FAULTY CONCRETING

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21197, 21 August 1940, Page 5

FAULTY CONCRETING

WORK AT TE AWAMUTU COUNCILLOR’S ALLEGATION BOROUGH FOREMAN’S PROTEST (Special to Times) TE AWAMUTU, Tuesday More was heard of the concrete paths work at the adjourned meeting of the Te Awamutu Borough Council last night when a letter was received from the foreman, Mr R. H. Close, in which he said that the charge of faulty concreting of the footpaths in Kihikihi Road and Carlton Street was absolutely incorrect. Mr Close stated that he was present all the time the mixer was used and took extra care to see that the proper proportions were used and mixed properly. The mixer was a good one and Mr Brookes had never once been on any job while the foreman and men were working. He considered that the remarks made at the council table were unjust and very unfair. Mr Brookes considered it unusual for a servant of the council to attack a councillor as the foreman had done. He had not interfered with the foreman in his work as he felt that there was already too much interference. He still contended, however, that the quality of the concrete was similar to the sample he had produced at the first night of the meeting. His attack was on the works committee. The committee directed the men who had been allowed to do faulty work without correction. His desire was to see that money was spent wisely. After some discussion between Mr Brookes and Mr Montefiore, who complained that the men had no way of heing heard in their own defence, Mr Montefiore claimed that Mr Brookes had made an unfair attack on the men, the foreman and the works committee. This brought forth a further denial from Mr Brookes. Mr Montefiore pointed out that* out of 107 ratepayers who had had concrete work done at a cost of over £6OO, only two had complained, one of them about concreting done with Te Kawa chips. The work alleged to be faulty was quite satisfactory. Coercion of Ratepayers The discussion then centred about the allegation that the foreman had endeavoured to coerce one ratepayer to have the footpath concreted, the | Mayor, Mr G. Spinley, stating that ihe had very often declared that, under the Municipal Corporations Act, the council could compel ratepayers to participate. The position I was that the foreman knew the legal i position and was correct in informing people of the legal position. Mr Montefiore claimed that Mr Brookes had made a charge and should be made to substantiate it. Mr Spiers suggested that there was much unnecessary “washing of dirty linen” in public. Mr Brookes claimed that, even if the legal position were as stated, the foreman should not use it as a lever to get people to accede to the work being done. There was so much “twaddle” talked at the council table, even from the head, that it should be ignored and business gone on with.

The Mayor replied that a statement had been publicly made about the foreman which was not fair to him, and this brought the rejoinder from Mr Brookes that the foreman should be present to answer questions. After the Mayor had said that the foreman’s attendance at any meeting could be arranged, Mr J. Sterritt explained that the council had given the foreman leave of absence when the water supply scheme was being completed because of the long hours he was putting in.