The Calhoun chronicle. [volume] (Grantsville, W. Va.) 1883-1984, 1923-03-01

IN now costing tfe-statr -A,,r-s-.,as -,
uomars' let alone the cost of morolitv
"nen ms father finally realized his
rsonsiDility, he asked the state to as
sumo the guardianship of his yonnce,
cnhuren. 1t was found, however tho,
tue miner was fairly able to care for
.he children and this he was reonireI,
70 90. The case involving the yonneer
chhureh was settled by an authori9ed
asene at an actual cost uf less tban
So.oo though 1t might have cost the
state hundreds Of dollars for the na;r-
tehanee OF children If the agent had M,
aroused the father the sense of na r.
nas responsibility. From an econom.
.Iahupont' II no other" Secretary
u.nam SAID, this case proves the ne.
hnt Sy oI developing not only parental
OUT also local responsibility.
prominent attorney OF we,,a,
while recently discussing the vaI,,o -,
work of this sort, said that everv a,,,b
orized person giving full time 70 tht.
county problem is worth more RI tho
public at large than 10 policemen or
sheriffs to take care of the res,Its ~
the original neglect on the part of tho
county. VI the
Ihls plan creating county welfare
Doarus Is In line with the general ten
dehcy to decentralize social welfa 70
work instead of centralizing II into
state or even federal units. The aim 10
10 pace more responsibility upon each
county. The idea is that county autho-
rltles know local conditions better and
can keep In more intimate and con.
slant touch with local conditions than
the central authorities of the state or
federal government.
Inc question is, Is the county readv
TO stand its new Responsibilities and 10
its foundation strong enough to unhoId
enlarged duties of further government
activities! Because this question
ISIS IL was decided to make the adont-
ION OF the proposed county welfare ho.
ara plan optional with each county
MISS Hettie Hazlert secretary of tho
state child welfare commission sovs
unfortunately due to the division of
responsibility very few of these Officers
nave suItlcent duties assigned to them
10 justify engaging all of their time I'm
'ne WAT nor does the cOmpensat ton al
iolIe" LOT such divided services provide
reasonable living; therefore they are
conpeiIed to spend the greater mart of
'heir tlme at some more remuneratiye
occupation thus relega ting their nnhlic
duties to a secondary place.
1t would be far more to the intaras,
or children, Miss Hazlett said to unIta
closely related tasks which from their
very nature fall logically together and
uhder the supervision of the state. en-.
trust them to county unit or a county
welfare board in which competent peo
PIE PAID for their entire time. serve the
pubic for the benefit of the child NOT
only economically and efficiently but
'D'
Inc creation of county welfare Sec
retarles at the option of the counties
is provided for in senate bill2S6 intro
uuced by Senator Hughes and the dunli
cate Dill, known as house bill No. 42S In
troduced in thee house of delegates Inv
delegate Read, by request, The bill was
in both houses n January %
ana referred in each house TO the com
mittee on judiciary.
A county welfare board would oon
Slst of three members, of whom the nre-
ldent OF the county court would be ey
ofilcio member. The other two members
would be required to be residents of the
cunty aud weuld lie appointed by the
JndSe OF the court having criminal iur- |
lsdiction. All members would serve
without pay and one member of the
board would have to be q woman. I'M
der the terms of the bill.
The members would serve for two
years anG vacancies would be filled by
appointment OF the judge of the juven- |
lie court. Meetings would be held mon !
thly.
The duties of the board would be TO |
cooperate with the state board of child |
reh's guardians In its work in the co.