A THOUSAND A YEAR.

Shannon News, 24 March 1922, Page 3

A THOUSAND A YEAR.

FOR RESIDENT ELECTRICAL

ENGINEER

POWER BOARD STARTING IN \ EARNEST.

At a meeting of the llurowheinm liydro-Eiectric Power Board,' held on Tuesday, the most, important business on hand was the—question cf the expert engineering assistance- to be engaged. The first step in tins consideration was the perusal of a ioport, furnished by the secretary, Mr Goldsmith, ol his observations of the experiences of other hoards- in the Auckland district in the light of the relative advantages of dealing in die constructional stages with consulting engineers or a permanent engineer. The report was of a confidential nature.

The chairman (Mr G. A. Monk) observed that the report contained a great deal of useful information. For ids own part lie felt that if u firm of consulting engineers was engaged the board would have the value ot the knowledge not only of the beads of the firm, but also of subordinates. On tlie other hand a permanent engineer stood alone, but against that there was the tact of the hoard having his undivided attention. If the board, decided on the latter it should not stint the salary, in an undertaking such as was in hand, where several thousand pounds would be spent, a hundred or two in the salary of the engineer should not be worried about. It was imperative that a good man be secured on the grounds that he would save money in the long

run. Mr D. W. Matlieson urged that applications be called lor both, and-the decision be made -then. He admitted that a resident engineer would certainly have to be appointed later, but during the constructional period there was one point about a firm of consulting engineers that struck him par-'d-u la rly. That' was that. a. reputable linn would doubtless have a good buying connection in England. The boat'd'would be -buying great quantities of imperial and. money might be saved in commissions.

Mi- A. .Seifert congratulated Mr Goldsmith on his report. On consider a lion of the matter in ail its aspects he felt that the appointment of a resident engineer would be more advisable, especially if it could' Tie arranged Unit his plans , could be submitted to a firm of consulting engineers before they were put into operation. In any case a permanent engineer would be necessary later, and lie was sure that if £750 a year was offered, with a bonus payable at the end of two years’ service, a reliable and efficient man could be secured. As an instance of the tremendous expense that would be entailed in the initial work, lie had learnt from inquiries made in Christchurch that the-erection of transmission cables ran up to as high as L'7.70 a. mile. With consulting, engineers theie was the disadvantage of indirect control. 'A firm would send ah engineer in tjieir service to carry out the work. With the permanent engineer in the Board’s employ on the spot from the commencement there would be united control.

Mr A. A. Brown agreed with these contentions. He thought, however, that instead of submitting plans to a consulting engineer they might be referred to the Public Works Department.

Hie chairman disagreed with this. 11l was all right to go to the Department beforehand, he said, but not when the work was in progress. Mr A. I. McKay was more in favour of Mr Matheson’s scheme, and advocated caution in embarking on the expenditure entailed in so enor > - mous a scheme.

Mr F. Whibley said that, taking ilie expenditure as £IOO,OOO, a consulting engineer’s commission at 5 per cent would amount to £SOOO, and the work might compressed into a couple of vears.

The chairman: “And our expend ilure will exceed lhat.” He weal on lo say that lie could not agree with Mr Matheson’s proposal, and thought it better to make a’ definite decision, otherwise it would be like a local body calling applications for a position and asking the applicants to state their own salaries. Tie thought that Mr Whibiey's statement iit regard to the commission illustrated an important point- in that il showed how. great an amount a consulting engineer would cost in comparison with a permanent one. Mr Seifert then moved lhat. applications ho colled for a permanent engineer at a salary of £BOO.

The motion was seconded pro forma by Mr Matheson, who immediately afterwards moved an amendment that alternative applications he called for from consulting engineers and from others desirous of a permanent appointment at a salary of £IOOO a year. He explained that lvis one desire was 1o ensure (he Board getting the best engineering advice. He further (minted out that if an engineer was

appointed at the salary indicated another would be required in a -subordinate position to> carry out the routine, work ot installation. A-, consulting engineer would have all that done out of the commission. He was afraid that Mr Seifert’s idea of submitting the plans to a consulting engineer would not operate in practice. No good engineer would submit to

that. The chairman remarked that (he subordinate engineer would not liave io be paid a Rig salary, as liis work would not be on so high a plane. “We would have to pay him aigoou salary, though,” said Mr Matlieson. He added that lie would like to be clear on what a cons'll!ting engineer would be actually prepared to do fi>r the iTve per cent. “Well, should we not first know about what it will cost?” remarked Mr Barber.

The chairman replied that it was only by engaging the engineer first that they could arrive at an estimate. Mr Seifert again emphasised his point of the direct control timt would obtain by having a consulting engineer. In any case there was no. proof that a consulting engineer would have any greater ability than one prepared .to accept an engagement and salary. Personally he was of opinion that there were plenty of good men who would accept the pos f , and they could rest assured that any man who was appointed would put forth his best endeavour, as on the success of his work here would depend his reputation and in great measure his career. Nevertheless the possibility of them engaging a man who was not up to the.job had to he faced, and for that reason he advocated the submission of the plans to a consulting engineer. The Board could hardly criticise them. For his own part he could not pretend to. Mr Whibley considered it was hardly necessary to call applications Rom consulting engineers. He took it that it was the other way about. Any firm of standing would be prepared + o take the job on.

The amendment and 1 lie motion were then put to the meeting in turn and lost. A motion was then moved by Mr McKay that applications be called for a resident, engineer at a salary of £IOOO a year. This was seconded by Mr Matheson and carried. The chairman voted against it, and afterwards mentioned that he would have preferred to see a salary of £BOO a year with a bonus payable at the end of two years’ service. He regretted that in Mr Seifert’s motion Hie payment, of a bonus had not been included. Suggestions then came from a couple of members that the resolution be rescinded, but the seconder, Mr Matheson, declined to give his permission to this course. Accordingly the resolution stands, and the applications are to be called for forthwith. The Board then went into committee to frame the conditions of the engagement.