CHAIRMAN v. ENGINEER.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 May 1918, Page 7

CHAIRMAN v. ENGINEER.

; A QUESTION OF OONTPOL. There was rather an animated eussion at the mooting of the bigmont County Council on Tuesday, hinging on the question cf whether-i t'nc chairman or engineer should give orders to tile men.

The matter was introduced by the reading of lengthy.eorrospoiulenoe, -tn- a letter to the engineer, the chairman stated, inter alia: —''In connection with tools end work to lie done, ordered by ine lor this engine, I » given to understand t'iiat you have written the driver that he is to take no instructions except from you. but when an engine is allowed to go over '22 miles from her base in an unworkable state, without tools or belt paste, then I am going not only to protect the ratepayers' pockets, but will prevent the council being a public laughing s toek. . . . For an official of the

council to Icad'ewiployocs to suppose thatthe chairman's orders are not to be obeyed, indicates that you do not realise your 'position, and you will at once write withdrawing the letter referred to, as such a thing could not be tolerated, nor will it be for one moment by the chairman of the council for which you are engineer."

The engineer submitted a lengthy reply to the council, concluding:—"l' can onjy gay that I do fully realise my position, and always endeavor to carry out my duties in an efficient manner, with due regard to economy; but nothing can be a success with divided control, which only leads to misunderstandings, friction, loss of time, and inefficiency; and as the first clause in my agreement with the council gives me full charge of ail workmen, plant, roads, bridges, and other work under the control of the council. J feel that it am not called upon to comply with the chairman's request that I should withdraw my letter to the driver of the Garret roller. I am always.perfectly willing to carry out any instructions I receive from- the chairman, andalways hope to retain the coulidenco of himself and the council, but unless 1 the business ihclonjring to my passes through my hands I shall not be able to retain that control of the men

which is necessary for the proper and orient carrying out of the 'council's work. The chairman must have misunderstood my inte^tioi/s." The chairman stated 'that he was-in that position to see that the ratepayers were protected and got 20s in the

t' for their money. He did not desire friction, hut efficiency, and he was going to have the last.,word in that efficiency/ He then asked the engineer to explain why he had privately let a contract for the cement for the■ Pnnefhtt bridge and had -called-,-tenders'for gravel without being instructed 'by the council.

The engineer .explained that as they had received authority from the resident engineer to proceed with the worjc, he had considered it advisable to call tenders for tho shingle, so that it would bo ready when required, and he was asking the council to appoint a subcommittee to deal with thc.se during the month. Regarding the cement, he had ?ot quotations from agents of the four companies concerned, and ha-d secured a favorable price. He thought the matter urgent in view of the 'proposed amalgamation x>f cement companies.

Tlio chairman said that it -\vas an established custom to refer all private contracts to a committee. They should not expend any money on. the bridge until matters were i u order. Ho could see difficulties ahead, and would not like to take the responsibility of calling;.tenders for even 50 yard?. He moved that the council refuse to confirm the cement contract-

11l reply to questions, the engineer stated that the cement required worth 1 run into £<soo or £7OO. He explained the contract, which members thought a very favorable one. Crs. Sinclair and O'Brden thought the engineer should have an understanding as to how far lie could go in private contracts.

Crs. M'Neill moved that a committee consisting of the chairman, Crs. Cornish, Sinclair, and O'Brien, should be setup to confer with the. engineer when necessary. Cf. Cornish, in seconding this, considered the engineer had showed great foresight. The motion was carried. Or. M'Neill moved that tin) action of tho engineer in this instance be enforced, Or. O'Brien seconded the motion, which was carried. The chairman said there was still the matter of the letter, which he would ask the engineer to withdraw. Ho said that he vent in for efficiency, and considered there was a great deal of inefficiency in tho council. He instanced cases where bo considered that a saving could have been effected to ratepayers. He especially contrasted the crushing operations in the Oeo riding with those in the Rahotu riding. , The engineer bad said that be was responsible for the work, but the speaker considered that for the chairman to be told that he was not to give orders was iivtoleralble, and he would be utterly unfit. for the position if he allowed it to go unchallenged. The engineer stated that he could give a complete answer to all the cases mentioned liv the chairman. He bad no intention of slighting the chairman in the letter, but there could not he two bosses over ono man. lie denied that there had been any waste of time hi the Oeo riding- except during ted weather. Cr. O'Brien thought the matter could be satisfactorily Fettled as the result of the discussion. The chairman had seen matters that he. did not consider quite right and he ha<l considered it necessary fo interfere, but they must not forget that a few months ago they handed control over to tftie engineer- He then moved that the engineer's attention he drawn to the serious condition* of these affairs, and that no furfier action be taken. The chairman: Add that the letter he withdrawn. .Cr. M'Neill was satisfied that both the ehairman and engineer were doing their level-best to get the work done. The engineer had arrived at an inopportune time, when thev had a deplorable plant which/ should have bee-n acrnpned. and the roads also required attention, from end to end... He was satisfied that anv friction was due to ovcreagemess to have the. work done. He seconded tflie motion. The chairman said that he would not accept the resolution unless th.e letter was withdrawn. Cr. O'Brier asked the chairman to fihow yenerosit" in the matter. The engineer said that, be willingly .withdrew any reflection which ths choir*

man thought wa s cast upon him. Finally, the engineer stated that he woum withdraw the letter. • Cr.. Harvey suggested that the chairman should avoid giving orders tuileas he referred to the engineer. Tiie motion was canted uuanuaously, and tlw,xa*tUr-4roippßd,