HARBOUR BOARD POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 306, 23 December 1912, Page 4

HARBOUR BOARD POLICY.

The letter signed by Mr F. Powell and Mr R. McKay, which appeared in our Saturday's issue, in reference to the resignation of these officials from the Harbour Board's employ, cleais up most decisively whatever doubt may have existed as to the circumstances of the r

retirement. Our readers may remembei that when the letter signed by these gentlemen criticising the harbour works was laid before the Harbour Board, one of the members of the Board suggested that the officials would not have made these charges if they had not been refused the increase in salary for which they had applied. The letter from Mr Powell and Mr McKay which appeared in Saturday's " Star" shows that this insinuation is entirely groundless. For Mr Powell has never asked for a rise in salary; and though Mr McKay did apply for an increase, he wrote his resignation to the Board five days before his application was to be considered. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that the complaint submitted by Messrs Powell and McKay to the Board could not have been prompted by disappointment or indignation at the refusal of a request for more pay. Such a suggestion we have already characterised as improper; and it is now shown to be absolutely baseless. Another point in this letter is well worth noting—the fact that Mr Powell was absent in London while the collapsed portion of the north wall at the Freeman's Bay reclamation was being built, and when it fell the attempt made by a member of the Board to cast responsibility for this failure upon Mr Powell is thus entirely defeated- However, we have no intention of entering into the whole question ;of the ■ harbour works just now. Our object in drawing attention to this letter is, firstly, to point out that the complaints made by Mr Powell and Mr. McKay cannot be attributed to the unworthy motives suggested at the last Board meeting; and, secondly, to repeat, with all possible emphasis, that this in itself, renders it highly advisable that the Boaad should hold a public inquiry into the whole question.We hope the Board will recognise at once that it cannot afford to shake public confidence in itself by substituting a formal and secret discussion for that full and public investigation into the facts of the case which the people of Auckland have a right to demand of the public bodies that adminlister their affairs