SUPERVISION OF MAJOR WORKS

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 144, 14 March 1939, Page 5

SUPERVISION OF MAJOR WORKS

Lower Hutt Council Debate

PROPOSAL CONSIDERED AFFRONT BY MAYOR He considered the proposal an affront to the committee of the council and quite unnecessary while co-operation existed between the committees, the officers and the council generally, said the mayor, Mr. J. W. Andrews, when Cr. H. V. Horlor moved at last night's Lower Hutt Borough Council meeting that all specific works of a value of £5OO and more be carried out under the supervision of the works committee. Cr. Horlor, putting his motion, asked what else a works committee was for than to supervise works. “I hope this motion will not be seriously considered,” said the mayor. Inquiries he made of leading boroughs’ representatives at the recent municipal conference showed that no other councils acted as Cr. Horlor desired. Cr. C. J. Ashton, works committee chairman, seconding Cr. Horlor’s motion, said that he agreed with his proposition insofar, in particular, as structural works were concerned. « Cr. A. W. Marshall, a member of the reserves committee, said he opposed the motion because it implied that the committees were not competent to carry, out major works. As long as any committee had the expert advice of the council’s officers it had every right to see that the works which concerned it were carried out under its supervision. Every councillor was an appointee of the ratepayers and they had not indicated their wish that an individual councillor should have any particular right over another. “I am not going to allow any councillor to take from me the privileges conferred by the ratepayers, and if this motion is carried I will feel obliged to reconsider my position in regard to the council,” continued Cr. Marshall. Cr. W. C. Gregory said that if the motion were carried a similar position to that to which Cr. Horlor objected would arise. In structural works under the reserves committee’s control the works committee could co-operate. There was nothing now to prevent this logical, voluntary co-operation; it would overcome all difficulties.

The motion was fallacious, said Cr. E. P. Hay. As long as committees had the support and co-operation of the council’s officers one committee was as good as another.

The motion was defeated by six votes to four, Crs. Ashton, Hall, Morrison and IJorlor voting for it.