Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-10-29

MAJ kSobCi ~ calu AAC 0Ad ~ 90
Ia matter Of form" and that he
never checked whether the spe-
|cific hours listed were accurate.
He said that he had no reason.
however. to doubt the accuracy.
He said he had seen time sheets
being kept by Mrs. Weekley.
Mr.. Krupsaw and Mr.. Raul
commended that Mr.. Magruder
alone was responsible for certi-
tying the time worked by the
reasSessment board and the
county agents were not charged
with verifying the business Of
the vouchers.
S. Whether persons we're paid
for work in the reassessment
without addresses being fur
nished. and whether minors
were hired without work per-
mits.
Partial Authority
Mrs. Weekley said she was
hired through the county per-
sonnet ofiicer and that most Of
the other employees we're also.
She said the personnel Office
told her to assume responsible
ty for hiring part-time person
mel when necessary.
She said addresses were fur
nished for all personnel and
that the checks for part-time
workers were mailed to the In
dividuals by the county, not her
office.
Mrs. Weekley said some OF
the part-time workers were
friends Of people already work.
ing in the office and that lagos
never occurred to me-" She said
she did not know If any were
minors or If they had work
permits.
Mr.. Raul has stated that II
of the % persons who worked
at one time or another in the
reassessment were minors hired
without work permits in VIOLA
ton of Virginia law.
State Agency Checks
Commonwealth Attorney Will
liam Hassan said the State
Department Of Labor is check
ing Mr.. Kaul's claim. He said
however, that the director OF
the department told him that
the type of work done by the
girls was such that the de-
partment would not prosecute
even II the minors had no work
permits. He said the depart
ment director said It was not
hazardous or dangerous"
Mr.. Krupsaw said This Il
a unique situation where vio-
lations are not prosecuted"
This is a lot of who struck
John over something the board
doesn't have anything to do
WITH" said Mr.. Hassan. Prose-
cution is my business. II there
is a violation. the Department
Of Labor will prosecute"
Mr.. Raul and Mr.. Krupsaw
raised some new points by
questioning actual appraisals
made by the reassessment
board.
Increases Listed
Mr.. Raul said that. in the
rsasseSsment. his property was
raised Is per cent. Mr.. Krup>
saws 10 per cent. Mrs. Buch-
hollis 81 per cent. DR.. Blevins'
7 per cent. Mr.. Cooper's 5 per
cent. Mr.. Magruder's l.6 per
cent and three other members
of the reasseSsment board,
from 6 to 10 per cent.
SIS this merely coincidence?"
questioned Mr.. Raul.
Mr.. Maeruder said he did not
assess his own property. He
said. however. that in the 1850
assessment he had been charged
with a two-car garage when he
actually had only a one-car
garage. and that was corrected
this time.
Mr.. Hassan said the test Of a
good assessment is not singing
out individual properties but
whether comparable properties
are assessed equally. He said
his assessment went down be-
cause he had been charged in
1850 with an extra bathroom
he didn't have.
Mr.. Krupsaw said that, in
three cases. the reassessment
board failed to list apartment
buildings that were on proper
ties assessed.
Mr.. Magruder said that II
anyone's property was not
assessed n was the individuals
responsibility to see that 1t was
put % Ihe land records.