COUNCIL PATRONAGE?

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 82, 8 April 1910, Page 3

COUNCIL PATRONAGE?

MORE ABOUT TENDERING AND CONTRACTS. ON THE GROUNDS OF PRINCIPLE. COUNCILLORS BALLINGER AND LUKE EXPLAIN. AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. The question of the relations between the City Council and private companies in which councdlors were concerned over the matter or municipal contracts was raised again at the council's meeting last evening Councillor Atkinson moved :— *" "(1) That in the opinion of this council, paragraph (h) of Section 4iS of Toe Municipal Corporations Act, 1908/ relating to the disqualification ol councillors, should be amended .so that the exception therein contained will read as tollows:— "Other than as a, shareholder in an interpolated company which contains more than twenty members and is not a pi ivatc company, and of which such perion i» not a director or the general manager, or in an association or partnership consisting of more than twenty members.' (2) That pending such alteration in the law this council should decline to accept any tender from any company in which a councillor is a shareholder, and which does not come withiu the exception above set out." The mover said the question wah not one the council should burke. The matter was at present by no mean? satisfactory. He had based his motion on grounds of principle, and he hoped the discussion would allow it to stay there. Hu deplored the personal cote of previous discussions, and entirely dissociated himself from it. Was there any corruption in the council giving out its contract*? Personally he has seen nothing of the kind. There was nobody on the council he could see getting any personal advantage out of his office. Councillors were the serious losers by the time they gave to the public. He ■was quite sure theie was no unpropriety and no corruption on their part. Still he wished to remove any possibility of even the suggestion. He pointed out how farcical it was that he, as Councillor Atkinson, could not undertake any contract with the council, but that if he called himself Atkinson and Co., Ltd., he might accept municipal contracts. THE LAWS SHORTCOMINGS. He pointed out the manifest shortcomings of the existing law, and asked the council to affirm his motion. No protection should be given to a company that had nob at least twenty shareholder* The affirmation, by the principle laid down in his motion, would put things on a. fair footing. He hoped the matter would be discussed on academic lines and without feeling. If the existing ttat« of the law allowed of breaches then the second portion of his motion should be affirmed. MORE INFORMATION WANTED. Councillor Carmichael seconded the motion. In doing' so, he said, he thought the mover wat> rather stultifying himself. Ho wished to suggest that nothing improper had taken place ; yet the motion saggested that there had been something wrong. He (the speaker) bad been in no way responsible for tho personal tone that had been introduced when the subject had been previously discussed. Those who were affected were the parties rerponsible. He also wished to bay that the information which had been already supplied to the council was not full by any means. He declared that thore were a good; many members of the council who said they supplied material at a lower price than prevailed in the open market. He submitted that if full information were only forthcoming, this statement wpuld be found to be incorrect. He considered that the council ahould have full information as to the action of councillors or committees. The law should be the same for all, and members should not try to circumvent the law by forming themselves and their families into.limited'liability companies. There persons had the opportunity of getting inside information which the public had not. They should not get work from the council on such terms. He alleged that work had been given by officers of the council to councillors without tender. There could be no check on anything of this kind. Further than this he did not propose to go. He hoped the officers of the council would give lull information. SHARP CRITICISM. Councillor Hindmarsh supported the motion, but caid he was not prepared to go as far as Councillor Carmichael, who had come into the conflict »vith the council. Councillor CarmichacJ as the servant of Mr. Hamilton Giliuer at Inland Bay had, he asserted, defenaed Mr- Gilmer before the council, and a&ked the council not to prosecute h»» employer. Councillor Carmichael as clerk of the ororks in big constructions was bound to come into conflict with the council. There had been no need to make public the matter, or to make such accusation*. He fully agreed with Councillor Atkinson that neither Councillors Trevor, Ballinger, nor Luke had derived any improper benefit from their contracts with the council. Councillor CarmichaeJ ought to have known better than make reference to Councillor Ballinger's • connection with the Technical Education Board. Councillor Carnuchael : I did not do so. The" flavor : Councillop Carmichael did not make any reference to such mat ter. AN AMENDMENT. Councillor Hindmarsb then moved an amendment by way of addition to the motion, tv impose disqualification on "exiy officer" o? any company as that referred to, also to make it illegal not only "to .accept any tender," but alto "aiiy contract, ' and he added a proviso that the matter should bo referred to the municipal conference, which meets here next June. Councillor Fletcher jeconde** the amendment. He did not think any «nembei of the counci l had acted iv any way dishonestly, but agreed that the principle of councillors participating in work for the council was not a good one. Councillor Devine supoorted the motion. LARGELY EXPLANATORY. Councillor Ballinger. at the outset, denied a suggestion which he said had been made by the Mayor when the mat* ter' was last under discussion, that he held 999 shares out of a thousand in tho company to which he belonged. This was false. As a matter of fact, he held only 29i per cent, of the shares in the company, which consisted of 12 members. Then it had been suggested that the company had been formed in order that it might get council work. As a matter of fact the company had been formed many years ago, long before he became a councillor. His company had done business with tb«J council for many years. Because members of the company were members of the council, was the company not to do business with the council? If so, then they would not be members of the council. People said they wanted bosinus men in the council. Th© only object in form-

ing a limited liability company was to ensure that business would be carried on in the case of death. They gained nothing by it. On the contrary, they paid double taxation. "I have served the uty since I was 18,"' he said "and I hay* never received a single penny in payment in any shape or form." When the tenders for supplies were last under consideration he had left the room. He instanced a case wheie in a i-ecent contract only two tenders had been received. If this obtained generally, what sort of pi ices would the council have to pay for its work? He repeated that he thought his company ought io be allowed to tendei for council work. Tenders were called recently for a contract worth about £100. His tirm's tender was less by £10 than the next lowest. Wa: it right that such a tender snould be accepted? A suggestion had been made in anonymous letters published in the papers that they (his company) could get Inside information from the council's officers. This he indignantly denied. He was, tco 'busy and spent too much time on council work to have anything to do with the framing of trie tenders. Ho was giving so much time to comiv.il work that it would pay him better to be out of it. "I have served the city taithfulty in the council for five solid years. If lh^ motion is passed, I will r.ot icsign, but I will not stand again." ANOTHER COUNCILLOR ON HIS DEFENCE. Councillor Luke taKo entered into a personal explanation. He considered the mat-tei on» for leference to the Municipal Conference. So fai as his own company »vas concerned, it was formed many, many years ago for veiy necessary reasons obvious to any perton acquainted | with the management of a larg^e loann J facturing concern. What he objected to in the whole affair was that in the beginning it had been brought forward in a j very crude, ungenerous manner. He had looked up the word "picking" in Webstei, and fonnd it to mean ''pilfering. I ?.'' I If that was the -ruggestion of councillois, it was a very ceiious mattei. It was not only one oi two members of the picsent council who were " affected. There was the Mayor himself, who had i been Ma3 ; or on previous occasion?, and j at the same time director of a * enlarge company. Yet nobody in the city was nore highly esteemed than the present Mayor, i'u/ther, there was another gentleman, a former Mayor of the city, .vho »t .the same time was a member of the Harbour Board. He five an undertaking not to continue to o any work for the board in a professional capacity as long as he remained a member. In conclusion, Councillor Luke urged that it was the duty of the | council to put the motions in the form j of a remit to the Municipal Confeience j with a ■\iew, if necessary, ot making a recommendation to the Legislature. As for anonymous attacks in newspaper correspondence, he \\ould entirely ignore such person* who dared not come out into the open. .Personally, he felt the position was this : If he resigned, that portion of the community which did not appreciate the .york of public men, would say there was something in the allegations. If his business arrangement* allowed it, and if it were not too late, he would have been quite prepared to lesign and stand for the office of Mayor, and let the people judge whether he was a tit and proper person to administer the business of the city. Councillor Carmichael denied* making any suggestion of filtering ngainst councillors. Councillor Fitzgerald said while he was satisfied nothing improper had occured, he would support the motion. The discussion would prevent anything improper occurring. Councillor Cohen -considered no harm could be done by passing the- motion. All tendering bad b?en fair and above board in the patt, but tVi-> good principle involved in the motion hould be endorsed. MAYOP. APPROVES MOTION. The Mayor f»id he thoroughly approved the motion. In his opinion, however honourable it was it was very unwise for councillors who were largely interested in companies to participate in the council' 6 work. In reply, Counoillor Atkinson eaid the addition of the words "or any ether officer" would make the disqualification far too wide. The other portions of the amendment he -vas prepared to accept. Eventually it wa» agreed to alter the words in the amendment "any other officer" to "or secretary," and the original motion, with the addition of the words in the amendment, was carvied' on the voice*.