Evening star., 1941-07-10
Welfare Board
Sp|ii on Choice
OF Director
DriscoII Criticizes
Other Members for
Mode of Selection

Dispute among members OF the
Board of Public Welfare over the
selection of a new welfare director
came into the open today, when A.
J. Driscol, active board member
wrote to Chairman Frederick w
McReynolds sharply criticizing some
of his arguments to the Commls-
sionerS.
Mr.. Driscoll's statement was in
the nature of minority report on
the recent action of the Welfare
Board in resubmitting the name OF
Ray L. Huff, penal director. as its
nominee for the welfare director S
post, even though Mr.. Huff's name
earlier had been rejected by the
Commissioners.
When the Welfare Board consid-
cred the Commissioners request
that it submit a new nomination, y
Mr.. Driscoll, it was revealed, voted
for the nomination of Paul Edwards,
now District w. P. A. administrator.
Disputes McReynolds.
In the letter which Mr. Nc
Reynolds filed with the Commits
sioners after his board insisted on
the nomination of Mr.. Huff for a
second time, the statement was
made "the board regretfully finds
itself unable to accede to your oral
request of the nomination of Mr
Paul Edwards Mr. Driscoll took
issue with this quotation. declaring:
Il have no understanding that they
tthe Commissioners requested or
demanded that this board nominate
Mr. Edwards. Their statement to
you. I am sure. was intendd as a
guide for consideration of our board
not an order Despite these facts,
and for some reason unknown to
me. you have embodied in your re-
port to the Commissioners a state
ment l believe not to be borne out
by the facts
Referring to declaration in the
McReynolds' report that the We'll
fare Board regretted it had not
been given an opportunity to be
heard before the Commissioners re-
Jected the Huff nomination. and
declaring there should be coop
Grafton" Mr.. DriSc0ll said he was
wondering why the Welfare Board
did not confer with the Commis-
sioners in the spirit of co-opera-
ton" before it took final action in
rs first nomination.
Promotion System Questioned.
Referring to the declaration in
Mr.. McReynolds' report that the
Welfare Board believed promotion
in the service a good policy, Mr..
Driscoll's statement said:
How, then, do you account for
the appointment recently of per-
son outside of the service as head
of one of the institutions of our
board, and why. under your chair
manship. have not the recent holders
of the office of director of public
welfare been drawn from the ranks
of the welfare department? May I
ask also whom it is intended to pro-
mote to the vacancy shortly to be
created in the Superintendency of
one of our institutions? apparently
the Home for the Aged and InfirmD
Certainly these actions, past and
contemplated, indicate great incon-
sistency in policy which you have
stated to the Commissioners is one
believed to be strictly adhered to by
the Board of Public Welfare"
Fav0rs Edwards.
Mr.. Driscoll argued also that a
declaration in the McReynolds re-
port that the intention of the Dis
trict welfare act was that the We'll
fare Board should select its own
director and its nomination should
be accepted by the Commissioners
unless there was some valid objec-
tion to the person chosen was
hinged on a mere technicality"
Mr.. Driscoll said he did not believe
the Welfare Board was empowered
to question what may be a valid
objection" by the Commissioners.
He concluded his letter with a dec
laration he still was of the opinion
Mr.. Edwards had the highest nee
essary qualifications and back
ground to make him most desir-
able candidate
Under the law. the appointment
of a welfare director must be made
by the Commissioners on nomination
by the Welfare Board. Since the
board resubmitted the Huff nomina-
ton, the city heads have been
sitting tight" and have indicated
they will continue to do so for some
time" leaving welfare direction in
the hands of Conrad Van Hyning,
principal assistant welfare director