THE NORTHLAND TUNNEL

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 210, 1 June 1926, Page 8

THE NORTHLAND TUNNEL

MAYOR DEFENDS COUNCILS ATTITUDE DISAGREES WITH “DOWNION’S” CRITICISM The Mayor, Mr. C. J. B. Norwood, last evening made the following statement in reference to the leading article published in yesterday’s issue of The Dominion. The article was headed “The City Council Neglects its Dutv”:- . , . “The leading article in The Dominion to-day,” said Mr. Norwood, “does no level up with the care and even balance usually evident in its leading articles. “May I say that the resolution passed by the council after prolonged and careful consideration of the commissioners’ report upon the Northland tunnel conforms to and is in exact barmoney with the spirit and letter of the commissioners’ report, which reads as follows: — “ ‘Our criticism of the work has been severe and certainly has not erred in the direction of minimising any errors. In any comments we have made on the qualifications of the officers concerned we must emphasise the fact that tliesfe comments have reference solely to the tunnel construction.’ “‘Mr. Patrson very reasonably claims ■ that in judging the whole of this unfortunate matter allowance should be made for all the surrounding circumstances. He, himself, most generously desired to accept the whole responsibility and blame for any errors. This would have been unjust to him. “ ‘Mr. Paterson and Mr. Gustofson have a long record of conscientious, unsparing and capable service with the corporation, and Mr. Aked, though with a comparatively short service, has proved himself capable in -the igeneral work entrusted to him. We are glad to have had this opportunity given to us to express ours view's in respect to these officers.’

“It would appear from your leading article that your paper anticipated something in the nature of a stampede when the findings of the commission were made known, but I believe the council has more wisely decided to maintain an even balance. It would have been possible to pass a resolution that would have been far more spectacular, but it must be obvious to all who read carefully the discussion before council, that councillors did not exonerate themselves wholly from blame. “Does The Dominion seriously contend that it would he a proper thing to embark upon . immediate reorganisation either by lavrnen or experts, in view of the fact' of 'the immediate appointment of the two chief executive officers? If we are successful in appointing a city engineer worthy of the position, surely it is proper that he should have some sav, in fact nearlv all the say, in the reorganisation of his own department. I cannot conceive that the thinking public will take anv other view. “Apart from this, the commission itself has been taken into the council’s confidence. And I ntn aide to sav that the council’s resolution, and what T have said relative to the appointment of the new citv engineer, meets with their approval, nn<l is regarded by them as a sound method of procedure.” The Mavor Ims dealt "erv temperately with our criticism of the colourless motion passed bv the Citv Council ns the result of the findings of th" Northland Tunnel Commission. Tie, however, misses the real point of our criticism. Our contention was that in Jhc face of the findiners of the commission, exposing as thev did the lack of organisation and loose methods of the engineering department of the City Council, it wns the plain dutv of the council to indicate its intention to have the department completely overhauled and reorganised. The council gave no such intimation. To quote from our article, we said:

What was expected of the council with the Northland report be- . for: it was that it would take tho course obviously dictated by common sense and an elementary regard for the interests of the city. Doing this, the council would have admitted frankly that the city engineering department tequired to be completely overhauled and reorganised, and would have intimated that it was determined to put the matter in hand at once. Councillors as a matter of course should have insisted upon such an overhaul and reorganisation which would have fitted in very well with the coming appointment of a new city engineer. The advice and assistance of this official natnrallj will be of great value in building up a better organisation if the way is opened to progress in that direction. The council, however, has given not the slightest' indication that it intends to take purposeful action of any kind. So far as blame is attachable to the council, it is more to blame to-dav for failing to take decisive steps to remedy the faults disclosed than it was to blame for failing to check the work of its

experts engaged on the Northland tunnel work while that undertaking was in progress. As matters stand the city is given no assurance whatever that the council intends to overhaul and reorganise the city engineering department, much less that it proposes to deal with this reorganisation as a matter of imperative urgency. The council’s idea of duty seems to be to sleep at its post and drift with the tide.

The Mayor now says that the council had in mind to do something apparently on the lines we suggested. We are gratified to learn from Mr. Norwood that this is the case. The fact remains, however, that the motion passed by the City Council gave no indication of any such intention. It is pleasing to note that some members of the council have expressed their determination to insist that the reorganisation so obviously necessary shall be carried into effect and we are glad to know that the weight of the Mayor’s influence will be thrown in with them.

COUNCILLORS’ COMMENT Discussing the Northland tunnel position yesterday with a reporter, Councillor J. Ashton said:— "At the close of the debate on the Commissioners’ report, a resolution (already published) -was put to the meeting, and declared carried. This resolution had been drafted beforehand, and when read by the actingtown clerk, I remarked to a fellowcouncillor, ‘We cannot possibly allow this to pass,’ but while discussing the with him the resolution was declared carried, and with a further brief reference by the Mavor regarding plans for the completion of the tunnel, the meeting closed. “This was somewhere round about 3 a.m., but on arrival at my office at 9 o’clock I at-once communicated with His Worship by letter conveying my view of the matter, and suggesting a course of action that I thought should betaken. “I am expressing my own personal view when I sav that the resolution as it stands, and p’resented as it was, and carried without comment, does not represent the considered opinion of the council. I go further and say that had copies of the resolution been circulated amongst councillors, as it should have been,' it would' not have gone through ia its present form. “I contend there was not the slightest justification in rushing a resolution through in that fashion. The seriousness of the whole business called for calmer deliberation on the part of the counci Ibefore pronouncing judgment. A NOTICE OF MOTION “As I stated during the discussion at the council table, the findings disclosed a deplorable state of disorganisation in the engineer’s department,” said Councillor G. A. Troup, “and if an outcome of the Commission of Inquiry should be a thorough investigation of the organisation and methods of the various citv departments, then I should be satisfied that somathing had been accomplished. ' But unless this is done the commission will have been so much waste ot money. It is my intention to give notice of motion to see if something to this end cannot be accomplished.”