OCR Text |
Show EX-MAYOR WM. GLASMANN I PROTESTS AUDITOR'S REPORT An Open Letter to City Auditor and City Commission Demanding a Square Deal in the iMaking of Comparisons With the Glasmann Administration Juggling of Figures Pointed Out and Pertinent Questions Asked A "Show Down" Demanded ; W. Van Dyke. Jr . rlty Auditor, and to tlir- Honorable Commissioners of Ogden. Utah: Gentlemen I learn from the morning morn-ing papers that you have issued an- other ilnanclal statement for the city, and this statement odny appears In another part of this paper The report re-port of the special committee appointed ap-pointed by the Honorable Mayor, with i the consent of the City Commissioners, Commission-ers, It Koems, was not satisfactory This new financial report, by the way. is the third financial report concerning concern-ing the first year's business of the first commission form of government of Ogden City, and the object or this last report it appear is to show the people of Opden that the commission form of government for 1912 was con ducted for 1,964.12 less than the administration ad-ministration in the year 1911 That is almost $2,000 ThK would not be n marvelous showing, even if it were true, but the statement is not true, and the whole of this third report is misleading, unfair, unjust and nn-worth nn-worth of even the first commission form of government of Ogden Utah As the Mayor of the last city govern -men' under the old plan. I assume to speak for that administration, having hav-ing been Its chief executive Please remember that I did not seek the comparison of the two administrations administra-tions and that this defense has been forced upon me. 1 find lhat. In order to make a BhowlnSi you purposely deduct from 1 your expenses ?2O,80ft.4S which you I Claim was paid on aerount of previous previ-ous administration, but 1 find ihat in this twenty thousand dollars which ou deduct from our expenses in or-der or-der to make a favorable showing. Is included $1.?5 which you claim the last city administration left due from Ogden City to the waterworks dc partment. The city administration, over whi h I presided, decided not to pay any water rentals because it uas impl transferring money from one fund to another But I am willing to admit that we did not pay any hydrant hy-drant rentals and that you did pa Into In-to the water funds from the general fund some aeven thousand dollars for bydrant rentals for the two years for which I was mayor, but when I turned the city government over to the honorable commissioners I left (8 250 in (he waterworks department v.hieh bad heen previously loaned I from the general fund. Now If your commissioners intend-I intend-I ed to be fair, you would have taken Irom the water funds only the difference differ-ence between the $7,635 and the $8.-I'.'.n, $8.-I'.'.n, which the waterworks department depart-ment owed the general fund You Charge nay administration with the' ? 7.o:J5 for the hydrant rental, but you I do not give us credit with having left more money in the water fund than j was required to pay that rental. Do on call thai fair'' Is thai honorable '' Is that jus. ! Again, when I retired from the office of-fice of Mayor. I left $21,000.60 of the taxes fcr 1911 in the county treasurer's treas-urer's office which the books of Ogden Og-den City show the honorable com-0 com-0 era received. Do you give my im nlstratlon credit for haing that on hand In your report ? No, you do not. Your report shows thai when I retired there was only $703. 04 on hand, and jrel vour own books show that you received $21.006.5n taxes for 1011 Still, you take that j same $21,006.50 without giving credit, and by such juggling of figures you I are able to show that you conducted the cii government for almost $2,-1 000 less than my administration did during 1911 Again, my adminlbtrutiun left 8,-1 772.50 in various special tax Jistricts. funds, whicb had been advanced from the general funds, in order to pay some large warrants thai had been' issued against l he tai funds when there was not enough money In the tax finds to pay those warrants, and. .n order to stop the Interest on those tax fund warrants, the special tax dis-, trut muds bonowed that much money mon-ey irom the general fund, expecting It to be returned ,is soon as t lie people peo-ple paid their special taxes. Mv administration ad-ministration was en'.it ed to credit for this $8,772.69, the name as it was entitled to the credit of $8,260.49 in the water fund and the $21,006.60 left with the County Treasurer, or a! totul ot $38,089.58. For all or which ni administration should have been j given .Credit on the f'r.it of January J 1912, when we turned the city govern-' ment over to you, in addition 10 the $79 B l for which you gtye us rdlt Do -on gentlemen think you can attord to make such a statement as you have made and which is printed in today's paper, when the foregoing stntement Is true and rorrect? It was uot my intention to take au I rthei part in the eontroversy con-'etnniL; con-'etnniL; the special committee's report. re-port. I was perfectly willing to allow al-low that report to go before the peo-ple peo-ple when that report stated that the 'transferring of money from one fund I to another durlnu your administration administra-tion was such that they could not make, a report without having a more detailed statement as to which administration ad-ministration ahould have credit for such transfers of funds This I considered con-sidered a complete vindication ot my rtdmlniHt ration. But when your auditor aud-itor l ame back with another auditor' Kporl correcting your special committee's com-mittee's report, "for the purose uf making a further comparison with my las) administration, I fe;t that I owed It in the falthrul servant or Ogden I Itj v. ho served with me in lom an(j 1911, to expose and show up vour ju-giin of figures. But let us further look at the real (act. The foregoing statement shows that, in addition to the credit you gave us cash on hand Januan La( 1012. $793 94 we are entitled to' credits ror money received bv your administration, which my admlnutra- 'tlon left for ou to take rhargc of, as i follows . I Monty left in special fa fund transferred to your general fund $ 8,772.59 ! Money left, (n waterworks j department transferred by I you to the general j fund 8,250. 19 j Honey left by us with the County Treasury ol Weber We-ber County, and received by you 21,006.50 Total credit more than you lve us $38,039.58 You stale lnyour report that when mv administration retired, It left au (overdraft on the Treasury of $83,-347 $83,-347 ti5. Now deduct $38,039.68 In cash cash we left with you as above stated, for which you gie us NO credit, and It shou.t that the net overdraft on, ! the treaaurj was $46,808.07. Now, al you have taken the above money as ; properly belonging to your administration. adminis-tration. Instead of giving my administration admin-istration credit, the same amount of, I $38,039.58 should be carried as a charpe against on as cash on bandl 1 left by my administration. Yet jou claim It as your credit on ja comparison with my administration administra-tion Is that fair? You received in all $24,000 more taes in 1012 than we did in 1911, Therefore, that amount should he deducted de-ducted from your receipts in order to make a comparison That would nir,kc our showing sull more unfav-ot unfav-ot :i I le An Inspection of the county treasurers treas-urers books shows that you drew last year all the general rund money I for 1011'. except the usual unpaid taxes Now. ir on had permitted $21,006.50 or 1912 general fund taxes I to remain in the county treasury as mj administration did, your liguresj would still be unfair Your own books show you reeelved $167)00 taxes for 1912 which is about all that can be collected on a lL'-mlll levy on an assessed as-sessed valuation of $1 4,:;ss,000, This then shows that you tool, the $21,0060, which mv administration left In the countv treasury, but you did not leave that sum of money at the end of your first year with the said treasurer Neither did you give the former adminlstriilion credit for Iruing that amount In the county ";isury. Do you call that a fair comparison 0 I call vour ntteniion to the report published by the Salt Lake commissioners, commis-sioners, in Thursday morninc papers You will see they make a comparison for nine years, giving each administration adminis-tration credit for the cash in the county treasury, In the city treasury and also for accounts due and pa -able That Is absolutely fair Why cannot Ogden City have a report the sme as the Salt Lake commissioners have made0 If you will do that, the Standard and I will not complain of unfairness or call it Juggling with figures or funds. I call for such a report as the Salt Lake City people! received, or In place of such a report. I ask the auditor of Oden City to: annver (he following questions First Was there In the special tax finds when I retired on December 31. 1911, the sum or $8.77." which the commissioner; In 1012 transrerred to, the general fund and later used to va the expenses of Ogden City? Second Was there In the waterworks water-works fund when I retired, on December Decem-ber 31, 1011. the sum of $8,860.49 w hich the commissioners in 1912 1 tt i.nsfcrred to the general fund and latei usd to meet the expenses of I Ogden City" Third Was there left n the county coun-ty treason when I tetired. on Decern bor 31. 1911. over $24,000 of 1911 tax mone. of which $21,00KS0 was placed In the general fund in 1012 and later uf.od to pa the expenses of Ogden City? Fourth: Did 'he commissioners In 1912 pay from t he general fund to the waterworks department $7,686.15 for tire hydrant rentals and did you Charge that up as a clnlm paid for my administration when the water words department owed the general fund S J",' ; 1 ' Ih that true'.' Fifth: If you thought It right to charge the Glasmann administration with $7,685 15 for fire hydrant rentals why did you think It wrong to give that same administration credit Tor the $8,250.49 left In the water fund aud taken from the waterworks fund by your administration'' Did you actually ac-tually lake $8,260.49 from the water fund left by the Glasmann adminr.-tratlon, adminr.-tratlon, without gning 'hat admitns tratlon credit, and then claim that there was due $7,635.16 for hydrant rental ? Sixth Since the Glasmann admin Istralion left over $24,000 In the county coun-ty treasury of 1011 general fund taxes, how much did the commission form of government leae with the county treasury for the same fund. .lanuarv 1. 1913? Seventh: Was any of the 2-mlll levy increased tax levy In 1912 ror Ch waterworks, covered in to the general fund, or was lhe totul of oer $28,000 left Tor the waterworks department1 Lighih Please stale wbal 'he float Ing debt was on January 1 1910, when Mayor Brewer retired Including in iii-hi on debt and such other claims as an succeeding" administration paid, such as the Wlllard rreek deal, ror which the commissioners wanl credit. Also give full credit ror cash left In (ountv treamic and In special funds Give same floating debt, with like credit, ror January 1, 1912, when Mayor Glasmann retired. Then give the floatinc debt and like redlt for January 1 ion If the city auditor will fully and fairly fair-ly answer the foregoing questions, there will be no further cause or ex CUSS to doubt the figures of the Hpc clal committee when l( reported tha-I tha-I the transferring of money from one rund to another needed explaining be I fore an) irue comparison could be made. U B eall upon the commissioners and the auditor to answer the foregoing questions or to make a report accord Ing to the methods adopted bv Salt) Lake Cit v . .Signed i WILLIAM GLASMANN. Mayor of the previous administration! ihe record or which administration was used for comparison. |