South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, FEB. 14, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2154, 14 February 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, FEB. 14, 1880.

Through the exercise of a little unwise economy the members of the Levels Hoad Board have placed themselves in a most unenviable dilemma. We referred recently to the serious blunders that had been made in the valuation lists for the Levels district. The Board lias taken legal advice, snd in pursuance thereof a large amount of work has devolved upon its officers in the way of serving notices preparatory to the holding of the Assessment Court at Washdyke. The task which the Judge of the Assessment Court has to face is quite as formidable as the position of the Board and its officers promises to be embarrassing. Apart from the extraordinary blunders that have been made in the valuations, upwards of two hundred ommissions have to be dealt with. The members of

the Board are placed in the unpleasant predicament of having to appeal against the valuations of their duly appointed valuer. The position is an anomalous one. The pyramid is placed on its apex when a public body is found opposing the estimates of its own servant. If the grounds of difference were trilling, the complications would not be so important. But the discrepancies in the valuation roll are serious. Contrasted with last year’s valuations, the new estimates seem unaccountable. Neither the fluctuations of commerce, the changes of the seasons, nor the influence of political encroachments on the rights of property can afford a satisfactoiy explanation of the way in which the tables have been turned against the small ratepayers and in favor of the wealthy ones. The new valuer, with a lofty contempt for the judgment of others and a singular amount of confidence in his own competence, ignored the lists of previous years and made an independent estimate of his own. The result is that he has given himself a large amount of unnecessary labour, the lists he has prepared arc sadly imperfect, his estimates have given eminent dissatisfaction, and the revenue of the Board is likely to suffer. The lesson conveyed by flic experience of the Board is one which local bodies would do well to apply. While it may bo advisable that the office of a mayor, chairman, or other representative should he a rolling one, the case is different with public officers. The latter require something more than ordinary superficial adornments in order to be efficient. A valuer must have tact, skill, and good business as well as educational qualifications in order to be able to discharge his duties satisfactorily. While we do not deny the right which public bodies may have to change their officers and sample the unemployed occasionally, wc question the advisability of such a course. If they desire to have work that requires local knowledge, experience and aptitude, performed in a satisfactory way, they must appreciate the performer sufficiently to render his office something else than merely a temporary one. It is unfair to the ratepayers once their properties have been fairly assessed that they should be placed at the mercy of reckless or incompetent assessors. To guard against such accidents local bodies must learn to retain good servants once they have discovered them. Efficiency is not a common commodity which can be picked up at random. Good officers ensure good management. A paltry saving may be effected by purchasing indifferent material, but it is usually an expensive saving in the long run.