REDUCING COUNTY STAFF

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4765, 17 October 1924, Page 1

REDUCING COUNTY STAFF

NOTICE TO ASSISTANT ENGINEER. TO BE (CONSIDERED NEXT MONTH. Considerable discussion took place at Tuesday’s meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council meeting on the ; question of whether the services of the assistant county engineer should be dispensed with in vie.W of the financial position. The matter arose out of a recommendation of the finance committee to the effect that the assistant engineer be given one month’s notice terminating his engagement. Or. Parfitt said that he wa*> not present at the finance committee meeting, and he wished to know what was the reason. Cr. -McLoughlin said that until loan money became available there was not sufficient work to warrant his retention The overhead expenses of the county were too heavy, compared with the amount of wor,k in hand. The assistant engineer was a very efficient servant, and .he had nothing whatever against him. In reply to Cr. Madgwick Mr Basham said he would be very sorry to lose Mr Anderson. Cr. Miller said that in a month or six weeks, when the loan money became available, an assistant engineer would be required. Mr Anderson had a thorough grip of affairs, and he. would be hard to replace. Cr. Parfitt thought that for the sake of a month’s salary the council should not lose an efficient servant. Cr. Miller said that the season when work could be done was approaching, and then an assistant would be required. The whole question rested on when the loan money could be raised.

Cr. McLoughlin said that the indications were that the money would be unprocurable for some time. • Cr. Madgwick pointed out that at no time in the past had more money been spent than at present. He wished to know what was behind the proposition. Those who desired to dismiss Mr Anderson had been the ones who so strenuously advocated appointing an assistant for Mr Higgins. Cr. McLoughlin said that up to the present the 'council had in mind the development of the Maukoro quarry. The engineering staff had been engaged in preparing data in regard to opening up the quarry, but now that this had been deferred there was no justification for retaining the assistant. There was no other motive. Cr. Madgwick said that the assistant had been appointed beflore the Maukoro quarry was thought of and •the council had reappointed him before the loan was carried. The excuse given was therefore a fallacy. The late engineer had said that it was necessary for him to have an assistant. Cr. Harris said that he would sooner do anything than Vote for Mr Anderson’s dismissal. Unfortunately, there was no finance. He wondered ■if ithe case could be met by indicating to Mr Anderson that unless the loan money became available the council would, at its next meeting, give him a month’s notice. Cr; Mayn opposed, contending that if the loan ‘money was not then available the council would have spent £26 in unnecessary wages. Cr. McLoughlin said that if the loan money arrived during the month the assistant could be reappointed. Cr. Harris pointed out that the assistant engineer had just brought his wife and family and taken up his residence in the council’s house. Cr. Mayn then suggested that he be given two months’ notice, intead of one. Or. Parfitt offered as a suggestion that consideration be given to the proposal to unite the position of inspector and assistant engineer. He moved as an amendment that the matter 'of‘giving ’notice to the assistant engineer be deferred for one month and that the question o£ combining the positionjs of assistant engineer and inspector be considered by the chairman, engineer, and clerk, who would'report to the next meeting. This was seconded by Cr. Madgwiek, and on being put to the meeting Crs. Miller, Parfitt, and Madgwick voted for it, and Crs. Mayn, McLoughlin, Hare, Nicholson, and Harris voted against it. Cr. Parfitt then moved as a further amendment that the matter of giving notice to the assistant engineer be deferred for a month. , Cr. Madgwick seconded. Cr. Harris saidi’that he would support the amendment, and on the show of hands being taken the voting was equal. The chairman gave his casting vote'in favour of.the amendment, contending that it was serving the ratepayers’ interests by retaining the assistant for a month and thereby ensuring the services of an efficient officer should the loan money be available by that time.