USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > Saugus > Town annual report of Saugus 1906 > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
Evidence (3.)
The plans exhibited to your Committee call for a II feet stud. It appeared from the testimony of Mr. Robinson, one of the Building Committee that he "thought the stud was 12 feet, the same as any ordinary school-room."
Mr. Sidebottom, one of the architects, testified that the rooms were built II feet stud, according to the plans.
High School.
Your Committee also find that the Building Committee was authorized to erect complete and furnish a brick High School building, including land for the same, not to exceed $50,000; that the said Committee had under consideration a lot of land on Central street known as the Hone lot; that they secured a verbal option of the same for a certain price ; that they were to receive a written option on the following day and later learned that the option had been given to some one other than the Town and upon further enquiry learned that the price had been consider-
73
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
ably advanced and the Committee deemed it advisable to pur- chase other land which they did at the corner of Central and Winter streets upon which the building is now being erected.
Architects.
The Building Committee proceeded to select Prescott and Sidebottom as architects for these buildings. Thereupon Fisk and Caswell were so much dissatisfied that they immediately resigned as members of the Committee and have refused to act as such up to the present time. Therefore the Town instead of the services of five men chosen have but the services of three men.
Evidence (4.)
Mr. Caswell, a member of the Building Committee testified that at the meeting of the Committee, when the question of employing architects came up and the name of the firm of Pres- cott and Sidebottom was mentioned, that he told the Committee that he- would turn in his resignation if they were employed, giving as a reason why they should not be employed " that the Town wouldn't want Prescott and Sidebottom, as they had had them before and were dissatisfied with them." It appears that Mr. Caswell immediately resigned.
Mr. Caswell also testified that Robinson told him that he did not want one Taylor to be the architect as there would no money in it. Mr. Caswell also testified that he had seen Smith a mem- ber of the Building Committee with Robinson five or six times and that Smith was intoxicated and incapable of doing business, and that Robinson had offered him and Smith intoxicating liquors.
Mr. Fiske, a member of the Building Committee said he resigned because he was opposed to Prescott and Sidebottom ; that he did not think them safe men to have the contracts for three schools after the experience the Town had had with them on the Felton street school; that Prescott and Sidebottom were chosen architects upon the votes of Ludden, Robinson and Smith, and it seemed to him to be a put up job to give the work to them.
6
74
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
It appeared in the testimony of Mr. Fiske and Mr. Caswell that at the meeting of the Building Committee when the vote for architects came up that Mr. Smith who had twice voted for architects other than Prescott and Sidebottom enquired, "how many times shall I vote this way?" and afterwards voted with Mr. Ludden and Mr. Robinson for Prescott and Sidebottom. Mr. Smith denied ever making any such remark at said meeting and denied ever having any talk with any of the Committee in regard to architects before the meeting.
Bids.
The architects having been selected, the Committee proceded to adopt plans and award contracts.
They inserted in several newspapers advertisements for bids and Chairman Ludden also wrote personal invitations to one or more contractors, in answer to which he received one or more bids which were less than the ones for which the contract was awarded. It is claimed by one or more of the bidders that the action of the Committee in rejecting the lowest bid was unlaw- ful and subjects the Town to liability to pay damage. The Building Committee received figures from a reliable contractor for the sum of $3,656 less than Mr. Greenlay's first figure, but the Building Committee allowed Mr. Greenlay to reduce his figures $2,000 after the bids had been opened, and then awarded the contract to him for $587 more than Mr. E. T. Reynolds' figure and $1,656 more than J. E. Locatilli's figure; and the reason the Committee give for this transaction is that Mr. Green- lay agreed with the Building Committee that he would, so far as was practicable, purchase Saugus material and employ Saugus labor in construction of building, and your Committee find Locatilli and Reynolds would have been glad to have agreed to the same conditions had they been asked. Mr. Greenlay has been requested to give testimony before your Committee, which request he has ignored.
Evidence (5.)
It appears from the report of the Building Committee to the Town made March 12, 1906, that the Committee advertised for
,
75
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
bids and awarded the contract to W. George Greenlay for $33,337 although there were three other contractors whose bids were lower than the bid of Mr. Greenlay's. J. E. Locatilli's bid was $1,656 lower ; E. T. Reynolds, $587 lower and F. C. Alexander's $347 lower. It also appeared that the Chairman of the Building Committee had sent personal letters to certain con- tractors inviting them to procure plans of the architects. Mr. E. T. Reynolds testified to receiving such a letter. The reason stated by the Building Committee for awarding the contract to Greenlay was that because he had made a statement that so far as practicable, he would purchase Saugus material and employ Saugus labor in the construction of said building. Mr. Reynolds was a contractor living in Lynn and it appears he would have been glad to comply with the Committee's request to employ Saugus labor and purchase Saugus materials, had he been so requested. Mr. Reynolds testified that Mr. Ludden said the Committee wished to give the contract to a Saugus contractor, but they had to have competition and that was the reason of his being invited to put in a bid. Mr. Reynolds is a responsible contractor and competent to perform work of the character required by the plans and specifications.
Mr. Reynolds testified he intended to collect pay of the Town for the time he had spent upon the matter.
Mr. Prescott, one of the architects testified that he knew the firm of J. E. Locatilli and that they were a fairly reliable firm.
Mr. J. E. Locatilli testified that his place of business was in Boston and he had built a good many large buildings including school houses, and he understood that he was the lowest bidder on the Saugus School House. He testified that he saw Judge Ludden about putting in a bid and later got a letter from him ; and was present at the architect's office when the bids were opened ; that he would have been glad of the contract at his figures of $31,680 and would have given the Committee a written statement to use Saugus materials and employ Saugus labor so far as practicable; and that any builder would have done so. He testified that Judge Ludden said the lowest bidder would get the job. He said he was in favor of him but three
76
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
of the Committee were not in favor of him; that one of the architects mentioned his bid and said " throw it in the waste basket." That Greenlay's bid when opened was $35,357.
Mr. Smith, a member of the Building Committee, said he was present when the bids on the High School were opened ; that the Committee did not consider Locatilli's bid at all. They did not consider it necessary, that they thought he was not responsible after talking it over among themselves because he was so much lower than the others; that the Committee did not make any talk over Reynolds of Lynn ; that he did not know that Greenlay took $2,000 off his bid. He thought that Greenlay was the lowest man.
Heating and Ventilation.
The Building Committee then proceeded to procure figures for the heating and ventilating of the High School building. They received several figures from contractors for heating and ventilating the building by steam also for heating and ventilating by combination of hot air and steam. They then proceeded and did award contract for heating and ventilating to Fuller and Warren Company for the sum of $4,228, which was $631 higher than Smith and Anthony for the same combination and $80 higher than the lowest figure that they received for steam heating apparatus ; notwithstanding, the architects recommended and insisted that the steam heating apparatus in their judgment was the better of the two.
Your Committee believe that a steam heating plant as first laid out by the architects would have been the proper system to have used in this building, and the change in flues would have been avoided, and that the Town has suffered a loss thereby in the installation and in the annual maintenance of the same.
Evidence (6.)
It appears by the report of the Building Committee (page 5) that the combination of hot air and steam for the High School Building was let to the Fuller and Warren Company, although the bid was $631 higher than the bid of Smith and Anthony
77
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
Company for the same combination and $80 higher than the lowest bid for steam heating apparatus. No reason appears in said report for awarding the bid to the Fuller and Warren Company.
Mr. Robinson testified that Fuller and Warren Company were considerably higher than Smith and Anthony, but that he had examined the two systems and thought there was much to say in favor of the Fuller and Warren system over that of the Smith and Anthony system; that the cost of attending the Smith and Anthony system was largely in excess of the Fuller and Warren system ; that he considered a combination heater better than a steam one.
Mr. Prescott, one of the architects, testified that the change from steam to hot air was made by the Committee. The plans were laid out for steam ; that he was not an advocate of hot air but he had never seen a plant put in by Fuller & Warren, that did not do its work; that he had always advised steam for larger buildings but they had fought the Committee on a six-room build- ing unsuccessfully and he would not say that they had not fought the Committee unsuccessfuly on this building.
Height of Rooms.
Your Committee find that the same conditions exist in the High School building in the height of stories, the class rooms on first and second stories being only 1 1 feet and only 9 feet in height on the third floor. They also find from the plans shown at the Assessors' Rooms and the evidence given that the brick walls of this building the entire height above basement are only three courses of bricks in thickness with an air space of I inch between the inner and outer courses which your Committee believe to be much too light for a building of this size, consider- ing that in the construction of this wall, the floor timbers are practically carried on a wall 4 inches thick, and there is a very heavy roof and large Assembly Hall on third floor in which there is liable to be dancing and a large number of people assembled. Your Committee find that the walls should not be less than 16 inches thick the entire height.
78
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
The Building Ordinances of Boston, Lynn and other cities would not permit of any such construction as has been adopted in this building.
Your Committee has talked with several reliable builders and inspectors and they all agree that the walls are too light for a building of this size and height.
Your Committee find that your present High School building which is only two stories high in construction has a wall 16 inches and 20 inches thick and class rooms, 12 feet high.
The Felton Grammar School was built from plans of Prescott and Sidebottom, have class rooms, 12 feet high.
Evidince (7.) t
Mr. Robinson testified that the walls of the High School building were 12 inches thick the entire height. It also appears from the plans that the walls are of the thickness just stated.
Drain and Filling.
Your Building Committee advertised for bids for laying a stone culvert 300 or more feet in length on the High School lot, and they received several figures for the same in which L. B. Austin & Co. appeared to be the lowest bidders being $1,345. It appeared that Mr. Fisk of the Building Committee requested that bids be revised and to substitute a 24 inch sewer pipe in place of a stone culvert which was done. The contract was awarded to Monteith and Meister for the sum of $1,475, which is $130 more than the stone drain, and from the evidence that your Investigating Committee has obtained, the earthen drain should have cost less than the stone drain according to the testimony of several witnesses, and your Committee concur in that opinion.
It also appears to your Committee that while the contract was awarded to Monteith & Meister that Mr. Robinson, one of the Building Committee, bought the pipe of the Portland Stoneware Company for about 87₺ cents per foot, delivered in Saugus ; that said Robinson had much, if not all, to do with the laying of
79
REPORT OF INTESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
the same; that all the checks made payable to Monteith & Meister, with the exception of one, were endorsed over to said Robinson ; that it further appears from testimony of Mr. Smith, one of the Building Committee, that he supposed said Robinson was doing the work; that he, Smith, went to Boston with Robinson when he bought the pipe. It appears that this con- tract for laying the pipe included filling in around and grading up the same, but part of this work was done by Mr. Robinson ; that he Robinson, got some 200 loads of said filling from the Pleasant Hills lot and for which the said Robinson charged the sum of $107.28. The filling around pipe, your Committee believe was included in the Monteith & Meister contract and that the Town should not pay on both ends of this transaction. Your Committee has requested Mr. Monteith to appear before it and give testimony, which request he has not complied with.
Evidence (8.)
It appears from the testimony of Mr. Fiske of the Building Committee that he was present when the bids were received and considered for building the culvert and grading the Wilson lot ; that there were several bidders among whom were Monteith and Meister and L. J. Austin, the last named being the lowest bidder. The bids covered the building. of a stone culvert some three hundred feet and filling and grading up to average level on lot ; that witness objected to stone culvert and suggested a twenty-four inch tile and a majority of Committee wanted tile pipe. Mr. Robinson thought it would cost $125 more than stone. He thought the pipe would cost $1.60 per foot. A vote was taken in favor of the tile. Mr. Robinson was appointed to get revised bids and he reported it would cost $125 more to have tile than to have stone and the contract was awarded to Monteith and Meister. Witness endeavored to get the Committee to delay action as he believed he could get a lower price from them, as witness had obtained a price of 874 cents per foot from the Port- land Stoneware Co., and had informed Mr. Monteith that he would have to revise his bid to meet these figures and he agreed to do this. This would save the Town some $212. Mr. Mon-
So
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
teith did not come before the meeting with his revised bid reduced. Mr. Robinson stated he had seen Mr. Monteith about seven o'clock that evening and that the bid which he presented was absolutely the lowest bid and that it would be useless to delay action any longer as Mr. Monteith would not be present that evening; that he, the witness, had every reason to believe , that the bid was for Mr. Robinson and that he was the contractor and that the bid was for $125, more than the stone culvert, whereas, it should have been about $218 less ; that the pipe was bought from the Portland Stoneware Co. and he was satisfied that the price paid was 874 cents per foot.
Mr. Smith of the Building Committee testified in regard to the drain; said he thought Mr. Robinson was about $250 lower than any other bidder. Mr. Robinson furnished and laid the drain pipe under Mr. Fiske's supervision; that he thought that the drain pipe cost less than the stone culvert. He went with Mr. Robinson when he bought the pipe in Boston where Mr. Fiske recommended them to buy it; he thought he paid $1.25 a foot but he didn't know exactly what it cost. It was bought of the Portland Stoneware Co. He thought the pipe ought to have cost less than the stone culvert. He approved the bill the same as the others. He was sure Mr. Robinson bought the pipe him- self. Monteith did some of the grading and filling on the lot.
Elmer B. Newhall testified that he figured first on the stone culvert and then on the tile pipe. His figure was higher on the stone culvert than on the tile pipe and he thought the stone cul- vert would cost more than the tile but did not know just how much more.
It appears from our inspection of the checks in the hands of the Town Treasurer that all the checks given on the drain con- tract to Monteith and Meister with the exception of one were endorsed over to Mr. Robinson, and it appears from an inspection of the bills made out in the name of Monteith and Meister, on account of said work, that said bills are apparently in the hand- writing of Mr. Robinson.
In the opinion of your Committee, it was not fitting that a member of the Building Committee prosposing to perform any
81
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
part of labor under the direction of the Building Committee should compete with others for any contract, or engage in the performance of any of the work. If any person chosen to serve upon this Committee had any intention of performing any con- siderable part of the work himself, he should, in the opinion of your Committee, have declined to serve, or at least made known to the voters before he accepted the position or entered upon the discharge of the duties of such Committee, that he intended to claim the privilege of performing some part of the work which it was the duty of the Committee to let out and superintend.
One member of the Building Committee has performed a very considerable amount of work and has been paid several hundred dollars, and his name appears upon the bills as approving said work done by himself.
Under the order to investigate the doings of the Building Committee, we feel in duty bound to report that statements were made before us under oath substantially as follows :
Mr. Caswell testified that B. F. Robinson told him that he was not working for his health or for nothing. There was a chance to get six or eight hundred dollars apiece from architects, also something from the builders, besides the heating, plumbing and furnishings; he also said he would divide up the commission that he was to get on the Pleasant Hill lot.
Mr. Cunningham testified, he overheard conversation between B. F. Robinson and Mr. Stokes in regard to the school houses, in which Mr. Stokes suggested Mr. Greenlay as a desirable con- tractor for building the school houses. Robinson asked Mr. Stokes if Mr. Greenlay would put up to get contract or job. Mr. Stokes said he did not know if Greelay would put or not ; Robinson said, you can find out, can't you ?
Greenlay came into our office and Stokes asked in my pres- ence if he wanted to figure contract on School Buildings, and he replied, yes. Stokes said, Robinson is looking for money and asked if you would put up to get contract. Greenlay said, if I can get contract at high enough price, I will put up; that it did not make any difference to him if he got his price. Robinson asked me if I could get Fiske and Caswell to vote for him as
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
chairman of the Committee. I told him, I did not know but would ask them. I asked Robinson, how much he got out of the Felton School and he said, $700 and he was going to get his share out of this contract ; he was not in this for his health.
As regards the above, Robinson testifies as follows: To the question, did anyone ever offer you money to get the job of making plans?, -he answers, yes. Who was it? Said Robin- son refused to answer.
Did you ever ask anyone to influence the Committee to vote for you for chairman? No. Did you ever state to anyone you were not in this for your health and that there would be money to be obtained from architects and the contractors? No. Did you ever receive any money by reason of your position on the Committee or for your influence as a Committee man? No. Did you ever request any person to see if Greenlay would put up money to secure contract? No. Did you ever say to anyone that you got $700 out of the Felton School and that you were going to get your share out of this contract? No.
Your Investigating Committee has been greatly embarrassed in the examination of the plans and work by the action of the Building Committee and of the contractor building said build- ings, by the refusal of said Building Committee to allow your Committee to take possession of the plans and papers and the refusal of the contractor to allow your Committee to inspect the inside of the buildings and the work going on therein, at the time when they desired so to do. It appears that the architects made six copies of plans and specifications.
It is true that by a letter received from the Chairman of the Building Committee on April 6th last, an offer was made by him to allow your Committee to go to said buildings for the purpose of examination and investigation of said buildings, and a statement was made therein that he would go there with the plans and specifications, but at that time all the hearings had been closed. Your Committee had made an appointment at a previous date to meet said Chairman at said buildings and examine the same together with the plans and specifications which he agreed to have there, but said Chairman failed to be
53
REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
present at the time and place appointed and failed to have the plans and specifications there. Your Committee was there at the time and place appointed and endeavored to examine the inside of said buildings but admission was refused by the con- tractor who refused to recognize the authority of your Committee to examine said buildings. Without copies of all plans. specifi- cations and contracts which your Committee could have for its own use and private examination at its convenience and in its own way, it was impossible for your Committee to make a satisfactory investigation of the whole matter.
Most respectfully submitted.
H. K. WHEELER. CHARLES W. DEARBORN. C. W. AMERIGE.
Investigation Committee.
FINAL REPORT OF Investigating Committee of the Doings of the Committee on New School Houses.
To the inhabitants of the Town of Saugus :
Inasmuch as no decided action has been taken by the Town, or by any of the officials of the Town, respecting the first and partial report of your committee and the matters therein brought to the attention of the inhabitants of the Town, your committee has felt that it would be inexpedient for it to incur further ex- pense in making any more extended investigation into the doings of the Committee on New School Houses.
Your committee has therefore taken no new steps in the mat- ter of investigation, feeling that the inhabitants of the Town by their silence and inaction concerning the first report of your committee showed a desire that the doings of the Committee on New School Houses should not be further investigated.
Your committee, however, with the knowledge that it had obtained, and which was presented to the Town in its first report in regard to the construction of the new high school building, felt that it would neglect a moral duty if it remained absolutely inactive, and the Selectmen were therefore requested to petition the Massachusetts District Police to inspect the High School building. This was done, and the report of the Inspectors of the District Police who examined the building is filed with the Town Records, and your committee now feel entirely relieved of all responsibility regarding the same.
84
85
FINAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.
The costs and expenses incurred by your Committee in the discharge of its duties amount to $150.77, detailed statements of which are hereto annexed.
Miss L. T. Ramsdell, stenographer, bill as settled by Mr. Underwood for committee $95 42
Mr. Underwood . 10 00
Miss Isabel S. Emery, stenographer
II 05
Miss Edith E. Walton, stenographer 9 30
Mr. W. H. Niles
25 00
Signed, Dec. 18th, 1906.
$150 77
H. K. WHEELER, pr. C. W. D., - CHAS. W. AMERIGE, Investigating Com. CHAS. W. DEARBORN,
Report accepted Dec. 18, 1906.
APPROPRIATIONS
Selectmen's Incidentials . · $6,000 00
Schools including salary of Supt. · 31,400 00
Overseers of the Poor
·
3,500 00
Water Loan Principal 3,000 00 .
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.