DISHONEST PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15337, 22 July 1915, Page 8

DISHONEST PUBLIC SERVANTS.

4 NECESSITY FOR SUPERVISION. LAiOK OF RESPONSIBILITY. (special to "the press.") WELLINGTON, July 31. In referring to the defalcations that come to light in Christchurch in October last in connexion with the collection of land revenue, the third report of tho Public Service Commissioner, ■which incidentally refers to these particular defalcations as "the most serious heretofore. by any member of the Public Service/ makes the following remarks: — "It is necessary to suggest a remedy. It is useless to attempt to patch the present system, which has the inherent dfcfect of entrusting the collection of a revenue of £I,GtJO,OOO per annum to local officers, without supervision and check of the head office. The head' office control prior to 1909, although somewhat elaborate, was effective, and it is imperative that a reasonable modification of the system should be resumed. It is now proposed that the keeping of ledgers should be resumed in the heud office. The Commissioners are of opinion that by this course the opportunities for fraud will be reduced to a minimum, whilst senior officers in the local offices instead of taking a more or lees perfunctory interest in the collection of land revenue will be compelled to keep in closer touch with it than appears to be the case at present. "From other cases which have come under notice, it is evident that many officers do not recognise the responsibility attached to the care of publics moneys. The-Commissioners have obKerved an absence of supervision on 'the part of those whose duty it is to exercise it, and that acounts clerks are allowed both to deal with cash and keep the account book, thus paving tiio Way for peculation and fraud. During the year, in one department it was found that some hundreds of pounds worth of negotiable documents had been received in payment for services carried out, and no entries had been made in the books. Moreover, these documents were not in the care of anyone, and no one could guarantee that theft had not resulted. In another case, in which trust moneys were involved, an officer had carte blanche to issue cheques without any countersignatuie. Again, in another department, it was found that moneys had been received and no officer was able to give any satisfactory account of them or of what had become of a portion of the cash itself. These are some of the cases that have happened, but there are several others, all equally pointing to the conclusion that the supervising element is weak, and that the responsibility on the part of those whose duty places them in positions of trust is not properly ' appreciated. "In this matter it seems to the Commixsioijers that a great change in methods is required. _ As soon as possible complete instructions in pamphlet form, indicating tho responsibility of officers handling moneys, should be issued by the Treasury. It is also considered that surprise audits ehouli V,e carried out."