The School District Spending Scandal

Are the taxpayers of school district number five taking sufficient interest in the expenditure of their money? It does not seem so to a disinterested observer. The Herald wants to bring a few facts home to them. At the time of the letting of the contract for heating the school house, the Herald found it necessary to remark that, in its opinion, a thieving swindle had been perpetrated upon the taxpayers. A review of the actions of the board will show why. The contract was let without calling for bids. The board decided upon a particular system of heating, the Smead system, and without giving others a chance, they let the contract. Suppose they were right in selecting this system; if their object had been the good of the district, would they not have advertised for bids? The minutes recorded on April 16, 1892, show a contract signed in duplicate with The Smead Warming and Ventilating Co. for thirty-eight hundred dollars. In addition, it has been decided that completing the contract will require at least fourteen hundred dollars more—a total of fifty-two hundred dollars to heat a thirteen thousand dollar house. Furthermore, the clerk was absent and stated he knew nothing of the meeting. The copy of the contract in the hands of the clerk is dated the fifth of April, then changed to the sixteenth, indicating the deal had been arranged beforehand. One director even admitted to a businessman, 'You know perfectly well that when the city council or any other public body has any contract to let, they make all they can out of it, and you must expect that the school board will do exactly the same thing.' It is for the taxpayers to decide whether this new community is to be characterized by the thievery, dishonesty and corruption of its public officials.