A DIRECT DENIAL.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20088, 18 November 1930, Page 13

A DIRECT DENIAL.

_—* CRITICISM OP TRAMWAY BOARD. POLICY REGARDING TENDERS. Exception was taken by members at ihe Christ-church Tramway Hoard y/p----terday to an item appearing in an evening newspaper on Saturday, under the heading of: '-'Christchurch Tramway Board Members Are Allowed To Trade With It." "I feel compelled, in justice to the Board and the individuals of the Board, to make some reply," said th® chairman (Mr W. Haywardl. "Various statements are made, which are mor« or less correct, but the one to which 1 take particular exception reads: It was not suggested that the Christchurcli Tramway Beard did not get the best value in such cases, but the lowest tender was not always accepted, the questions of quality and suitability having to be considered. Other tenderers were frequently dissatisfied to learn that a. contract had goue to a member of the Board. ''To my mind," continued Mr Uayw:ird, "the only obvious deduction that the man in the street will take from this paragraph is that the Board frequently does not accept the lowest tenrlei for supplies or work to be done, but accepts a tender from a sitting member of the Board at a higher rate. To my mind, this is the obvious meaning of this paragraph, and I wish to give ifc an unqualified denial. The l!oard always accepts the lowest tender, and during my three years as a member 1 cannot remember a single instance to the contrary, and next, and of far greater importance, members of the Board do not tender for supplies or work to be done. In going back for many years with the General Manager, I am unable to find a single occasion where a contract has been leti to a member of the Board. I make this pronouncement with all due responsibility, and • I must express my regret that Mr McCombs ever saw fit to make such a misleading statement, providing, of course, he is correctly reported. ''Honourable Men." "While the Board consists of honourable men, there is no need for th® legislation which he claims to be necessary." "I read the paragraph with a good deal of surprise, and also with soma pain." said Mr E. H. Andrews. "1 felt it was a distinct libel on members of the Board. Whether it was intentional or not I do not know, but if the man who supplied it is fairminded, he will withdraw the statement when the facts are disclosed. The Act in regard to such matters is even, more drastic for members of the Tramway Board than it is for representatives on other local bodies. Under the Municipal Corporations Act trading which makes a total of more than £SO a year is prohibited between members and the local body to which they belong; the restrictions under the Tramways Act are very similar, except that tho limit for us is £lO. A member may invest money -with the Board, but the Act is quite definite in the amount of work allowed and : n the value of goods members are permitted to supply. The writer must have overlooked the clause in tho Act which. 1 have quoted, and I feel sure the fair thing will be done by the Board. Ther® may be a case where the Board haa not accepted the lowest tender. Sometimes it pays not to. But I don't know of even an instance of that on thi» Board."