ROXBURGH BOROUGH COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF RANGER, &c.

Mt Benger Mail, Volume I, Issue 44, 2 March 1881, Page 6

ROXBURGH BOROUGH COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF RANGER, &c.

(To the Editor.) Sis,—Allow me through the medium ; of your columns to say a few words in j regard to the recent appointment of J Hunger, 40., by the Council. As your ; readers are aware, tenders were duly j called for a Hanger, to attend to the J Corporation reserve, water-races, &c. i At the meeting of the Council, when the tenders were about to be opened for this j work, the Council resolved itself into j Committee, for the purpose of considering j the tender? th3t had been lodged. It j waß decided that Mr F. Hiscock'a tender j be accepted—viz., £lB 10s for the half- j year (being at the rate of £33 a year). ! To my knowledge, three other tenders were also lodged, two of which were below the successful tenderer—who it was understood was appointed on account of his having previously been a servant of the Council, and discharged the duties satisfactorily. No doubt this was a good recommendation ; but I would ask, Is this a suitable reason for refusing to accept the tender of another who was much lower P I should say not. The office Is terminable at a month's notice on either side, and if it should be that the work is not being done satisfactorily, a fresh appointment could be made. In the case referred to, however, the lowest tenderer is, I believe, quite capable of discharging the duties required of him in a satisfactory manner- Another reason wb he should have been appointed Is that he is a large ratepayer, and also, of his not being in a position lo do much else, owing to his recent illness, he would be prepared to devote the greater portion of hia time to the work—which another pould not do. I feel quite certain that It was not the wish of the whole of the Council that this exception should be made—bat the fact remains that it has bseo made, and it cannot but be regarded as agreat injustice. Why did the Council oall for tenders? For the purpose of {ucertaioing at what price a man could be got to nndertake the duties in the appointment referred to. Then why not accept the lowest tender, when the tenderer is both capable of doing the work, and in a position to devote that time which it is necessary to do in order —fcrraari«gc things- Th* tender which I refer to was some £3 for the Year under the one accepted. The Couucil 3hould know best how lo transact its own affairs, but when euch an injustioe is perpetrated, as in the present instance, they can but expect to be taken to Tt is to be hoped that when a similar appointment is again made, the Couucil will use a littlo more discretion and equity—that they ill deal fairly with the matter—else what will be the use calling (or tenders at all P Can men be expected to tender for a work, and then have their tender (even though it be the lowest) refused, without any reason being assigned for its refusal ? Far better, I say, never call for tenders at all, than call for tenders and then " go into Committee " and treat ratepayers in this manner. I trust the Counoil will, in the future, think before they ast— and never act at ail if they cannot use better jndgment and discretion than they did in the recent appointment- By these re« marks, I would not be understood as aaying anything against the one who received the appointment, aB he is fully competent for the work, and I have no doubt will do it satisfactorily; but I wish to lodge a decided protest against the aotiou of the Council.—l am, &c , TnOMAS H'OOS. Roxburgh, February 23th, 1881.