CITY STORES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 129, 28 November 1923, Page 9

CITY STORES

COMMENT BY THE MAYOR

INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE'S

REPORT.

"I think it necessary," said the Mayor (Mr. R. A. Wright) yesterday, "to offer some explanation of the attitude adopted by the seven" members 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 the end of the 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, after 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, a:.id 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 Board, with an annual turnover of £45,000 for material, etc., only handles 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. "The question which arose, and was freely discussed by the committee, was whether the. volume of business to be transacted in conenction 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 the tables furnished by the Investigation Committee. In one.it gays, 'Stores in existence at the 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 of stores 1 and materials to the value of £140,901, but the difference of £100,000 represented stores and material bought by .contract or 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. I do 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 Departments expenditure for last year was £53,395, but of that amount only some £18,000 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 through the store, and the balance (drain pipes, cement etc.) were all contract supplied goods, which would not and could not be stored. "It will thus be seen that a very large _ proportion of the stores and material we require is purchased beyond Ned Zealand, and would not 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 the store, if we had one fully equipped. "However, the 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, so as to avoid any chance of overbuying and overstocking. Unless that is done we in a few years have a huge store containing many thousands of pounds worth of stock. Some of it more or less dead stock. I would like to add that the Tramways Department has two very excellent stores, 'which have been glowingly commented upon by the internal auditor. "With respect to the comparative prices of goods set out in the schedule to the report, an explanation is necessary to let the public know that things are not so bad as they have been painted. On inquiry it has been found in connection with some of the items that the different prices represented a different- quality of article or material, whereas it was left open for the public to assume that the compilers of .the schedule only used articles or materials of equal equality. Take cotton" waste, for example. One price was^ 55s and another 90s, a variation of 70 per cent., but it seems that the former price was for a coarse, common quality of waste whilst the higher figure was the cost of a fine quality of white waste for use in connection with certain machine parts In_ regard to one item of paper, the two prices represent qualities, not the same as was implied through the absence of any definite statement of fact. The same applies to other items on the schedule. Whether or not a high or low quality article is required is a matter for the judgment of the officers concerned."