| Show NEW FORM DISCUSSED J E Dooly and City Attorney Stephens on Contracts FRICTION FORCED CHANGE Mr Dooly Says the Old Contracts Were Models of Ambiguity and That the Now Form dives Board of Public Works the Physical Control Con-trol of All Work City Attorney Stephens Explains tho New Form Giving the Reason for It and Stating Its Advantages Chairman J E Dooly of the Board of Public Workg when asked yesterday I for an Interview about the proposed new form of contracts for city work said I will say regarding the contracts that the City Council1 should be apprised of The cost oC every contract and every material chang that will Increase the original cost should first be submitted to and approved ap-proved by the Council Take for example ex-ample the First South street reservoir The Council authorized the execution of a contract involving the expenditure of 24000 This was Increased by additions ad-ditions and changes mostly made by the City Engineer to about 533000 without with-out the knowledge of the Council The proposed contract will remedy this absurdity ab-surdity The Engineer should have the technical direction of all the work Sec tlon 2SG of the Revised Statutes of Utah Gives the Board of Public Works the I physical control of the work The contract con-tract prepared by the City Attorney Is brief and covers the subject thoroughly thorough-ly The old contracts many respects were models of ambiguity It Is not the duty of the City Engineer nor of the board to prepare contracts and I am somewhat surprised that a contract prepared by the City Attorney In accordance ac-cordance wIth the statutes should he objectionable to any department of the city government VIEW OF CITY ATTORNEY The old form of contract was approved ap-proved by me Inst year said City Attorney At-torney Stephens yesterday At that time T had Just assumed the office and the possible trouble which might bo caused by the clause requiring the concurrence con-currence of the City Engineer and the Board of Public Works on contracts was not pointed out to mr Later tho OulmerJennlngs suit came on and this clause had the effect of throwing1 out some of our beat testimony Snme time ago a request came to me from the Board of Public Works to draw up a new form of contract In accord ancewith the statute embodying any clauses I might suggest The new form Is the result of thin The chief change Is In eliminating that clause requiring Joint acton on the part of the Engineer and board Unless the Engineer and board should agree on everything It would be practically impossible to do anything under the old form of contract con-tract < > uch as Increasing the working force of contractors changing the plans etc The new form throws the responsibility on the board The responsibility re-sponsibility had to be placed on one or the other and I thought It best to throw It on the board since under the statutes the board hag to supervise the work1 The Engineer will continue to make specifications and estimates and payments to contractors will he made I on his estimates The Inspection of the work to see that it Is properly done iviii be under the direction of the Engineer En-gineer In fact the board Is required to avail Itself In every way of the technical knowledge of the Engineer Thats what he Is employed for and 1C the board does not take advantage of his services they all ought to be fired Jf all the branches of the city government gov-ernment worked In harmony this change would not have been so greatly needed I do not propose to go Into the merits of the unfortunate controversy contro-versy but the best way would be to learn If possible which Is to blame and fire that one and If all were to blame to Ire them all and put In people who would wOrk together for the beat Interests In-terests of the city |
