CIVIC MANAGEMENT

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 55, 29 November 1923, Page 5

CIVIC MANAGEMENT

Sir, —Just now there seems to be _a strong suspicion abroad that our civio (management is in rather a bad. way, and probably the suspicion is not without some justification. The City Council has set up an Investigation Committee, whose report we now have. It is now quite a debatcable point as to whether the report is a masterpiece, except probably in the direction of suggesting the adding of another £lO,OOO or £20.000 to the burden of the already over-burden-ed ratepayer and possibly the creation of a few more fat billets of several hundred a year. If there are leakages, and there may bo (there generally are in all municipal managed affairs), could they not be somewhat modified by palling the attention of ,the present officers (of whom there seem to be plenty) to the weak points and remedied? I notice in the committee’s confidential report a long list of comparative prices, which probably may be if analysed found a bit one-sided, or to say the least, not too practical. Take, for instance, the first item. “Timber.” A leakage of £145 a year is supposed to be unearthed. but is there not another side to this very item, a weighty one, too? Is it practical for the City Council always to buy direct —I presume they mean from the sawmills up country or from the Coast? If so. the committee’s comparison may be absurd. The City Council, and for that matter a builefer. may often require a small special line of timber for which if he paid 50 per cent, more to the city yards might be a matter of good business and be preferable to sending up country for bis requirements. First, the builder or City Council must take a truck load of 2000 feet or more, and often probably wait for weeks before he gets it delivered, and for a builder to wait even days may so disorganise his work, and labour, that to pay. 50 per cent, more from a city yard might be good business. Then often special sizes are required 1 , or particular seasoned stuff. If the City Council kept their own timber yard, got their timber in bulk or logs, they would require a sawmilling plant and the interest on capital, the carting, recarting, stripping, stacking, and handling would soon mop up the £145 supnosed joying in one year. In fact, after a year’s trial it might be found that their timber supplies had tost them two or three times £145 more than the presumed saving. It looks like “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.” It’s absurd on the face of it. Then I should like to ask this question: How many of the investigating committee, who are out to set the pace in the economic management of our affairs, were on the council when the sum of £6 15s. per foot was given to a party of men (contractors), and this without inviting tenders, for the driving of the Orongorongo tunnel, the council finding plant, explosives, and everything except the actual labour of driving? I venture to sav £3 per foot would have been a handsome price for the work. The tunnel. I understand, is 11,560 feet long. I have no fault to find with the men who' got the £6 15s. per foot. I think they are decidedly clever men or have seine clever ones amongst them (real capitalists now). But what of our capable Investigation Committee, who were parties to this transaction ? Can we accept them as guides? To draw one comparison, let me give one instance in which I can vouch for the accuracy of the figures. A tunnel 600 ft. long, 6ft. 6in. x oft. 6in., was (pre-war) let to a capable miner. The material through which the tunnel was driven was quartzite rock. He paid his men 9s. pw day for eight hours’ work, allowed for himself 10s. per day, plant found him as in the case of the Orongorongo tunnel. He finished his contract in six months, and had £145 still left himself over and above his 10s. per day. In this case he found his own explosives. At Orongorongo the city found explosives as well as plant. This man’s contract price for his 600 ft. was £1 per foot. I am quite alive to the fact that in my tunnel comparison the length of tunnel is a factor for consideration, but where the plant and explosives are found, as in the case of the Orongorongo tunnel, the extra cost resolves itself principally into the extra cost of haulage of th<? excavated material. I am merely quoting this tunnel comparison to draw attention to the need of some system whereby our (the ratepayers’) interests may be somewhat safeguarded. It is always more easy to destroy than to construct, and the object of this letter is to suggest a rIB I Constructive policy and to put our city on a sound footing. I would suggest that arrangements be made with three competent civil engineers to act for the city as a body of consulting engineers, men independent of all political pull, whose services could be paid for in each particular case submitted, to them for their report: three such gentlemen ,as Mr. W. Ferguson. Mr. R. AV. Holmes, and Mr. J. Fulton, with possibly a member of the City Council versed in accountancy (at least a levelheaded man). As it requires a doctor to judge a doctor, so it requires a civil engineer to judge a good civil engineer. Then call for applications for a tip-top civil engineer as city engineer and the first job to submit to the board would bo to assist the coun-

' cil in the selection of a really competent gentleman to fill the position. Then lot the city engineer prepare all plans and reports and submit tlimn to the council, and should there bo a lot of wire pulling as to which route, grade, or size of a tunnel crop up. then appeal to our board of engineers, and on their recommendation let the council act. As it is now, schemes bristling with all sorts of engineering technicalities are referred to a committee of men who may be tinkers or tailors or candlestick makers, and about as competent to deal with such matters as they would be to settle the Ruhr vexed question. It might prove of great economic value to the ratepayers if all works of considerable magnitude were submitted to such a board as suggested, in which case I venture to say the ratepayers would be possessed with a confidence they do not at present enjoy.— I am, etc., F. G. MACE. 75 Brougham Street.