mutually
$ antagonistic.
PUBLIC SUSPICIOUS
OF EXPENDITURES.
Another ground for criticism is that in
-
a percentage basis Of expenditures, and
the more money spent by the board the
more money it means to Mr.. Snider and
to his firm. This, Of course. does not
tend to instil a feeling Of perfect con-
6dence In the public mind. Naturally
when large expenditures are recommend
ed by the building advisor the thought
comes up in the brain Of the average cit
lien that this means more for the firm OF
Snider & ROtz than would a smaller ex-
z-penditure.
AS the Snider & Rotz contract covers
engineering, the attention Of the tax
payer naturally Is directed to this par
sticular feature Of the boards building
program. Here he finds that today the
cost Of engineering work on new build
ings averages almost so per cent Of the
cost Of the general contract, whereas
few years ago it averaged only about
Is per cent. Friends Of Snider & Rotz
explain this by saying that engineering
costs advanced faster than other costs
IN the boom period OF last year and that
the modern school. with its vocational
work, shops. gymnasiums, etc, requires
more engineering equipment than did
the old style classroom buildings
Another thing that has added cOnsid-
erably to the dissatisfaction with which
the Snider & Rotz contracts are re-
egarded by many citizens is the fact that
@in February when tha question Of
whether TO go with the building pro-
gram Immediately was being considered
Mr.. Snider gave his opinion that the low
water mark Of building material costs
would be reached by March 10. In sup
port Of this view Of the situation he tead
at the board meeting a large number Of
letters. nearly all from architects. build
Ing material concerns and other parties
Interested in the building business.
Every one of these letters expressed the
opinion that the bottom was about to be
reached and that building prices would
take an inward trend.
8fSNIDER UPHELD
BY THE BOARD.
Charles L. Barry. a minority member
OF the board, who has opposed a resump-
ton Of the building program. regardless
Of the school necessity, until building
costs fell to a lower point, insisted that
the lowest level had not been reached
and pointed out that all OF the Snider
letters were from persons interested in
boosting the building business. This
preeipitated one Of the usual board quar-
rels, and Mr.. Snider was upheld
Since the date named building costs
have fallen considerably and critics Of
the Snider & Rotz contracts point out
that Mr.. Sniders prediction went far
-astray. They also point out that his
commissions both as building adviser
and as a member of the firm Of Snider s.
.ssRotz, are considerably larger on con-
tracts let at that time than they would
have been had the letting of contracts
been held over for three months&
There is feeling in some quarters that
$4,000 or more is entirely too much
money to spend for building advisers and
engineering fees in the course of eighteen
months For this $4,000 the board gets
the services of its adviser and engineers
only part of the time. as both Mr.. Snider
and his firm engage in general engineer
ing work on the outside, and do not by
any means devote their entire attention
to school board matters. On the other
hand. however, II Is pointed out that the
money awarded TO the firm is not exor-
DlldHl Wueu IL Is CSnslueTeu Iney nave
practically full supervision Of the plans
and building Of a program entailing the
expediture Of millions Of dollars.
-. There is nothing unusual in employing
engineers and architects on a percentage
basis. proponents of the plan show, and
demonstrate that this plan is followed
largely in both public and private enrer-
prises. 1t Is doubtful, other declare.
whether the work could be done any
cheaper on a contract basis than by the
present method. For instance, when the
board Of public works was preparing
to remodel the city market 1t made ten
tatiTe plans with a firm OF architects to
perfect the plans and to supervise the
construction on per cent basis.
There is no doubt but that the board
would be in a far stronger position with
2 the public If it would put Its building
advisor and engineers on a fat salary
basis This would relieve the board or
"a great amount Of criticism that has
been heaped upon it as a result Of the
two contracts.