CLIFTON COUNTY ENGINEER.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 June 1922, Page 7

CLIFTON COUNTY ENGINEER.

DISAGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL. ENGAGEMENT TERMS ALTERED. At yesterday’s meeting of the Clifton County Council, Cr. Barnitt complained that the engineer was doing certain work on a wash-out on the Uruti Road against the advice and direction of the councillors. He wished to know who was in charge of the county work, the council or the engineer. It was about time they had a change, in the interests of the county. Had the engineer power to spend unlimited money without the authority of the council? Cr. F. Foreman said the engineer had carried out certain work on the Uruti Road wash-out against the advice of the councillors. Certain of the councillors had visited the site and advised a course of action. Cr. Sutton supported the complaint. The engineer said that all he had done since his new instructions was to re-face the dam and remove a stump. Cr. Barnitt said the engineer had put in another dam, but this the engineer denied. He said he had only re-faced the old dam. Cr. Barnitt said he had not given "the workmen any instructions. No councillor would do so when they had an engineer. The engineer: “By gad, they often do.” He said he would not recede from his position, and it was of no use arguing about it. The chairman said it seemed the engineer had exceeded his duty in authorising the men to do certain work against the decision of the deputation of councillors.

Cr. Foreman complained that the engineer had also put in a certain concrete culvert, and he wanted to know where the authority came from. The engineer: “Does an engineer need to go to the council every time a culvert is wanted?” Cr. Foreman said he should when an expenditure of £6O or £7O was involved. The engineer: “This is only concerted action against me.” Several councillors denied this. Cr. Foreman said he could not sit at the council table while this kind of thing went on. He felt very strongly on the matter. He moved that the engineer be given three months’ notice. The motion was seconded by Cr. Barnitt. The chairman said he did not think the position of the finances of the county warranted the retention of an engineer. For some months to come there would be only surface work to do, and they would manage without an engineer. The chairman moved as an amendment that the engineer’s engagement as overseer be terminated with one month’s pay, he to be retained as a consulting engineer at rates to be agreed on. The motion was withdrawn, ana the amendment was carried.