INQUIRY WANTED

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 126, 24 November 1932, Page 13

INQUIRY WANTED

FIRE BRIGADE STORES

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT

MR. T. B. CLABK'S CASE

A prayer to the effect that certain matters concerning the Wellington Fire Brigade should be investigated by Parliament was contained in a petition presented in _ the House of Represents - tives yesterday afternoon by Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) on behalf of Thomas Burton Clark, JElawker, street, formerly Deputy Superintendent of the Wellington Fire Brigade.

The petitioner stated that in September, 1930, when ho was Deputy Superintendent and Mr. Joseph Creeke ■was Superintendent, the Inspector of -Fire Brigades (Captain T. T. Hugo), in his report to Parliament, criticised the working of the Wellington Fire Brigade. Mr. Creeke asked the petitioner to write a reply to the report, but he (Mr. Clark) . answered that it was not his duty to do so. From then onwards, said the petitioner, the Superintendent, made the position as difficult for him. as he possibly could.

On 27th April, 1931, the petitioner was reported to a committee of the Fire Board on the following grounds:—• (1) Refusing to furnish a report on the protection of the city against fire in the event of damage to the watermains caused, by earthquake. " (2) 'Insubordination at the officers' conference on 22nd April. (3) Keglect to carry out orders given at the conference to inspect a new sprinkler at Hannah's Building. (4) Refusing to furnish a report when demanded ■on . 23rd April in regard' to non-compliance with orders given on 22nd April. CHARGES ANSWERED. The petitioner's answers to the charges were:— (1) He had never been instructed to furnish the report. (2) At'the officers' conference the Superintendent said he had asked the petitioner for a report on the effect' of earthquakes, and. the petitioner had replied that he had not been instructed to report. The Superintendent then ordered the petitioner to leave the room. . " (3) At the same conference the Superintendent suggested that, if convenient, the petitioner and Station Officer Ledbrook should inspect Hannah's factory that afternoon. As the Superintendent, Mr. Ledbrook, and the petitioner were all engaged on work at the station until after -i p.m. on that day, the inspection was made next morning. (4) The charge arose out of the previous one. The petitioner said he did not remember being asked to furnish a report as to why the inspection was not made on the 22nd, but the Superintendent himself knew why it was not made. On 27th. April, 1931, the petitioner said he gave true answers to a committee of the board, but the committee nevertheless decided that he had been guilty of indiscipline, and that he ' should be placed on probation for six months. USE OF PETROL. As Deputy Superintendent, the petitioner said he had charge of the petrol supplies and-stores at the Central Fire Station, and was concerned about the use of brigade petrol ior private cars, and the purchase of material and tires from brigade.money for private cars. Superintendent Creeke, he alleged, had been using petrol, supplies, 'and material belonging to the brigade for his private car^ and also for a car used by his son from 1927 onwards. Having been unjustly put on probation, the petitioner considered it inadvisable for him. to report the matter to the board, but' he -consulted his solicitor as to whether the board could lawfully allow brigade supplies-to be used for private cars. His solicitor finally suggested that as his partner had been elected Mayor of Wellington, his partner should, as Mayor, write to the board about the matter. The ' petitioner agreed, and the Mayor accordingly "wrote to the board on 12th August, 1031. At a meetjng of the board,- held on 4th. September, 1931, the petitioner said he produced records showing (a) that Superintendent Creeke fs car had been supplied with petrol, oil, and accessories from January, 1927, to date, free of charge; (b) that Superintendent Creeke's son's car had been supplied with petrol, oil, and accessories from 14th April, 1928, to 15th. November, .1929, free of charge. In November,. 1931, the Audit Department received a communication from an outside source, and Inspector Ward was instructed to investigate the matter. ' "When motor oil was purchased, the petitioner recorded the purchase in the stock accounts, and took credit for ■each drum, he supplied to Station Ofiieer Petherick, who had charge of the supplies and kept a register showing how he disposed of them. He said that two registers recording the disposal of oil from. April, 1926, to. June, 1931, disappeared from a locker in - the motor workshop about the end of 1931, and the petitioner feared that the stock sheets showing the purchase of motor materials and accessories might also disappear. Accordingly, when'at 5 p.m. on 20th January, 1932, the Superintendent demanded -the stock sheets, the petitioner said they were at his solicitor's, and he would get them next morning. But on that morning, before the petitioner could consult his solicitor, the Superintendent suspended him for "disobedience of orders to hand over brigade records and papers when requested." The petitioner saw his solicitor that morning, and on his advice handed over the records at once. PIRE BOARD'S ACTION. On 4th February, 1932, the ~ Fire Board met to deal with the position, and decided that the Superintendent should be reduced to the rank of Deputy 'Superintendent as from 14th February, and that he be asked to refund such amount as the board might consider reasonable for such time as his car was used on other than board purposes, and that Mr. Clark be dismissed forthwith and be paid up to 14th February. "The only charges of any kind that have been made against the petitioner in respect of his conduct or capacity as a fire brigade officer are those abovementioned," the petition stated. The petitioner saia that in his report dated 21st March, 1932, Audit Inspector "Ward found that brigade moneyhad been spent on accessories, benzine, and oil for private cars in the follow-. ing amounts: —Superintendent's car, £248 7s 7d; Superintendent's son's car, £125 8s; -Mr. Marcus Marks's car (estimated), £17 Bs. x RESULT OF ACTION. '' The result of your petitioner's action in exposing what was ultimately proved to be a gross breach of trust by Superintendent Creeke, and in thus enabling the board to save the loss of several hundreds of pounds," said petitioner, "is that (1) your petitioner nas been summarily dismissed at his instance after twenty-two years' service, and is unable to obtain a position in any fire brigade; (2) Superintendent Creeke has been placed in a position of trust as Deputy Superintendent." < The petitioner said that he had been

advised that he had no legal remedy against the board in respect of his dismissal, and that the only course left to him to vindicate his character and obtain justice was by . petition. He prayed that the House- should, inquire into the matter, or to set up an inquiry by.the Department of Internal Affairs, or by some judicial person.