CORPORATION STORES

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 54, 28 November 1923, Page 7

CORPORATION STORES

STATEMENT BY MAYOR. A COMMITTEE’S FIGURES EXAMINED “I think it (necessary,” said the Mayor (Mr. R. A. Wright) yesterday, “te offer some explanation of the attitude adopted by the seven i embers of the City Council who voted for my amendment to adopt the report of the Departmental Investigation Committee at the last meeting of the council. Every member of the council who voted for the amendment to defer the whole business of stores until ths end of tho financial year was just as anxious to save waste and effect economy as the others, but the difference was that they were concerned as to whether the economies proposed would turn out as well in practice as they looked on paper, and, alter all, their only object was to defer until next year, which would in the. meantime allow of further consideration. At the same time, it was recognised that funds to build, the new store, and afterwards to stock it, could not be made available until the estimates for next year were being considered. In this connection it may be noted that the Harbour Beard, with an annual turnover of £45,000 for material, etc., only bandies in its store between ±20,000 and £25,000 worth of stock, and to look after that there are four adults (including the buyer) and a junior“'Hie question which arose. and was freely discussed in the committee, was whether the volume of business to be transacted in connection with the new store warranted all this expenditure, and whether even the saving to be effected would cover the incidental cost. "Let us look at two of tire tables furnished by the Investigation Committee. In one tfe says, Stores in existence at present time, £40,651,’ and immediately following this is one setting out stores and material required for the year ended March, 1923, £140,901. At first sight it would seem that the council only purchased £40,000 worth, when it was actually concerned in the purchase cf stores and materials to the value of £140,901, but the difference of £lOO,OOO represented stores and material bought bv contract cr indent, which would not concern a stores department any more than it does to-day, as regards the bringing about of any variation in price. Ido not suggest that the committee set out to mislead the public, but it has done so in several instances. What are the facts? The Tramways Department’s expenditure for last year was £53,395, hut of that amount only some £lB,OOO worth could be handled through its store. The rest of the goods were obtained through public tender or indent. In like manner, of the purchases under the heading of ‘general and loan requirements, £68,545.’ only £31,000 worth was procured tlirougn the store, and the balance (drain pipes, cement, etc.) were all contract supplied goods, which, would not and could net be stored. “It will thus be seen that a very large proportion of the stores and material we teo.uire is purchased beyond New Zealand, and would u.jt go through the store, and it will be obvious on the figures presented that of the £145,000 of goods only a percentage would pass through tbe store, if we had one fully equipped. "However, tho council decided by a majority to bring this store about, and the resolution must and will be carried out. It should begin in a small way, sc as to avoid any chance of overbuying and overstocking. Lnless that 'is donb we might in a tew Years have a huge store cci. taming mails’ thousands of pounds worth ot stock. Some of it more or less dead stock. 1 would like to add 'hat the Tramways Department has two i cry excellent stores, which hare been glowingly commented upon by the internal Auditor. "With respect to the comparatne prices of goods set out in the schedule to the report; an explanation is necessary to let the puolic Know that things are not so bad as they have been painted. On inquiry it has been found in connection with seme of the items thatthe different prices represented a different qua lit. o- article or material, whereas it via. left open for the public to assume that the compilers of tllte schedule only used articles or materials of equal equality. Take cotton waste, lor example- One price . was oos. and another 905., a variation cf <0 per cent., but it seems that tbe foimer price was for a coarse, common qua>ilv of waste, whilst the higher figure was the cost of a fine quality of y- lute waste for use in connection with ceitain machine parts. In icgaid ome item of paper, tbe two P r 'c c « represent qualities, not Ibe * as was-implied through ilie absenre of anv definite statement <>i tact. The. same applies to other items tho schedule. Whether or not a high o- low quality article is required is a matter for the judgment of the officers concerned.