“WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY”

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 149, 19 March 1936, Page 10

“WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY”

Charge Levelled at Education Board “EXTRAVAGANT USE OF PAPER” A statement that the Wellington Education Ijoard was responsible for a very grave waste of public moneythrough extravagant use of paper was made by Colonel T. W. McDonald at a meeting of t'he board last nightColonel McDonald said the waste was justifiable under no . circumstances whatever, and that the money being spent in this way would be much ''otter used for the direct benefit of s l ' I,ooicommittees. In accordance with notice, Colonel .McDonald moved: "That the extraordinary waste and extravagance of paper; wax-sheets: time occupied in typing, preparing and otherwise dealing with the board's order papers, minutes and committee leporty and minutes be immediately discontinued, and thereby save the cost to the taxpayer of such unnecessary expenditure.”

He amended this motion so that the matter could be investigated by the executive and a report De presented at the next board meeting. “While school committees are being starved to death, cut to the bone, for want of money for essential incidental expenses, the board has had a system of waste and extravagance which is intolerable,” said Colonel .McDonald.; "In these things called order papers and minute papers the amount, of expenditure and waste would alarm you.” Other Boards’ Consumption. In the Canterbury Education Board’s district, he said, there were 367 schools, with 1088 teachers, against 248 schools and 775 teachers in Wellington. ■ But there were used by the Wellington board each month 3850 sheets of foolscap more than the number used in Canterbury. Every year the Wellington board threw 43,800 sheets "into the air.” Compared with Otago, wita nearly,a.? many.schools as Wellington. 52,620 sheets were thrown away.-'With the handling of the papers, their posting, the cost of wax-sheets and typing, the cost to the board and the ratepayers was .more than'could be just! tied. . For 14 members of the Wellington Education Board no. fewer than' 60 copies of order-papers and mlnutepapers, often running into 67 pages, were prepared every month. Six or seven sheets detailed inward and outward correspondence, and elsewhere the same matters were enumerated. “For what purpose?”- asked Colonel McDonald. “No one knows. I was amazed when I discovered it recently. I want the board to cut out this waste and save money that could be used for the children in Ute schools.’-’ He added that Auckland, with. 745 schools and 1939 teachers, had a board staff of 27; Wellington, with 24S schools and 775 teachers, had a staff of 24, in addition to which there were some part-time members. Dunedin;, with nearly as many schools as Wellington, had a.staff of- 12, Though he sometimes’ wondered why he was given two order-papers, Mr. P. Robertson said he though the answer tb Colonel McDonald’s statement was self-apparent. The amount of work was due to the members of the board. Cost to the Board. "All this paper,” said Mr. .C, 11. Nicholls, “costs us the large sum of 1/1) a ream, and the whole expense of placing the papers before us comes to approximately £lOO a year." Mr. L. J. McDonald said lie did not appreciate the way in which the mat-, ter had been brought before the board. If it went to tiie outside public as it had been brought up by Colonel McDonald it would, appear to be au indictment of the board; it would appear to be a grave waste of public money, But there was another side to it. Surely there was nothing much of a public scandal in the cost to the board. “Colonel McDonald lias talked' about the extravagance of the board compared with other boards. He could have made some other comparisons which would have been much more just to this board.” Mr. McDonald quoted from a circular by the Education Department for 1934-35 setting out the cost of educational administration by the various boards. Wellington paid £4367 a year in salaries; Canterbury paid £5745. The proportion was approximately the same. Taranaki, a smaller board, paid £3168. The costs each unit for each board were: Wellington, 4/3; Taranaki, 4/3; Hawke's Bay, 4/2; Nelson. 5/11: Southland, 4/11; Auckland, 2/10;. Canterbury, 3/9. The chairman, Mr. W. V. Dyer: The average cost is 4/3 and a fraction; Wellington’s is 4/3. Colonel McDonald objected that the “per capita” cost was not a reliable guide. It took in many.things for one board which another board did not include at all. such as carpentering.

“It is public money.” he said, “not money belonging to this board, and if you are going to throw them away in sueh a disgraceful manner, then do it by all means, but 1 clear myself of it from to-night.” Colonel McDonald's amended motion was lost on a division.