CITY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21384, 29 January 1935, Page 11

CITY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT

APPOINTMENT OF HEAD CLERK DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF COUNCIL

After a discussion in committee and after a spirited argument in tpen council, the Christchurch City Council, at its meeting last night, decided to appoint Mr Sydney H. Helmling, of Christchurch, to the head clerkship of the city engineer's department. The merits of another applicant, Mr Ivan O. Barr, of Christchurch, were discussed by several councillors. The subject was first discussed on the receipt of a report by the works committee of the council, which was eventually considered in committee. Cr. A. E. Armstrong objected to this course, saying that recent allegations about appointments to the council's service should be met by open discussion of further appointments. The Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.) held that the council could not possibly discuss the merits and demerits of individuals in open council. That would be an impossible position. The matter should certainly be taken in committee, and any councillor who wished to make a public protest about the decision could speak when the meeting was resumed.

In Open Council When the council came out of ccmmiltee the Mayor announced that Mr Helmling had been appointed to the position. Cr. J. K. Archer immediately moved that Mr Barr should be appointed and that the council should disagree with the action of the committee. Cr. J. W. Bcanland seconded the motion. He said that the council had definitely thrown over the best man. The qualifications of the unsuccessful candidate were such that if the matter had been considered in a straightforward manner there could have bem only one decision. There had been one el her candidate preferable even to Mr Barr, but he had been dropped as he was not a resident of Christchurch. Cr. Bcanland considered that the appointment was not in the best interests of the city, and that it would be regretted later. Cr. J. Mathison said he was sorry such a matter had been discussed in open-council. Mr Helmling had not been tried, fcnd yet he was already condemned. "I am surprised and positively disgusted at the attitude of the two senior councillors."' said Cr. Mathison. "Within Uis Rights" Cr. Archer submitted that according to the standing orders he was perfectly within his rights in moving the resolution he had moved. Cr. M. E. Lyons said he was not surprised at the action of Cr. Archer, but he was surprised at Cr. Bcanland. Cr. Bcanland's seconding of the motion and speech in favour of it were not in accord with the suggestion of the committee that any of the five men selected by the committee were worthy of the position. Cr. E. H. Andrews moved as an amendment that the applications be held over until was a full meeting of the council. Cr W. Havward, M.L.C., seconded the amendment, which was lost. Mr Ar:her's motion was put to the meeting and lost by seven votes to six. Crs. Archer, T. Milliken, T. Andrews, Hayward, Beanland, and E. H. Andrews voted for the motion, and Crs. T. H. Butterfield, Mabel Howard, A. E. Armstrong, H T. J. Thacker, ATathiscn and the Mayor voted against it. Mr He'mling has been 22 years in the service of the Christchurch City Council. He has had experience in the electricity, town clerk's, rate and treasury departments.