Heathcote ‘slur’ denied

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 4

Heathcote ‘slur’ denied

Tempers flared at a meeting of the Heathcote County Council last evening when a councillor moved that the council advise its officers that it intended to “keep, work, and act” within .the conditions of the Labour Department’s Project Employment programme. ?Cr J; Richardson said that he. had so moved because he would not like to see the scheme,‘and the benefits derived by the council from it, jeopardised in any way. He also said that he did not; want the permanent jobs of any council employee jeopardised by the P.E.P. programme.

After a heated debate, the motion was lost. ? Cr Richardson said that the council had employed

P.E.P. workers at the weekend. Cr T. P. Wills said Cr Richardson was casting a slur against the integrity of the staff. Some time ago council staff had been under close scrutiny in a Labour Department inquiry into the council’s use of temporary employment workers. The council had been cleared — the department had- had no misgivings about Heathcote’s using such scheme properly.

Cr Wills said that P.E.P. workers had been employed: at the week-end but overtime had been paid by the* council, not the Labour Department.

To his knowledge no permanent employee had had his job jeopardised in the last 3| years because of the Labour Department’s schemes. ~ i

Cr M. C. C. Buchanan, who seconded Cr Richardson’s motion, said she had no doubt that council officers did their duty properly. Cr. O. T. Alpers said that he could see no point in the motion. He did . not accept that there had been any improper use of the scheme.

Cr Richardson said that his motion was not a slur against council officers, but it was obvious that some councillors were not convinced of this.

The council has appointed Mr G. A. Kelly, a former Paparua County Clerk, to prepare a report on local government reorganisation as it relates to Heathcote County.

The report will | give the council some ideas of paths

it might follow in the future. As well as considering representation and rationalisation for the county, Mr Kelly will also be asked to look at the possibility •of Heathcote’s amalgamating with adjacent local bodies.

Mr Hindmarsh said that there was some concern about the number of local authorities in New Zealand. Mr Hindmarsh will also soon discuss the servicing of I Mount Herbert County with iMount Herbert’s County Chairman, Mrs Katrina Gar-i diner. Administrative and techni-j cal servicing of Mount Her-j bert County is done by] Heathcote County staff. There has been some discussion in the past as to whether this function could be taken over by the Lyttelton Borough Council