CR. W. GALBRAITH REPLIES TO MAYOR

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 36, 5 October 1931, Page 3

CR. W. GALBRAITH REPLIES TO MAYOR

COUNCIL RESIGNATION MR. JACKSON'S STATEMENT A "VERY WEAK ONE" WORKS OF PERMANENT VAEUE Cr. W. Galbraith, who has resigned from the Rotorua Borough Council, and from his position as chairman of the Works | Committee, yesterday handed the ! following statement to the "Post" as a reply to comments made hy the Mayor (Mr. T. Jackson) and published in our issue of Saturday. "I have noted the Mayor's reply to Couneillors Johnson'g and Smith's and my own resignations and to my mind it seems a very weak one. As far as the Workg Committee's recommendations are concerned, he admits that the Works Committee asked that a loan be raised for the purpose of completing work uncompleted and authorised, but said that. it is not of a permanent nature and the Loans Board would not sanction it. How does the Mayor know this ? The Loans Board has never been approached. The Works Committee say most of the work authorised is of a permanent nature and is more important than the cutting down of Rangiuru Street and reclaiming land on the Lake Front. "Anyone who is out Whaka way should have a look at Sala Street, one of the streets authorised, and note whether the work is of a permanent nature or not. There are a dozen or more on the authorised list of the same description. Maintenance Estimates "The Works Committee entered a protest against raising £1000 at the present time to carry out work on Rangiuru Street, and reclaiming the Lake Front on account of the large amount of money required, and on account of the present financial position. "The Mayor says the Works Committee have plenty to do looking after streets, road surfacing, water tables, etc. I quite agree with him. They have plenty to do to carry out the maintenance work of the town which originally cost the borough £2000 a year, but which has to be carried out this year on £1500 as there has been a reduction of the maintenance estimateg to that amount.

Charge On Funds "The Mayor has also ruled that the worlc, being carried out by Mr. Tschopp comes under the Parks and Reserve.3. Committee and not under the Works Committee. When a street is opened up in the centre, and borough men are being employed who are usually doing maintenance work, as well as men who are working under the unemployment relief scheme, such work is a charge against the money allowed the Works Committee for supervision and maintenance. Surely this | must affect the finance^ of the Works | Committee and not the Parks and Reserves Committee who have no funds 1 for this purpose. The Mayor also states that there is only one council employee working on this work. I live opposite to whera this work is going on and see it every day. There are three borough employees, all of whom are working on beautifying and supervising relief work, and are drawing salaries of £27 2s 6d per fortnight, together with a lorry almost continuously on thU work. This lorry costs 2s 4d per hour. All of these charge s come out of maintenance and supervision for unemployment. There are at present six men planting trees at a very high cost. The Mayor also states that it is a matter of principle whether the Workg Committee control the council or whether the council should control as a whole; this is not correet, as the council was evenly divided when voting 011 the deletion of the clause of the Workg Committee report was taken.

The Voting Councillor Keane voted with the three members of the Works Committee, the other four members of the council voting against the. Works t Committee. Thig made voting even, the Mayor giving his deciding vote for the deletion of the clause from the report, so there is no foundation for the Mayor's assertion that the Workg Committee was trying to rule the council. The clause of the recommendation from the Works Committee which the council deleted on Wednesday night, was a request from Mr. Tschopp for the supply of kerbing, etc. Thig came about through the engineer asking for a ruling from, the Works Committee as to his position in supplying material for beautifying work. The committee felt that it could not grant supplies of this nature as it had no money for beautifying work, and it accordingly instructed the engineer not to supply any materials whieh would be a charge upon the allocation of the committee. This was taken exception to by Councillor Coleman who moved that this clause be deleted. It was then ruled by the Mayor that this work was under the Parks and Reserves Committee which actually meant that this Committee could supply Mr Tschopp with what material and labour he required — items which would be a charge against the money required for maintenance and supervision. This the Works Committee strongly objected to.

Entirely Wrong If one committee has power to use the funds belonging to another committee to carry out work that is not under the control of the committee who own the funds, then it is in my opinion enirely wrong. The centre of the main street to the entrance of Whaka is dug up and there has not been a man working on it for days — at night it is lit up with lamps and it only requires some of these to go out or to be stolen and a serious accident may happen. In conclusion the Mayor states that it cannot be substantiated that the maintenance work has suffered. If

* there are two permanent council erfiA ployees and a lorry almost continfi^ ' ously employed on planting treeg etc., at a cost of £27 2s 6d per forh? night and a lorry at 2s 4d per hour! all of which is being paid for out J! our maintenance and supervisioi! fund, surely our maintenance is .gning to suffer to the extent 'of t'he money that is being used for beautification work. Mr Galhraitn attached a list xjf works authorised under unemployed relief, which the Mayor stated were not of a permanent nature. Mr. Galhaith asserts that all of these works are of a permanent value and supplied the list of the works in question. The estimated cost of each work is given in parenthesis. Ranolf Street (Amohau Street to Arawa Street (£700), Hinemaru Street, Hinemoa Street to Amohau Street, (£100) ; Abattoir Well (£25) ; Amohau Street, East of Hinemaru Street (£75) ; Pererika Street (£250), Old Taupo Road (£900), Ranolf St. South (£350) ; Gwendoline Street (£1000) ; Pukuatua Street railway crossing (£75) ; Motor Camp, removing stumps (£45); Fenton Street, Racing Club's front.ap-A (-?i sm . '

Whakaue Street (£220) ; Tryon Street (£300); Sewage Farm (£300) ; Kuirau Domain (£200) ; Forestry Avenue (£450); Sala Street (£600); Aerodrome (£300) ; Cemetery Reserve (£250) ; Horo Horo Road £200) ; Peace Street (£100) ; Amo-hau-Ranolf-Amohia Streets (£50) ; Eruera-Ranolf-Amohia Streets (£50) ; Hinemoa Street (£50) ; Pukuatua Street (£50); Haupapa Street (£50); Borough Quarry, stripping (£30). The total estimated cost of these works is £6,100, on which the cost of supervision, estimated at 15 per cent, is £900. Mr. Galbraith asserts that on the figures already quoted this supervision is aetually 20 per cent? and not 15 per cent. •