A Serious Administrative Error.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume xxix, Issue 8316, 13 March 1911, Page 4

A Serious Administrative Error.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Your leading articles are usually of so fair and impartial a nature, that it was surprising to find in your issue of 7th instant one, under the above heading,/to which neither ol these terms could be applied, and your condemnation of the Council's action in connection with the pipe-laying contract shows that the article., in question could only have been, written* without a full knowledge of, the facts of the matter under discussion. General statements are not arguments, and when you say that by the Council's action "a grave administrative error had been committed, _ and that "it may have involved injustice to tenderers and the ratepayers, i would ask you to state plainly and specifically how, on the facts I will now give, such charges can be substantiated. When the Council at its meeting on 21st February, 1910, opened the tenders in connection with the water scheme, it was found that only three parties had tendered for the pipe-lay-ing contract, viz.: (A) Donnelly and Bowlam, Christchurch, £3621; (B) Russell and Co., Ashburton (*196o); i (C) A. Hadocke, ltangiora, £178-i. 'The tender of (A), in addition to beinrf over double- that of (C), was informal, not being accompanied by the required cheque or Bank draft as a deposit, and the remaining two were, together with the various tenders for the other works, handed over to the Water Supply Committee for careful investigation and consideration. The Committee met on 23rd February, 1910, and the minutes show that the tender of' Hadecke was recommended to the Council for acceptance. The following morning, however, a telegram, which is on the Council's correspondence file,'was received from Hadecke withdrawing his tender, thus leaving Russell's the only one to be dealt with. Our Engineer was consulted, and he advised that, with a reduction of (say) £50, the price was a fair and reasonable one. The question of calling for fresh tenders was fully considered by the Committee, but was rejected for the following reasons: It was scarcely probable that A's tender of £3621 would at a second asking be reduced by onehalf, whilst the reasons causing Hadecke's withdrawal would have operated against his again giving a price, and it appeared to us that Russell and Co., with a knowledge of the lack of competition and existing conditions, would hardly reduce their price, and might even possibly increase it. .In addition to this,- to call for fresh tenders would have caused additional advertising charges, a not inconsiderable item, as I. think you will agree. I was accordingly deputed to obtain, if possible, a reduction of £50 in Russell and Co.'s tender, and after some negotiation, this was agreed to, and at the Council meeting on 28th February, the tender was accepted. The Committee's action, businesslike

and above-board, and endorsed by the Council, thus directly saved the ratepayers the sum of £50, perhaps more, plus advertising charges, and it will be interesting to see how in the face of above facts you can substantiate your vague condemnation.

You say that my action in this matter saddles me with a grave responsibility. That is true, and I am quite prepared to shoulder this^. as I have many other grave responsibilities since I have been a member of the Ashburton Borough Council.

C. W. NICOLL,

[We still adhere to> our argument that, in view of all the circumstances, tho Council- should have called for fresh tenders. Had this been done, even Russell and Co. might have considerably reduced their terms, for, of course, they could have had no knowledge of the circumstances that led to the Council's second invitation. It is true that, as responsible public men, the Councillors were entitled, to act on their judgment in the niatter, just as we are entitled, in-tho light of experience and of the general practice elsewhere, to criticise that judgment. We did not write of Mr Nicoll, or of any other councillor, as being individually responsible in this matter, but as being responsible in conjunction with the rest of the-Councillors. It is, with us, a question of administrative policy, on the part of a public body, not of persons as individual members of that body.—Ed. Guardian.]