Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 1 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
Letter
To Whom It May Concern: (continued from last week)
Why was the $700 sheep claim paid in February handled so differently from the request for a screen door for the Court House which was made the first of July and has not as yet been acted upon? According to figures and facts which are available in the Clerk's Office, it looks as if thi6 way of handling a claim may be a carry-over frorr former days.
Comparing the period of 8 years since the appointment of a dog warden with the 8 years prior to this time, one finds that for the period of 1952 through fiscal year 1959 the ’ dog tax revenue totaled $17,219.29, with 69 percent of this amount being paid in claims. For the period of 1960 through fiscal year of 1967 the revenue amounted to $19,250. 75, with 32 percent of this amount being paid in claims. Before 1960 it was not uncommon for claims to be paid when a maiy appeared before the Board of Supervisors and swore that dogs had killed his livestock. This method of paying claims has been held to a minimum for the past 8 years until February 1967. During the year 1952 the amount of $2759 was paid in claims when the dog tax revenue amounted to$2151.35. For the past fiscal year the revenue was $2266 and the amount paid in claims would have been only $439 , but for the payment of the scandalous $700 sheep claim. From two observations of the supervisors in action, it appeared to me that some of the Board members do not seem too interested (for one reason or another) in what is good for the people and for the county. At the August meet ing after the. reading of the minutes of a special meeting held July 17, one Board member was heard to ask when this meeting occurred; but he was present at the July meeting when there was a bit of discussion as to why it was necessary to have a special meeting and why the meeting could not be held July 14. At the same meeting after a discussion had taken place and the chairman was in the process of calling for a vote, one Board member was heard to say to another, “What are they doing now?* and received the response, “Huh?* Another member checked out at 12:00 at the July and August meetings even though the business of the county was still being carried on. One wonders if this is his general practice. After voting to ask the State to supply a qualified person to start the County assessment, one member thought that a local person should be employed (and paid $10 per day) to watch the man supplied by the State. Where are these £10 per day people and of
90.3%