CITY OFFICIALS' SALARIES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 29, 3 February 1905, Page 3

CITY OFFICIALS' SALARIES.

REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL. The City Council had its customary annual talk last night upon the question of the status ot olli-cials, the salaries paid, and the engineer's department generally. The report of the Finance -onimittee referred to an application irom men in the engineer's department lo be placed on the permanent staff, and recommended that the Streets Committee consider the whole question of ihe engineer's office with a view to .uaking appointments to the permanent staff.

Mr L. J. Bagnall said that very large duties h&d been placed on the shoulders of the engineer, and he considered .he salary was inadequate to the position. If the engineer was fit to occupy vis position he should have 'a. better ;alary. The position should carry with it a suitable salary, no matter who was engineer. He objected to sweating the engineer of the City of Auckland.

The Mayor qirite agreed with Mr Bagnail. It was manifestly wrong for the sngineer to be the only permanent man in his department. There were others .here who had been continuously employed for several years, but were still not appointed to the permanent stall. These men could not be made permanent officials excepting after public applications had been invited for the position.

ilr A. J. Entrican said it was de-.-jidedly the opinion of the Committee that the engineer's department required reorganising. So much work was now thrust upon the engineer that a permanent stall' was urgently required.

The matter was then referred to the streets Committee.

The nest clause in the report dealt with the question of salaries. Some 22 ifficials were named in the report, and Lhe Committee recommended tha-t the following increases be made: Mr Lindesay, at the rate of £10 per annum; Mr J. S. Brigham, at the ra-te of £25 per :nnu;n; Mr J. Carlaw, at the rate of £15 per annum; Mr «T. PI. Maxwell, at he rate of £10 per annum; Mr H. Ivrickson, at the rate of £10 per aniium; Mrs Lovell. at the rate of £6 per i nnum; and that the salarie3 of the '.•(■maining officers continue at present rate. i ■ Mr J. Court referred to the case of T. Higgins, who bad applied for an increase, but was not recommended. He said that man got 9/4 per day, and had charge of all the water sold to the shipping at the wharves. If he worked on Sunday he was paid by the shipping company. He objected to that system, and thought the man should receive a larger remuneration,. He moved that .be matter be referred back to the Committee. The Mayor said that man's case was considered, but the Committee thought it inadvisable to give an increase, as there was talk of the Harbour Board and Council acting in conjunction in the of supplying water to the shipping.

Mr C. J. Parr said the man certainly was not overpaid, but he thought the Council should pause before increasing -alaries at the present juncture. They had just increased the rates 3d in the £, and the ratepayers' interests should also be considered. He thought that as a rule the Council officials were fairly well paid, with the exception of the engineer's department. That department had outgrown itself. Unless it could be shown that an offiial had been hardly dealt with, the 'ouncil should not at present do much ; n the way of increasing salaries. There vere plenty of men who would be very •lad to take Mr Higgins' position at is present rate of pay.

Mr A. J. Entrican objected, to disussing the status and salaries of ofii■ials in public. If the Council was not -atisfied with the recommendation made by the Committee it would be far betted to refer the clause back again.

Mr Court said there was another case required consideration, namely, that of the Sanitary Inspector, who was only getting £3 per week. Mr Entrican: £175 a year. Mr Court said that was not enough for a man like Mr Haines, who was a practical plumber. He should be getting£2oo a year. The question of salaries was then referred back to fche Committee.