ACCUSER AND WITNESSES

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 227, 14 December 1927, Page 1

ACCUSER AND WITNESSES

Legal Quibbles in Civic Inquiry

Cr. Murray’s Charges: Deadlock Reached

AT the present rate of progress it will be considerably after Christmas before the special committee of the City Council, dealing with Cr. Murray’s charges of mismanagement and extravagance, completes its operations.

VITHEN the committee met this morning a deadlock was reached and a discussion that occupied an hoar failed to advance the position. Mr. F. McLiver, acting for Cr. Murray, indicated that he proposed to call some 50 witnesses. So far two have been heard. The deadlock occurred over clause "L” in the document of charges which read: “Questionable incidents relative to certain employees ot the council in their dealings, arrangements or business affinities to or with contractors to the council and other persons.” Mr. McLiver asked that, in riew of the committee insisting that officers charged should be allowed to be present, his witnesses, whose natres were mentioned, should be present. He mentioned the drainage engineer, who is alleged to have been dismissed for giving information to Cr. Murray, and Mr. J. Lundon, as persons he had in mind. This request was flatly refused. A reference to the city and assistant engineers being present led Mr. J. Stanton, tiity solicitor, to remark that they were Mr. McLiver’s witnesses. Mr. McLiver: Well, if they are, I will ask that they should leave the roon, except while giving evidence. Tie chairman, Mr. J. Dempsey: They are implicated in all these chaiges and have a right to be present. This led to the discussion'on clause “L” The chairman asked that to facilitate the inquiry, the names should be given.

NO TAMPERING Mr. McLiver said he would only give the names if an undertaking were given that they would not be approached by any other officials of the council. He had to do this because employees had been interviewed by the engineering staff, and one man had been dismissed. The Chairman: I don’t know why you should suggest that the staff would go round doing a dirty thing like that. Mr. W. E. Bush, city engineer: It is a reflection on the Integrity of the heads of the department. Mr. Stantpn: Apparently It is a crime for a Isember ot the staff, but not for Cr. Murray. OFFER TO WITHDRAW CLAUSE After a long discussion, Mr. McLiver said that if the committee insisted on the names he was not prepared to live -.hem, for the reason stated, and he would withdraw the clause. The Mayor: It’s the most serious of the lot. Cr. Phelan: No you won’t. We 4n’t want to give you any excuse to out and say you were not given a Waring. REJECTED CANDIDATES RESPONSIBLE The Mayor: I say the employees have ao right to give information. Cr. Murray has been going round with men who have stood for the council and been well beaten. Cr. Murray should have come to me or the head of the department. Eventually the question was dropped—without the names being given, Mr. McLiver slating that he would live them when he considered the time appropriate.

The examination of Mr. W. E. Bush, city engineer, was then continued, Mr. McLiver suggesting that witness had Men ao much out in his estimates of curbs and pitchers that the ratepayers wd lost a considerable sum by havto keep on taking the quantity coutracted for at the old price, a suggestion that witness denied. The examination was punctuated by Protests and appeals to the chairman. t When the solicitor had finished sev**l councillors asked questions, and ventured one. The chairman immediately ruled Cr. Murray, having delegated his authority to Mr. McLiver could not take part. The question was not pursued. accused their own PROSECUTORS th * Hals stage Mr. Stanton suggested uat seme procedure should be adopted. '. Present there were vague sugges“ns against men. It was not for the °ocers to clear themselves, but for the Juarges to be made and substantiated, tt ®o®cers to reply if necessary. The chairman said he would not r* ow Mr. Matheson to be called as a 'chess for the prosecution. Charges uat first be made, if there were any. Mr. Stanton said Cr. Murray must “1 re Karded as the accuser, and the ■fleers as the defendants. They could P u t a criminal in the witness box less he wanted to go.

Mr. McLiver: What if Mr. Matheson, as an instance, is my only evidence. Mr. Stanton: I do not know whether he will go in the box. lam not acting for him, but he is entitled to hear the charge against him first. The same applies to Mr. Tyler, who as yet knows nothing of the charge against him. It was pointed out that the council had already fully inquired into the curbs and pitchers dispute, and had reached a decision on it.

Mr. McLiver said that if the council officials would make certain admissions he would be saved considerable time in bringing evidence. Cr. Phelan said nothing new to the committee had been yet produced. It was all a waste of time. The question was whether any orders had been given outside the contracts, in disobedience of the council’s decision. The committee decided that they would not allow officials to be examined unless the charges and evidence were given first. An adjournment then became necessary to enable the production of evidence, and the inquiry adjourned till next Tuesday.

Cr. Murray’s statement of allegations suggested an investigation into the following:— (1) Wastefulness in some operations of the City Council. (2) That business dealings of the council were not being conducted in the best interests of the city or ratepayers. Cr. Murray held that it was impossible to elaborate these questions in detail, but the available witnesses would develop them. He provided a number of particulars which the evidence would elucidate, including (a) ordering and dealing with kerbs and pitchers, (b) the trading operations of a paid official, (c) cartage and alleged preferential treatment, (d) wastefulness in the treatment of certain tenders, (e) wastefulness and inefficiency in connection with dam works, (f) wastefulness in use of road material, (g) waste of bitumen, (h) extravagance in connection with council cars, (i) use or misuse of staff on private work, (j) deficiencies in quantity and misdescription of road materials, (k) loss and waste on council material, (1) questionable incidents relative to certain employees, (m) victimisation of a council employee accused of making a statement to Cr. Murray, and (n) the dismissal of an employee for the same reason.