Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-10-29
Arlington Boord Clears Mogruder
By 3-to-2 Vote on Portison Lines
Continued From First Page

/ Continued from Ftrst rage
/ Kaul is supporting ABC candi-
date Herbert L. Brown in the
County Board campaign.
Mr.. Krupsaw said the matter
was left in q highly inconclu-
sive state" since certain time
records kept by the secretary
Iof the Reassessment Board
cannot be found. Mr.. Krupsaw
said the time records were CRU
cial" TO the investigation.
In q statement after the
hearing, Mr.. Kaul said he did
not get adequate answers TO his
questions. He said he is "sure"
that citizens who have been
Outraged by this obvious cover
lup and whitewash" viii start
action "by every legal means TO
force an accounting OF this
irresponsible II not illegal con-
duct OF the General ReaSsess-
ment Board"
Mr. Magruder and Mrs. En-
ma Weekley. secretary, were the
principal witnesses for the
Reassessment Board. The board
and Mrs. Weekley were repre-
sented by Oren r. Lewis. an
Arlington attorney who Is
prominent In county Republican
circles.
Denial Under Oath
1 Mr.. Magruder denied under
oath that he ever received any
money for time not worked dur
ing the l5-month period Of the
reassessment of county prop
erty in 1856 and 1857.
| Il say emphatically and ca
/ tegorically that ! never chargep
any work to the Reassessment
/ Board when I was not re-
assessing proptry." he said.
The main questions involved
in the investigation and the
testimony follow:
/. Whether overcharges we're
made by exceeding the $40 per
day pay set by a county board
/ resolution when the ReassesS-
ment Board was set up.
Mr.. Magruder said the Reas-
sessment Board talked over the
per diem pay at the beginning
with Mr.. Roberts. former di-
rector Of real estate assess
ments, and that II was con-
cluded the $40 was for an
eight-hour day and that the
unit pay was IS an hour.
The amount Of money in
VOWED in payments over $40 a
day to Mr.. Magruder was 5000.
Mr.. Magruder said this was for
overtime worked during the last
few weeks Of the reassessment
when the board was pressed TO
complete the Job.
Cites First Voucher
He said the first voucher he
submitted showed the pay was
being computed on an hourly
basis because 1t was less than
$40 a day.
Mrs. Weekley testified that
MFR. Roberts showed her what
forms to fill out in connection
with figuring the claims for
pay and that he told her to
| figure It at IS an hour. Mr.
Roberts and his successor,
Frank Austin. we're officials
directly responsible 10 County
Manager A. T. Lundberg. while
the reassessment board was an
independent agency appointed
by the circuit court judge.
/ Mr.. Krupsaw and Mr.. Raul
said. the county board never
authorized payment Of more
than $40 q day. They said no
one had the authority to allow
computation at IS an hour.
/ 1t was brought out that Mr..
Roberts is not In the area and
was not available to testify.
Knew Of Overtime
Mr.. Austin, who initiated the
vouchers submitted by MIR. Ma
gruder and other members Of
the Reassessment Board. said
he knew that overtime was
being charged toward the end
of the reassessment project.
He said he would not have
signed any voucher had he
thought It did not fepresen.
actual time worked.
2. Whether Mr.. MasTu. .:
charged the county for ti1c
when he was out OF the county
/ or working at his own business.
(Mr. Raul said that Mr.. Mas
grVder put in for ~ days DUR
inc q 13-day period from Sep