OCR Text |
Show Suspension of Agent By j Commissioners Justified Long Study and Investigation Reveals Ample Reason to Justify Action. No Local Complaints Lodged. total cost to the county was not to exceed $1,200 per year. Two years ago, however, the county agent presented pre-sented a budget requiring $1,800 for expenses. At that time the county refused to make such a large appropriation approp-riation but did grant an allowance of $1,500 for 1930. In the fall of 1930 the county agent presented to tho county commissioners a budget requiring re-quiring the appropriation of $1,900 for expenses for the year 1931, and this appropriation was likewise refused re-fused by the county commissioners, and they adopted a budget calling for the appropriation of $1,200. Protests were then lodged with the county commissioners by the farm agent and by the Extension sendee, complaining that the farm agent could not operate with an expense budget of such a small amount. But before making a final decision in the matter the county commissioners called together to-gether representative farmers of San- Recent published articles of William Wil-liam Peterson, of the Agricultural college, concerning the suspension of the services of a county farm agent for Sanpete county, have brought forth from the Sanpete county commissioners com-missioners the following explanation and justification for their actions in refusing to meet the requests of tho farm agent for increased appropriations appropria-tions : More than a year ago the county commissioners undertook to make an investigation among the farmers of Sanpete county to ascertain whether they would be justified in meeting the expense incident to maintaining a county farm agent in Sanpete county. The services of a county farm agent were engaged several years ago under an arrangement whereby the only cost to the county was expenses incurred by the farm agent, including his traveling trav-eling expenses, his salary being paid by the Agricultural college. At the time this service was instituted th? pete county, officers of the farm bureau bur-eau organization and other leaders throughout the county for the purpose of ascertaining their views regarding the advisability of maintaining this service at the increased cost demanded demand-ed by the farm agent and after thorough thor-ough investigation it was ascertained that the sentiment of the farmers and people throughout the county was against the employing of a farm agent if it required the expenditure by Sanpete county of any greater amount than $1,200 per annum for expenses, and it was felt that tho x-penditure x-penditure of as much as $1,200 for traveling expenses for one man within with-in Sanpete county was as much as the taxpayers of this county should do burdened with, in view of the fact that the farm agent was paid a s;:bry of around $2,600 per year by tho Agricultural college extension service, in addition to the moneys received from Sanpete county, and that $100 per month for traveling expenses should be sufficient for one man m this work. Up to the present time there ha3 not been a single protest lodged with the county commissioners against their decision or actions in this matter mat-ter nor has there been a single request re-quest from any farmers' organization in Sanpete county for the reestablish-ment reestablish-ment of a farm agent, except from the Extension service and the farm agent himself. It was because of the refusal of the county commissioners of an allowance of more than $1,200 per year for traveling expenses to the farm agent that the Extension service withdrew the farm agent from Sanpete county. |