NEW CITY ENGINEER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 839, 6 December 1929, Page 10

NEW CITY ENGINEER

STILL NO FINALITY

COUNCIL ARGUES FOR HOUR

After wrangling for an hour on procedure to determine the basis of selection of the new City Engineer, the City Council last evening failed to reach finality and referred the nine tentatively chosen applicants back to the committee for reduction to six candidates.

Stating that the applications had been reduced to nine, the Mayor invited suggestions concerning the procedure of dealing with them. “Finish the job,” came a chorused injunction from three or four members round the table.

Cr. E. J. Phelan considered it would be beneficial to settle the matter once and for all immediately, claiming that members had had the opportunity of considering the qualifications of the candidates. The Mayor suggested that the number of applicants should first be reduced to three or “sudden death.” Cr. T. Bloodworth urged the council to consider the matter very seriously, as upon the decision, he said. 1 depended the future development of Auckland. Cr. Ellen Melville asked for a closer analysis of the nine applicants’ j experience. “It is only begging the question to , put the matter off as Cr. Bloodworth and Cr. Melville suggest.” remarked Cr. H. P. Burton. “Councillors should now be in a position to make up their minds.” Cr. J. R. Lundon said the committee has disobeyed the council’s resolution in that the applications had been reduced to nine instead of 12 as required under that resolution. He had spent 17 hours reading the applications, but so far liad only perused 37. How then could any councillor have justly reduced the list to nine? A Councillor: It was unoecessary to read the lot. Proceeding, Cr. Lundon said there was a definite undercurrent of opinion in the City that the job was made for one particular man. It was a matter which should be proceeded with slowly. He moved the entire list of 90 back to the committee. He had selected three names which he wanted added to the selected nine. Cr. G. Grey Campbell moved the amendment, and Cr. B. L. Bagnall seconded, that the council go into committee for free discussion. Cr. A. J. Entrican suggested the committee should now be empowered to reduce the nine to three and report back two weeks hence. Speaking to the amendment, Cr. Lundon strenuously opposed a selection in committee. The amendment was lost on the voices. A chorus of members then wanted a final selection there and then. “The matter is too serious for reduction to three, without a careful perusal of the credentials of the whole nine,” declared Cr. T. Bloodworth, in adhering to his motion. The amendment by Cr. Entrican to reduce the number of applicats to three was defeated by 13 votes and the motion was carried to refer the nine candidates back to the committee for reduction to six. The committee reported that it had carefully perused all the applications, and submitted to the council’s consideration the following nine applicants: Mr. H. G. Atwell, city engineer, Perth, Western Australia. Mr. E. H. Barber, deputy-engineer and surveyor, Sheffield, England. Mr. H. E. Bellamy, State hydraulic engineer to' the South Australian Government. Mr. A. G. Bush, engineer to the Lower Hutt Borough Council. Mr. J. J. Cummins, city engineer, Newcastle, New South Wales. Mr. A. R. Galbraith, city engineer, architect and surveyor, Christchurch. Mr. James Tyler, acting-city engineer Auckland. Mr. N. Weekes, ex-city engineer, Sydney, now in private practice.

Mr. S. A. Hill Willis, engineer and surveyor, Tilbury Urban District Council, England.