"Disgruntled Employee”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 161, 28 September 1927, Page 13

"Disgruntled Employee”

Council and Ex-Engineer

Mount Albert Explanation

THE councillors with every confidence leave the issue to the ratepayers, and feel sure that statements made by a disgruntled dismissed employee will carry no weight with them when considered in the light of cold facts. “The council feels that it would not be doing its duty to the ratepayers if it allowed the engineer to spend money which, in its opinion, was unjustified and amounted to extravagance/’

\ T a special meeting last evening the Mount Albert Borough Council discussed the report prepared on the dismissal of the engineer, Mr. W. H. Cook, and adopted it. An amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Brigham that ' the report should be dealt with in open council was defeated, and the council went into committee. Applications, closing on October 31. are to be called for a new engineer, and in the meantime the chief draughtsman, Mr. W. E. Begbie, has been appointed acting-engineer. Reasons For Dismissal “Although under no obligation to do so, yet as the invitation of the late engineer, Mr. W. H. Cook, and at the request of certain ratepayers, we give the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Cook,” says the report. “We have refrained from doing so before, as we thought it would be in Mr. Cook’s own interests if he left quietly, without the council being compelled to advertise the fact that he had been dismissed from its service. The council had determined that his administration was so unsatisfactory that he must be dismissed, and therefore any silence there has been on the part of the council has been solely out of consideration for Mr. Cook. “In dealing with this question, the council feels its first duty is to the ratepayers, irrespective of personal feelings and wishes, and that, being trustees for the ratepayers and electors, nothing should interfere with its proper administration of the trust reposed in it. It was for these reasons only that Mr. Cook’s services were dispensed with. “In our opinion, broadly speaking, the grounds for his dismissal are as follow: (1) That Mr. Cook's retention as borough engineer was not in the interests of the ratepayers and electors of Mount Albert. (2) That Mr. Cook was dismissed because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the work has been carried out under his administration. (2) That there has been a general overestimating of costs, and the council has not been getting, in many instances, value for money spent. (4) Of this dissatisfaction on the part of the council Mr. Cook has had ample notice.” ‘ l O ver-Estimation’ ’ The report goes on to deal specifically with these charges. It says: ’‘The New North Hoad allocation for the portion recently concreted was £34,089. Mr. Cook’s estimate of the cost of the work, in accordance with plans and specifications prepared, was £30,378. The actual contract price was £23,810. The council suggests that on a £30,000 contract there should not be an overestimation by its engineer of approximately £ 6,500. “In another case in connection with a sewer contract recently let, the engineer’s estimate was £3,177 and the contract price was actually £2,214. The engineer’s estimate in this case was, therefore, £963 over the actual contract price. “Again, to compare the costs of various works done under Mr. Cook’s supervision, we would refer to a footpath which was constructed in Allendale Road, 530 yards long, with an Bft. tarred path and lift, grass margin bordered with a concrete kerb. This work took six months to complete. The labour cost £763, and material £6Bl, making a total of £1,444. This work cost £SB a chain, or £33 a chain for labour only. It represents an approximate total cost of over £2 10s a yard. “This work has to be compared with work done in Crbinwell Street, Mount Eden, a boundary street between the two boroughs. The council found this road is 270 yards long, has a 36ft. carriageway, and v.wo 15ft. tarred footpaths, and has a good permanentlysealed surface across the entire width of the street. This street also cost £1,444, representing £ll9 a chain. Therefore, it cost Mount Albert £SB a chain to construct an Bft. footpath and grass border, while Mount Eden had reconstructed a road 36ft. wide, and two 15ft. wicle footpaths at £ll9 a chain. “Keimers Avenue, recently under construction, will cost £206 a chain to complete. The council thinks the cost excessive, and has frequently complained about the way the work has been carried out. during construction. “Extravagant Expenditure” "We have picked out a few illustrations,” the report says. “These, the council suggests, bear out its contention that there have been over-estimat-ing of costs and extravagant expenditure. An example of proposed or suggested extravagant expenditure by Mr. Cook is in the road construction of King Street. On account of a small drain leakage, Mr. Cook suggested a drainage deviation estimated by him to cost £436. The council refused to adopt this sug-

igestion, and the difficulty was ovenua(ally overcome at a cost of approxi--5 mutely £IOO. Even this, in the cor.ajeil’s opinion, was too much. | [f Mr. Cook had carried out the council's instructions, which ho omitted to do, it would have cost considerably less than even £IOO If th© council, however, had adopted Mr. Cook’s suggestion, it would have cost it an extra £336 of the ratepayers’ money. Other matters can be mentioned, but these are sufficient to give an indication of the grounds of the dissatisfaction. “The combined Finance and Works Committees set up specially to deal with borough administration met on June 14, 1927. Subsequent to that this committee met on foux* other separate occasions, and at most of these meetings dissatisfciction with the administration was discussed. At each meeting every councillor and the engineer were present when these questions were discussed. “There is no excuse for Mr. Cook or any councillor to say that he or they had no idea of the reasons for Mr. Cook's dismissal. “Mr. Cook poetically admits that lie knew he had not the confidence of the council. He is reported to have stated in the Press that he had contemplated resigning at an earlier date. The inquiry extended from June 14 to August 30. To show why the council became dissatisfied it may be mentioned that on May 10 the engineer was asked to bring down a comprehensive report showing th« works undertaken to date and their estimated cost, the cost of completed works, the amount required to complete the unfinished works, and to prepare a schedule of the proposed work for the current year in connection with loans. “It was not until 16 weeks later that the council was able to get a correct return. Previous to this request Mr. Cook did not keep the council informed, or did he submit any statements showing the council’s financial position in connection with the 1926 loan expenditure and commitments.. “As the result of these five special meetings, at each of which Mr. Cook was present, and in view of the excessive costs of some of the works contained in his report, the general dissatisfaction expressed repeatedly by individual members of the council, and the complaints of alleged wasteful expenditure as officially recorded in the joint committee minutes, it was at this final meeting that Mr. Cook was requested to hand in his resignation. “It is therefore simply futile for Mr. Cook or any councillors to say that he or they did not know of the grounds for Mr. Cook’s dismissal. “Mr. Cook had complete control up to about three months ago. It was then unanimously decided, and Councillors Brigham and Rus;sell both agreed, that a special committee of four councillors out of eight, one councillor from, each ward, should be set up. “This special committee was set up as the outcome of Mr. Cook’s action in discharging local men with large families, and the general dissatisfaction with his administration. “These men were reinstated and paid by the unanimous vote of the codicil, at which meeting both Councillors Brigham and Russell were present. They were not reinstated by the committee, as Mr. Cook is reported to have stated. “The statement by Mr. Cook that the Mayor had approached him immediately after the election and instructed him to dismiss any men who were disloyal at the election is absolutely untrue. The council wishes to place on record its regret that Mr. Cook should have made such an unfounded allegation. The deputy-Mayor, who was present at the interview referred to, also emphatically states that there was not a scintilla of truth in Mr. Cook’s statement.”