Invited to Resign

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 140, 3 September 1927, Page 8

Invited to Resign

MOUNT ALBERT ENGINEER Council’s “Star Chamber’ Methods MOUNT ALBERT Borough has lately incurred criticism on account of the number of men it has discarded from its staff. The latest development is a climax to processes that have been in motion all through the winter. At a committee meeting last Tuesday the council decided to invite its engineer, Ur. \V. A. Cook, to tender his resignation.

Tlie engineer was given no intimation of the drastic move contemplated by the council, and he lias protested against the council’s action. Furthermore, he does not intend to accept its invitation to resign. Accordingly, the council will have to dismiss him summarily from its staff, and the engineer has been informed that a further meeting is to be held oil Tuesday night next. PUBLICITY NOT WANTED The council appears to have no liking for publicity. It is probably the only local body in New Zealand where neither the town clerk nor the en-

When the engineer was called in, and informed of the council’s decision, he asked if he could have it in writing, and the next morning received the following letter from the town clerk, Mr. H. Utting: August 31. Dear Mr. Cock. In accordance with instructions received I have to convey to you the following resolutions of the joint committees of the council: ‘•That the engineer be informed that the council has no confidence in him, and that he be requested, accordingly, to hand in his resignation. Also that a special meeting of the council be held on Tuesday next, September 6, to deal with the matter.” One receipt of the letter, Mr. Cook wrote inquiring what charges were made against him, but the town clerk, in reply, regretted that no further information could be given. Meanwhile Mr. Cook, at noon yesterday, had a telephone call from Mr. H. M. Rogerson, Mount Albert borough solicitor, who told him that the Mayor, Mr. L. E. Rhodes, and town clerk, had consulted him on the question. He advised Mr. Cook that the council was not legally obliged to state its reasons for dismissing Mm, and he therefore counselled him to bow to the council’s wishes, and tender his resignation; otherwise a more drastic motion would be moved at next Tuesday’s meeting. WILL NOT OBLIGE Mr. Cook still declines to submit to the council’s wishes, and states that he does not intend to oblige the council by taking from its shoulders the responsibility of dismissing him. He denies that any charge can be directed at his professional ability, and adds that, if the council’s threat is carried into effect, he will release for publication a sworn declaration relating to all the happenings in connection ith his department since he has been associated with the council. Touching on dismissals of staff, the engineer said last evening that the selection of the men to go off was taken out of his hands some months ago, and was handled by a committee consisting of the Mayor and Crs. Allingham, Davis, Floyd and Langley. On August 10, w r hen a SUN reporter telephoned the Mayor asking how many men had been put off, he was told “about thirty.” More accurate information was difficult to obtain, as neither the engineer nor clerk could make statements, but it is now clear that on that date not less than 80 men had been put off. BY-ELECTION POSSIBLE Mr. Cook joined the council’s staff nearly two years ago, when he was selected from a large number of applicants. For nine years before that he was engineer to the New Plymouth Borough Council. The councillors who voted against the motion last Tuesday were Messrs. Brigham and Russell. Feeling on the question is so strong that byelections, involving the engineer’s dismissal as a vital issue, may result.

gineer is authorised to give information to the Press.

The dismissal of the engineer has so far been effected entirely in committee, and the engineer has been given no opportunity to learn if specific charges have been levelled against him.

Last Tuesday’s meeting was a gathering of the “joint committees” of the council, and the order paper gave no indication that any unusual business was to be discussed. At 11.40 p.m. the engineer was informed that his presence at the meeting would no longer be required, but he was instructed to wait outside. The motion calling on the engineer to resign was moved by Cr. Langley, who cited, it is understood, two specific instances of alleged incompetence. In neither case was the engineer given an opportunity to answer the charges. “NO CONFIDENCE”

When the motion was put to the meeting there were at least two dissentients whose protests failed to affect the issue.