Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
condition and expenditure of the institution the only item anywhere appearing with regard to this new barn. is one charge of $127.56. These figures in themselves present a surprising commentary on the financial management of the hospital, the blame of which must rest alike on the superintendent and on the board. THE CROSS WINGS. In 1879 the board authorized the construction of four cross wings. or additions, to the hospital, without any authority or appropriation from the legislature. These were put up, and % debt of some $20,000 incurred on the part of the hospital, for the construction and necessary furnishing and equipments, which was provided for by the last legislature. These additions greatly improved the hospital building and increased its capacity, and it may perhaps be admitted that they were needed. and greatly relieved the county jails and hospitals which had been crowded with insane, but your committee must unhesitatingly condemn the principle upon which the board acted. There can be no doubt that they transcended their legal authority. We can hardly conceive of a case where a board of trustees would be justified in making any given improvements. involving the outlay of money, without consulting legislative authority The principle, if carried out, would allow the boards of our several charitable and penal institutions to run the state in debt to any amount, and for any purpose. The authority which furnishes the appropriation should always have absolute control of the channel of its expenditures. PETER GARDNER (STEWARD.) Again we find that one Peter Gardner was steward at the hospital in 1873. and retired from his stewardship in 1876. At the time of his withdrawal he was short in his accounts in the amount of $1,904.85. The greater part of this shortage arose from his having deposited $1,707.35 of the funds in his hands. as steward, in the Bank of Madison, which became insolvent. The hospital has received in dividends from this broken bank $645.90. leaving an absolute loss of 258.95. The board knew that Gardner had given bonds as steward to faithfully account for all money. They knew that his accounts were short when he left. but not the exact amount: but they have never taken any steps to prosecute his bondsmen or to recover any part of the shortage; neither have they ever reported the shortage to the governor. or to the legislature. but the entire matter has been suffered to remain unrevealed, when your committee called. but the bond of Peter Gardner no record or trace of it could be found, and no officer of the hospital that knew anything about it, and it was only brought to light by search on the part of a member of the committee among a lot of old papers, in the back office of a citizen of Madison, who had formerly been officially connected with the hospital. This transaction must also receive the positive disapproval of your committee. If any of the debt of Peter Gardner was to be forgiven, it was the clear duty of the board to report the facts to the legislature, and for the legislature to act, not for the board to assume the authority, or give any color to the charge of covering up. UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE. We find that the tendency to spend money in unauthorized ways has been constant, The energy of the superintendent and the lack of sharp oversight on the part of the board has led to expenditures not authorized by the legislature and of doubtful legality or propriety. For instance there has been constructed in front of the hospital a large artificial lake or reservoir, which must have cost quite a sum, for which there was never any appropriation and no record that the board ever authorized it or that it cost a dollar in money. The superintendent says he was authorized to do his work by individual members of the board in conversation with them which conversations are positively denied by the members referred to. The result is that the state has paid for the con struction of a large reservoir of doubtful utility and of extravagant cost to maintain, the rosponsidility for which the superintendent puts on the board and board shifts back on the superintendent. Again we find that the superintendent has been accustomed to exceed in expenditure specific appropriations made by the legislature taking the balance to do the given work or pay for the specifie article from the general fund. To illustrate, the legislature at one time appropriated $1,200 far the purchase of stock and the superintendent immediately invested over $2,000 in such purchase. We think the board have been in fault for not stopping this practice. They have know n this tendency on the part of the superintendent and have evidently given it a quasi sanction. whereas, on its first occurrence they ought to have taken such steps that it would never have been repeated. The board is the lawfully constituted authority appointed to control the superintendent and they are not to be excused for neglecting this duty however unjustifiable the course of the seperintendent may have been. MISAPPLICATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. It has also been customary for the hospital authorities to use money appropriated for one specific purpose in an entirely different direction. For instance, in 1878 an appropriation of $2,000 was made to construct the bed of a branch railroad track from the depot to the hospital engine house. This was never built and what became of that specific $2,000 no one knows. There has been no report of the matter to the legislature and no action by it on the subject. It seems to your committee that such appropriations are placed in the hands of the board as a trust fund to expend in a particular way and when it is expended in a different way it becomes a breach of trust which cannot be approved. These irregularities show the need of chapter 289 of the laws of 1880. INTEREST AND INDEETEDNESS. We find that it has been usual on the part 0 the board to permit the hospital to run to debt and borrow money to meet the indebtedness and pay interest on the same out of state funds. During the time covered by our investigation the state has paid over $2,500 interest on money borrowed for the hospital. We much doubt the authority of the board to borrow money, and must positively condemn, the practice in all cases. The hospital can and should be supported on its appropriations. We also find that the indebtedness of the hospital instead of being $30,511 as reported to the legislature, last winter, when chapter 295, laws of 1880 was passed, amounted actually to $48,000, on which the state was then paying interest. Mr. Giles, of the state board of charities, in histestimony, gives in detail his efforts to find out the exact indebtedness so as to report the same to the legislature, but he was unable to ascertain the amount taken from the reports of the hospital, required by law to be made to the board of charities from the superintendent or treasurer of the board, and finally fixed it as near as he could and put it at the sum provided for in
