Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-11-02


1t does seem that Mr.. Ma
gruder, as chairman Of the
General Reassessment Board.
might have exercised some
administrative responsibility
for the preservation Of basic
records and in the formula
ton of employment policies
pursued by the board.
In view of the hasty, par
tisan hearing by the County
Board, ! hope, as q taxpayer,
that it may be possible after
the forthcoming election for
the board to reopen its study
of the costs of the most
expensive reassessment ever
conducted in Arlington Coun-
ty. If 1t doesn't. it will in
deed be "regrettable."
Ronald ID. Ross.
4 4 Il y
Your editorial on the Ma
gruder business contains two
implications rather startling
to Virginians.
One is that absence of any
records of pay is q trifling
matter of no concern to Ma
gruder.
The second noteworthy
comment is that the charges
were made in "the closing
days of the campaign" They
we're made on October 10.
Closing days of this cam
paign are November 4 and 5.
The board had plenty of time
to investigate and inform the
voters.
Elizabeth Baker.
Editors note: The Star
in two editorials, has ex-
pressed its views concerning
the purely political aspects
Of the Magruder case. We
see no reason to continue
that discussion. Some of the
letters published above raise
specific questions, however,
which we will attempt to
answer.
Why did the latest reassess-
ment cost $97,745 as COM
pared with $46,823 for the
1850 reassessment? Mr.. Raul
notes that the work load in
1867 was 9 per cent greater.
The per diem rate for the
1850 job was $25. For 1867
the per diem rate was $40
fixed by the County Board
and presumably approved by
Mr.. Raul. This is an increase
of go per cent. We do not
know what other factors con-
tributed to the higher cost.
Who translated the $40 per
diem rate into a rate of SIS
per hour. based on an eight
hour day? Mrs. Emma Week
ley. secretary of the Reassess-
ment Board, testified at the
hearing that a Mr.. Roberts,
former county director of
real estate assessments, in
structed her to compute the
claims for pay at IS an hour.
We think this was reason
able. Certainly an assessor
who might have worked one
hour on a given day should
not have been paid $40. If be
worked nine hours it seems
reasonable to have paid him
$45. It is worth noting that
the Board Of Equalization. APP
pointed by the County Board.
charged for their services on
an hourly basis.
Who was responsible for
the missing work sheets? Mr..
Magruder followed proper
procedure in submitting these
records to the secretary of
the Reassessment Board.
William j. HasSan, common
wealth attorney. says they
were not official records, and
that no one was required to
preserve them.
What about the minors en-
ployed without work permits?
They were not employed by
Mr.. Magruder. Mr.. Hassan
said he made some investiga-
ton Of the list of minors
submitted by Mr.. Raul. The
highest paid was 10 years
old and did not need a work
permit. The next two, in
order Of pay received, had
work certificates. A fourth
was "a years old. Another
had a District work permit,
but lacked a Virginia certifi-
cate. The other cases have
not yet been fully investi-
gated by Mr.. Hassan.
Finally. Mr.. Booker. in his
letter. suggests that The Star
had said that the inquiry
itself" was regrettable. The
Star said nothing of the sort
In two earlier editorials 1t
had urged the board to inves-
tigate the charges. What we
did say was that it was re-
grettable that Mr.. Raul had
raised the issue when, as the
investigation revealed, there
was no evidence to support
the charges and the infer
ences TO be drawn from therp.)