Reesman Denies Light Fund Shift

View transcription

Commissioner Clay W. Reesman yesterday denied assertions made by Harry P. Pelouze, president of the Broadway Business Men's Association, that funds from last year's lighting appropriation were used to wipe out the deficit of another department. Pelouze made the charge in an address before the organization at its third annual dinner in Hotel Walt Whitman Wednesday night, when the city administration was condemned for failure to provide additional lighting facilities on Broadway. In his denial, Commissioner Reesman explained that it is illegal for one department to transfer funds to another. An unused portion of a budget appropriation may be used for another item in the same department, but may not be switched for another departmental purpose, he said. "The letter I sent to the Broadway Business Men's Association, stating that insufficient funds was the cause of the city's failure to provide extra light standards, is the only answer I can give to their demands," he said. He added that installation of lights in other sections of the city, where they were needed more than on Broadway, would cost more than had been appropriated for the purpose in the 1928 budget. Therefore, it would be impossible to satisfy the association this year, he declared. An investigation made by the business men's organization showed that the 79 extra lights desired could be used for $5,[?]95.90 a year, with the Public Service Corporation installing the standards at no cost to the city, Pelouze said in his speech Wednesday. "I made a pecial visit to the department of parks and public property, which handles lighting for the city, and found that it had an excess of $3,625 from last year's appropriation;" he aver[?]ed. "We got none of it, but it was used to bolster up another department in which a deficit was shown." This the commissioner denied emphatically. "There was no excess and the cost of putting up a few lights in the rear of Baird avenue, and a few in the rear of Langham avenue, and others in East and North Camden, after numerous complaints had been received, will prohibit any further considerations this year," he concluded.

Reesman Tells Broadway Merchants City Just Hasn't Money for New Lamps

Commissioner Clay W. Reesman yesterday denied assertions made by Harry P. Pelouze, president of the Broadway Business Men's Association, that funds from last year's lighting appropriation were used to wipe out the deficit of another department.

Pelouze made the charge in an address before the organization at its third annual dinner in Hotel Walt Whitman Wednesday night, when the city administration was condemned for failure to provide additional lighting facilities on Broadway.

In his denial, Commissioner Reesman explained that it is illegal for one department to transfer funds to another. An unused portion of a budget appropriation may be used for another item in the same department, but may not be switched for another departmental purpose, he said.

"The letter I sent to the Broadway Business Men's Association, stating that insufficient funds was the cause of the city's failure to provide extra light standards, is the only answer I can give to their demands," he said.

He added that installation of lights in other sections of the city, where they were needed more than on Broadway, would cost more than had been appropriated for the purpose in the 1928 budget. Therefore, it would be impossible to satisfy the association this year, he declared.

An investigation made by the business men's organization showed that the 79 extra lights desired could be used for $5,[?]95.90 a year, with the Public Service Corporation installing the standards at no cost to the city, Pelouze said in his speech Wednesday.

"I made a pecial [sic] visit to the department of parks and public property, which handles lighting for the city, and found that it had an excess of $3,625 from last year's appropriation;" he aver[?]ed. "We got none of it, but it was used to bolster up another department in which a deficit was shown."

This the commissioner denied emphatically. "There was no excess and the cost of putting up a few lights in the rear of Baird avenue, and a few in the rear of Langham avenue, and others in East and North Camden, after numerous complaints had been received, will prohibit any further considerations this year," he concluded.