The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1924-07-15
HIGHWAY BOARD
DENIES CHARGES
OF EXAMINERS
Defends Practices Criticised
in Written Report to
Governor Branch.

Complete denial Of charges and
defense of practices criticised in the
State board of accounts report on
the division of equipment, State
highway commission. is made in the
commissions answer to the report.
submitted TO Governor Emmett F.
Branch.
AS to the $780, 900 overpayment to
o. F. Schlensker. auto parts dealer,
which was retrieved by the examin-
ers, the commission says it is lin
no position to affirm or deny the
findings of the board of accounts or
comment intelligently on the same.
The commission asks return Of al
vouchers and papers in the case.
promising to make an analysis Of
the account and submit a supplement
tai report to Branch.
The commissioners declare discrep-
ancies charged total but One-fourth
of l per cent of the total amount Of
money handled in the three-year pc
Rod covered by the report. They
urotest that ii is unreasonable to as
sumo the commission or director will
check individual items of a depart
ment for mistakes.
Defend Garage System
The commissioners defend The sub
garage system and deny that no ac-
ton was taken to re-distribute auto
parts stored in them until after ex-
aniners. found them overstocked.
They deny the commission had no
adequate records of the inventories
at these garages.
The examiners charged the com
mission bought bastard auto parts
at standard prices and had to ma
chine them before they could be
used. The commission says the only
bastard parts received We're from the
bureau of public roads without cost
and were milled in the central
garage.
The commission is criticized for
purchasing ''junked" trucks and
spending 81, 900 each on re-equipping
them. The commission replies that
the trucks were bought for $3.50 each
and were equipped with special dump
bodies in the commission garage.
The trucks are worth not less than
81, 900 each in road work, the com
mission declares. A special type
differential designed in the State
garage makes them better than the
average truck and as good as new,
the commission contends.
Records Misinterpreted
The examiners state trucks were
purchased when the commission
had ten similar ones in storage.
The commission declares the exam
liners interpreted the records incor-
rectly and that the trucks were in
the garage for repair and not for
rehabilitation. The commission
demands that the examiners retract
the statements regarding the trucks.
Twelve trucks were brought with
out newspaper advertising. the ex-
aminers declare. The commission
ers admit the facts. but point to the
fact that competitive bidding was
made on tn etrucks under Statute
B Of the commission law.
The commission denies the system
Of records and accounts is made
Quate- It also goes into detail to
show alleged excess purchases of
small parts were actually not ex-
cessive.
The commissioners call upon the
accounts board to furnish names of
fany Official who advised division
'employes not TO furnish information
to the examiners as charged by the
accounts board report.
Lawrence F. Orr, State examiner.
and a party Of examiners are said
to be in Washington making an ex-
animation Of records Of wr material
shipped to the local commission A
supplemental report on disposition
OF this material will be filed later by
the examiners.