HARBOUR BOARD RETRENCH. MENT. REPORT REFERRED BACK AGAIN.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 253, 7 April 1888, Page 4

HARBOUR BOARD RETRENCH. MEN T . REPORT REFERRED BACK AGAIN.

At the meeting of thoHavbourßoard yesterday afternoon, th ereportof the Board incommittce for the consideration ot the retrenchment proposals was duly read. Ihe recommendations by the Committee have already been published. It will be remembered that in addition to considerable reductions of the salaries of the employees of the Board, the Engineer's department was suggested to be practically swept away entirely. The Chairman said that the Board bad been maderidiculous in the eyes of the general public by the of the Committee that the Engineer sDepartment&hould be swept a* ay. The idea of a port like Auckland — possessed of such a big dock being without an engineer, was utteily out of the question. There weie many matter? in which it would be absolutely necessary for them to have an engineer— matters too where the foreman of \vork3 no matter how competent he might be, could not act. Be-f-ides tnat, it would be necessary for them to letain Mr McGregors services a.s longa& the present contracts were proceeding. He would ask in the interests of the Board that they should not act in the question oi retrenchment like steeds that had got the bit between their teeth and were rushing foi wnid without due consideration of the rcsult.s. He thought that the best way would be for the Committee to abk leave to sit again, for it must be apparent that the Board could not do without an engineer. Air Button : Ko, wo cannot possibly do without an engineer. Mr Clark : Ye-., we must have an engineer. The Chairman said it would be like having the canuige without the horse. He thought that they had better take it as an intemn icpoit, and then the Committee could amend the. suggestion with regard to the Engineer*, Department— for they might alter it, but they would find that it would be impossible to do without it. Air Miccol said as the Chairman did not evidently coincide with the sentiments ol the report, he should move its adoption himself. He might state that he did not quite agree with the idea of entirely sweeping away the Engineer's Department. He thought that at present all that wa^ nece.s'-aiy was for them lo appoint a diaughtsman in the office, and the Foreman of Woiks could attend to the outride woik. It Ma? quite pos&ibic that ?ome of the works might not be completed within the time mentioned in the report, but he felt sure from what they knew of Mr McGiesror there was no tear of him leaving them in the lurch. While referring *--o Mr McGregoi, he might remark that he was not possessed of the aptitude of adapting himself to the wishes of the Board. CM course, he perhaps knew best how things should be done, but at the same time he carried out his own ideas in a somewhat expensive manner in spite ot the wishes of the Board. That was one of the many considerations that led the Committee to suggest that his services should be dispensed with, coupled with Ihe fact that the Boerd did not pur-po.-e tocommenceany large woiks at pte«ent. Ho also thought that the balance of the loan ought to be put out at fixed deposit, at. least for a year, and then they could only spend accoiding to their income. Then w ith the Foreman of Woiks and a draughtsman, he thought they might get along very well fora time, and when they wanted an engineer they might easily get one that would do w hat they wanted. With legaid to the 1 eduction of the salaries, Mr Biigham had told him that should the piopobal of the Committee be adopted he would then wiite to each oflicial affected and ask if he was prepaied to accept the leductioii, so that it could easily be arranged. Mr McKen/ie seconded the adoption of the lepoit. Up thought it was unnecessary to di»ou>s it fui ther. Mi 0. M. Llark moved, as an amendment,. " That the items Engineer's Department be rehned back to the Committee." He thought that it was absurd to think that they could carrj on without an engineer, moio especially when they lemembered that the Calliope Dock was approaching completion. Mr Button seconded Mr Clarks amendment. He thought the Boaid lequired the se^ices of an engineer. Mr A. Nathan said that since the meeting of the Board in committee, he had como to the conclusion that they could not do without an engineer, and he should therefoie support Mr Clarks amendment. Mr I. Dignan said that he supposed that the members of the Committee were sensible men who knew what they were about when they made the suggestions. It they thought then that the lecomniendations could be carried out. they should not go back on it now, but stick to the repoit. He could not understand men w.inting to go back upon what they had nlieady lccommcn led. The question was then put to the meeting, when Messis Niocol, McKenzie, Henderson, Dignan, and Wink? voted tor the adoption ot the report, and Messrs Waddel, Clark, Nathan, Button, and Buchanan for the amendment. The Chairman then gave his casting vote in favour of referring back the report.