MOUNT ALBERT TROUBLE

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 234, 4 October 1927, Page 5

MOUNT ALBERT TROUBLE

CHARGES BY COUNCIL.

DISMISSAL OF ENGINEER.

MR. COOK IN REPLY.

In connection with the statement recently published by the Mount Albert Borough Council, giving reasons for the dismissal of the borough engineer (Mr. W. H. Cook), the latter makes the following reply:—

i "I cannot credit the excuse now : offered that it was out of consideration ! for myself which prompted the council's silence. The first charge is in regard to the New North Road. It is stated that my estimate was £30,378, and that the contract price was £23,810. It is alleged that the estimate was too high by £6500. The contract price was not for the whole of the work. Certain items had to be added, including supervision, overhead charges, etc. These items had to be included in the estimate, and represented a sum of £1502 which, when added, gave a cost of £25,400.' Thus the difference was £4978, not £6500 less than the estimate. That the estimate was a reasonable one could be seen by examining the figures for the contract, which were as follow: £23,812, £22,392, £25,548, £25,935, £26,144, £27,989 and £37,786. The average is £27,300, and adding the previously mentioned charges of £1592, brings the total to £28,900, which agrees closely with the estimated cost of £30,378. Tenders had special reasons for quoting low prices, and a factor which accounted for low costs was a substantial reduction in the price of cement, representing over £1000 on the job. I had absolutely no right in preparing my estimate to figure on any drop in price, and I should have been culpable had I done so. In any case Mount Albert is the only authority which has had experience of a fall in the course of concrete road construction. The Great South Road at Papakura is a wellknown example, and was constructed much below the cost indicated by the Highways Board. The council made no complaint to my estimate, and expressed satisfaction at the keenly cut prices, as the saving would allow them to lay down Mount Albert Road in concrete instead of hot mix bitumen. Yet this is given as one of the chief reasons for my dismissal. Criticism of Estimates. Proceeding, Mr. Cook says: "The coun--1 cil charges me with general overestimating of costs, and not getting value for money spent. This assertion will not be supported by any competent expert. Generally speaking, my estimates have been remarkably close. The Mount Albert Road contract, which I estimated after the fall in the price of cement to cost £23,544, was let at £23,274, a difference of only £270. The second charge is that my estimate for a sewer contract £3177, the contract price £2214, a difference of £963. Here, again, the position is misrepresented. The job referred to is in Mount Albert Road, and in making any comparison of costs all charges must be taken into account. Five tenders were received, the amounts being £2214, £2600, £2718, £3461 and £4350, and my estimate was mid-way. To merely take the lpwest tender and compare with an estimate is quite incorrect, as tenderers have reasons for price-cutting, and this does not reflect a fair price for the work. "The council next quotes as proof of extravagance a proposal which was made for remedying what is termed a 'small drain leakage.' This was discovered in an old sewer in King Street after a subsidence of the embankment took place. The sewer is laid under a deep filling, and upon opening it up it was found that, generally speaking, the joints of the pipes had been made with clay, thus allowing sewage to escape. As the whole length is probably in a similarly defective state, and to avoid future costly tunnel work to gain access to it, I suggested relaying it, so that service connections could easily be made. This would have provided sound sewers in the sides of the street in place of a defective one in the centre. The council, however, preferred' to patch up a short length only of the old sewer; thus it claims to have saved the difference between my estimate of £436 for the new sewers, as against, £100, cost of patching a portion of the old sewer. "Regarding the meetings of the combined committee and the statement that 'at most of the meetings dissatisfaction with the administration was discussed,' I emphatically deny this. Not at any one of the five meetings was I criticised. On the contrary, at the first meeting of June 14 the council recognised I wasoverburdened with routine work, and unanimously carried a resolution to appoint an assistant engineer, who would relieve me of this work. It is only recently the Mayor voluntarily expressed his satisfaction to the foreman and myself regarding the amount of work done, and the manner in which it was carried through." "* Continuing Mr. Cook states:— "The council endeavours to compare the cost of work in Allendale Road as against work done in Cromwell Street, Mount Eden Borough. It is stated the cost has been £58 per chain to construct an Bft path and lift grass margin, while Cromwell Street, consisting of 36ft road and two paths cost £119 per chain. Their comparison is very ' misleading as no details are given of what work is entailed in the construction. The class of country dealt with with rough and rocky, whereas Crom- i well Street had been previously formed ! and required very light alterations. To! make a ;comparison is therefore an absurdity, as anyone with a personal i

knowledge of the localities would admit. "Turning to the statement that Reimers Avenue 'will cost £206 per chain, which the council considers excessive,' my estimate for a sound engineering job was £163 per chain. After the work was well under way, however, the council instructed me to lower the level of the road by two feet, involving the removal of over 900 cubic yards of rock. In spite of this the cost will not exceed £180 per chain, or £26 per chain less than stated by the council. "My reason for considering my resignation earlier was hot that I felt I had lost the confidence of the council, but as a protest to bring prominently before it the continued interference with my work.

"The council further states that to show why it became dissatisfied, it was unable to get a certain return from me under 16 weeks. This is untrue. The council was furnished with a return seven weeks from date of instruction. 'The council states that the special committee which was set up to take over control of the outside staff, was appointed as the outcome of my action in dismissing local men with large families. The facts are that, when authorised by the council to reduce staff, I instructed my gangers through the foreman to shorten hands. I took no personal interest in which men were discharged, but I desire to say that each man reinstated by the committee had on previous occasions been warned by their respective gangers of unsatisfactory service.

Regarding the denial of the council that my statement concerning the Mayor asking me to discharge men who were disloyal at the election, I can only say that I made the statement upon oath, and, as further confirmation, now add that another officer of the council was asked to do the same thing by the town clerk in my presence, a few days after the meeting between the Mayor and myself. The Deputy-Mayor did not take a prominent part, and he was not present during the whole of the meeting."

In conclusion, Mr. Cook says: "I leave it to the ratepayers and public to judge whether the council has justified its action."