New City Engineer

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 885, 31 January 1930, Page 8

New City Engineer

MR. TYLER WINS ON VOTE UNDER ballot vote by the City Council last evening, Mr. Janies Tyler, wlio lias been Acting-City Engineer since the resignation of Mr. W. E. Rusli, was returned as City Engineer by a substantial majority. Before the council decided on a ballot, it spent a considerable time discussing amendments for procuring outside expert advice again.

Six applicants from the 75 for the position, as selected by a special committee of the council, were advanced for vote, after the meeting had rejected several amendments suggesting expert advice to assist the council. On the motion of the Mayor, Mr. G. Baildon, the ballot principle approved was the reduction of the six names to three, and then the three-to one. In the first vote the returns were: Mr. James Tyler, acting-City engineer, Auckland, 17 votes. Mr. E. H. Sarber, deputy-engi-neer, Sheffield, 15. Mr. A. G. Bush, borough engineer, Lower Hutt, 12. Mr. A. R. Galbraith, city engineer, Christchurch, 11. Mr. N. Weeks, private practitioner, ex-city engineer, Sydney, 4. Mr. S. A. Hill Willis, engineer, Tilbury Urban District Council, 4. The final vote resulted: Mr. Tyler, 13 votes. Mr. Barber, 7. Mr. Bush, 1. When the Mayor formally moved the appointment of Mr. Tyler to the position of City Engineer, the only dissentients were Crs. T. Bloodworth and J'. R. Lundon. MR. FURKERT’S REPLY A letter from Mr. F. W. Furket, En-gmeer-in-Chief and Under-Secretarv to the Public Works Department, led to the council’s decision to make the appointment itself. The council had asked Mr. Furkert and Mr. J. W. Mawson, Director of Town Planning, to judge the qualifications of the six selected applicants. Mr. Furkert replied:— “Neither of us views with any enthusiasm the prospect of having to make the decision your council wishes. To begin with, we do not think it right that we should be required to judge between six men selected by your sub-committee when it is quite within the bounds of possibility that one of the 60 or more, which, we understand from newspaper comment, have already been rejected, may be better that any of those in the limited list you propose to submit to us.” The Mayor immediately moved the receiving of the letter, the sending of thanks to Mr. Furkert, and that no further action be taken in gaining outside advice. “DODGING RESPONSIBILITIES” He was supported by Cr. M. J. Bennett, but the Deputy-Mayor, Cr. A. J. Entrican, did not see why opinions

should not be gained from two other experts. Replying to Cr. E. J. Phelan, Cr. Entrican was emphatic that the council would not be “dodging its responsibilities” by so doing. He moved as an amendment the securing of advice from the president of the Society of Civil Engineers and the Professor in Engineering at the Universnty College. This proposal was defeated. Cr. Ellen Melville seconded, maintaining that the council should not accept responsibility without having expert advice. “Mr. Furkert’s reply is the only one we could expect,” declared Cr. G- Grey Campbell, who said the council should have submitted the full list of names. It. was farcical to submit six selections. An opinion that Mr. Furkert and Mr. Mawson had misunderstood the council’s requirements was advanced by Cr. G. G. Ashley, but Cr. Phelan believed that the council was qualified to make its own appointment. “We were elected to do a certain job and, if we are not competent, we should get out,” he said. Cr. B. M. Irvine: Decide the question now. Crs. Bennett and B. L. Bagnall agreed with the Mayor’s motion, and Cr. J. B. Paterson was prepared to vote immediately.. CR. LUNDON’S CHARGE

“We passed a resolution making a request—which has not yet been declined—from Messrs. Furkert and Mawson,” said Cr. Lundon. “I suggest that the proper way we can decide not to take their advice is by notice of motion.” The Mayor assured the speaker that no information had been issued. Cr. Lundon said all the names should have been submitted for advice. Criticising the advertised conditions for the appointment, he was amazed at a condition saying that municipal experience was not essential for the engineer of the chief city of New Zealand. An amendment brought forward by Cr. Lundon suggesting that the Council of the Society of Engineers and the Director of Town Planning and/or the Town Planning Board be asked for advice, was lost. Amendments by Cr. Lundon suggesting advice from, first, the Society of Engineers, and, second, the Town Planning Board, were defeated. Crs. Lundon, Basten, Donald and Murray were the only voters against the Mayor’s motion to receive the letter. Cr. Lundon protested against the mere statement on the order paper. The Minister’s letter to the council agreed with the communication from Mr. Furkert, and Mr. Lundon had the I letter read to the meeting.