FOREMAN’S REPORT MISSING

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 14857, 20 December 1948, Page 2

FOREMAN’S REPORT MISSING

MOUNT MAUNGANUI BOROUGH COUNCIL

Criticism Voiced By

Councillor

Unable To Debate Important Items

The opinion that the absence of the foreman’s report prevented the councillors from debating items of importance was expressed by Cr C, H. Clarke at a recent meeting of the Mount Maunganui Borough Council when no report from the foreman was tabled.

Cr A. McFarlane, chairman of the Works Committee, stated that the meeting of the Works Committee which \*as usually held on tIG Thursday prior to the council meeting, was postponed on account of the absence of the Town Clerk and one member of the committee. It had been held on this occasion the day before the council meeting giving the foreman no time to furnish his report.

Cr Clarke said that the report should have been in as the rest of the council was in the dark as to the work carried out during the month.

The Mayor (Mr S. F, Newton) expressed the view that if Thursday evening was unsuitable for the Works Committee to meet then a more suitable time could be arranged. The report, he added, could and should have been available to th" council.

The chairman of the committee replied that it was the first occasion that the meeting had not been held on the Thursday. He pointed out that the committee held more meetings than any other committee and took exception under the circumstances, to the rest of the council “putting him and the Works Committee on the mat.” Mr Newton asked that in future the forman be instructed to have his monthly report handed in by the Thursday before the council met each month.

Cr Clarke reminded the members that at the previous meeting the council had agreed to the employment of an extra outside labourer so that one of the employees could be engaged on working the mower and generally cleaning up the streets which were in need of attention. He stated that this employee had been on other work during the interim period and, this was against the purpose of taking on the extra hand.

He also asked why the old truck was apoarently being utilised to do the bulk of the work. “Whv did wo purchase the new one if it is not to be used,” he asked, adding that he doubted the wisdom of using the old truck so much in its present condition.

Cr McFarlane, speaking after the Mayor had commented that he was disappointed to hear that the decision made was not being adhered to, said that he was absent from the previous meeting but had considered the job, rn which the staff had recently been employed, one requiring prompt attention. He was quite prepared to see that .certain iotas were given first consideration if the council declared*they should have priority. Regarding the use of the old truck instead of the new one, Cr McForlane claimed that this was the councillors’ own fault for they had j instructions that the new vehicle was to be driven by the foreman or one other employee only. “You will need to relax this order if the truck is to bo utilised to the full ” ho continued, “for a man cannot be employed on several jobs at once. At any rate if an emnloyoo is considered capable o? handling one vehicle he should bo able to drive the other.”

At this stage Cr Clarke stated that his remarks were not intended as criticism of the Works Committee, but were, designed so that the council’s staff and equipment could he used with the maximum efficiency.