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


editorial on the Magruuer
hearing is not easy to square
with the facts reported in
news stories Of your paper.
You attribute my charges
to politics. OF course ] have
scarcely concealed my OPP
position to Mr.. Magruder's
attempt to get himself
elected to the Arlington
County Board. Frankly. I
think that would be a calam-
ity for Arlington. But politics
or not. would you prefer that
/ suppress the information
that Mr.. Magruder charged
the county $14,115 in part by
exceeding the $40 per diem
rate established by the
County Board: that he APP
proved his own pay vouchers
without an independent
check by anyone else: that
IL employees of the Reassess-
ment Board were young girls
from IL to II years Of age
hired without work permits
required by Virginia State
law; that the basic records
of specific days and hours
worked have mysteriously
disappeared; that the cost OF
the 1856 reassessment was
100 per cent greater than
that of the 1850 reassess-
ment while the work load was
only 9 per cent greater. or
that the increase in assess
ments for the ABC members
of the County Board were
much greater than those for
the AIM members Of the
board or for Mr.. Magruder
himself?
I don't think Mr.. Magruder
is immune from criticism or
questioning because he is
running for Office. A public
official like Mr.. Magruder has
a duty to justify his admins
tration, to maintain adequate
records and to transmit them
In q businesslike manner at
the end of his term. In my
view you are mistaken if you
mean to imply that the
burden of proof did not rest
with Mr.. Magruder to answer
proper questions of fact. A
general denial or passing the
buck to his subordinates is
no answer.
If you wish to label my
actions in this matter as po-
litically inspired, I wish you
would not neglect the mo-
tives of the AIM members of
the board. AS your reporter
accurately stated, Mrs. Buch-
holz and DR.. Blevins wore
Magruder campaign buttons
during the hearing.
The verdict Of the AIM
majority was for its AIM
candidate. 1t was not only
a partisan decision, it was
taken with indecent haste.
The AIM majority made no
effort to study the records.
1t refused to insist upon the
production of essential rec
ords and the hearing Of key
witnesses. 1t declined to look
into ways of safeguarding
county funds in the future
and brushed off violations of
State laws relating to the
employment of minors. 1t
seemed oblivious to all the
rules of common-sense adj
ministration.
Ralph Kaul,
Member, Arlington County
Board.
I cannot agree with the
conclusion of your october
20 editorial on the Magruder
case in Arlington, namely,
that lit is regrettable that
this issue was raised" The
fact that the AIM majority
on the County Board gave
their candidate a vote of
confidence is scarcely sur
prising. Nor does that out
come justify the conclusion
that the inquiry itself was
"regrettable." Inquiry into
the affairs. Of any public
agency, or any public servant,
is appropriate at any time
when there is reasonable
doubt as to the propriety Of
action taken.
The inquiry brought out
two things:
/. Mr.. Magruder's unwill-
ingness to accept response
bility: and
2. His laxity and or inefii-
cheney in the management Of
the reassessment project.
He disclaims responsibility
for Ca the selection of all
employees except one, whom
he did recommend: (b) in
struction and supervision Of
staff employees in any phase
Of their work; (c) the COM
pensation paid to any men,
Der Of the Reassessment
Board or its employees, other
than reporting his own time;
and I'd the kind Of records
hept. tlloir accuracy and their