Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Uo bore Cap
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
ROBERT S. WIGGINS
MARTIN MCFARLAND
EDWIN L. STERNE
RALPH C. JENKINS
JOHN E. DOUGHERTY
HENRY L. BOWDEN CHARLES M. LOKEY
CITY ATTORNEY THOMAS F.CHOYCE
JAMES 8. PILCHER
BEGHIN'S: MATHERS ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEYS
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
October 23, 1969 HORACE T. WARD
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
ROBERT A. HARRIS
HENRY M.MURFF
CLAIMS ATTORNEYS
JAMES B. HENDERSON
Mr. George Berry SPECIAL ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
206 City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Berry:
I recently received from your office, through Mr. George
Howell, certain papers relating to the Urban Corps and the Southern
Regional Education Board. One of the papers is a letter dated
October 17, 1969 from Mr. William R. O'Connell, Jr. to Mayor Allen,
setting forth certain stipulations for the continuation of the
Urban Corps internship program through December, 1969.
The problem appears to be whether the above letter might be
agreed to and thereby become a contract in accordance with the
terms of a resolution adopted October 6, 1969.
In an effort to understand the problem, I have examined your
file on the Urban Corps and read considerable papers. I am still
not certain that I fully comprehend it,
The resolution adopted October 8, 1969 states that "the Mayor
is authorized to execute an agreement with the Southern Regional
Education Board providing that the Board will assume all financial
responsibility for the payroll costs of the Urban Corps for the
fall 1969.'"" The resolution further allows the payment of not more
than $8000.00 for interns that are used solely by the City.
I do not feel that simply having the Mayor sign Mr. O'Connell's
letter agreeing to the terms therein would be sufficient under the
circumstances. This is not to say that a contract cannot be raised
Mr. George Berry
October 23, 1969
Page 2
by the acceptance of a letter or the exchange of letters, but
such a procedure is more suitable for private persons than for
public bodies.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the resolution of
October 8, 1969, an agreement containing specific details is
necessary. At the same time, the document should be in the
nature of a formal contract, not solely for the sake of formality,
but for the sake of clarity.
According to my understanding, it appears that SREB officials
had some objections to a proposed contract. It might be that some
other approach will be acceptable to them and also satisfy the
requirements of the resolution.
I remain available to assist you Ay this matter and await
further instructions.
“~HoFace \T.
Deputy City Attorney
HTW/cj
ce: George Howell