COUNCIL AND CIVIC LEAGUE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 85, 9 April 1924, Page 9

COUNCIL AND CIVIC LEAGUE

QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE.

Sir, —In acknowledging the courtesy of Councillor W. J. Thompson's explanation, appearing in your columns, we have to point out that he is somewhat in error. The Civic League did not question the right of councillors to vote according to their convictions; nor did it suggest that any committee's report should be adopted without question; or that they should refrain from opposing any clause they may disagree with. What the league's executive has done is to criticise the way in which certain councillors exercise their right of voting, and to emphasise that councillors should be consistent in their judgments in 'relation to principle. It was stated that the councillors named had pledged themselves to the electors to uphold these two lines of policy : First, "Review of. the Management of City Departments," and, second, "To secure the services of the most expert advisers available." This has not been questioned, and the league has submitted that general opposition to the Investigation Committee's work would not be consistent with the 6rst pledge, whilst the exclusion of competition in selection of the city's chief engineering adviser is not quite consistent with a policy of selecting the most expert adviser available. It was further submitted that when a councillor moved to call applications for Electrical Engineer he affirmed the principle of competition in the filling of such office, and it is not consistent for him to oppose the principle in relation to'the office of' City Engineer. Councillor Thompson protests that the council has blundered in placing reserves and beaches under the City Engineer instead of under the Town Clerk The councillor may be right, and, if'so, such mistake can easily be rectified. It is s!'7 ns '"g to find, however, that Councillor Ihompson, notwithstanding his lengthy experience as a councillor, did not move to amend the report so as to rectify what he says is a blunder la stead of doing this he voted against a c aiiso winch had nothing to do with classifying the Reserves Department as lie desires. . ' We can only trnst that second thoughts will prove, best, and that councillors Til tho JIVT^ °f test- hl S "* merits of lie expert to be appointed by applyine the principle of competition in seKf —I lor the executive,, D. M'LAREN, o, . .. Hon. Secretary. sth April. J