DRAINAGE BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 11863, 17 April 1903, Page 3

DRAINAGE BOARD.

At an adjourned meeting of the Drainage Beard held yesterday afternoon there were present Messrs R. Glendinrng (chairman), ,T. Hazlett, G. L. Denniston, W. Burnett, J. H. Hancock, J. Gore, Hon H. Gourley, and Dr Conghtrey.

The raison d’etre of the meeting was the following motion by Dr Coughtrcy, which was carried on February 24:—“ That, with a view of preventing a recurrence of such things in future, this Board set up a Committed of Inquiry to investigate and report ou the irregularities connected -with the signing of contract B schedule (Frederick street sewer contract) ; such Committee to report on who is to blame (a) for the wrong date being affixed, (b) who tampered with the quantities, (c) to consider the prices affixed to each class of work enumerated in that schedule and the bearing those prices have on the total sum the Board might ultimately have to pay in the event of extras or deductions, (d) the errors of calculations in carrying out the extensions, (e) the van ous discrepancies of that schedule thus signed, and (f) what is. the best method of protecting the Board’s interests in such things in future; the Committee to consist of the whole Board”—to which he moved to add the following:—“ The same Committee to inquire whether the tender that was accepted by the Works Committee was valid or invalid because of the time at which it was handed in. Also, if. in reality, it was the lowest tender for that type of sewer presented to the Works * Committee? Whether the Works Committee or the engineer suppressed any facts or letters that ought properly to have been brought before the Board when the matter was under discussion? Lastly, did the Works Committee ignore in detail or in general the various protests of the Board's expert adviser and chief executive officer on the points that have been enumerated for inquiry.” After the motion had been seconded, Mr Denniston said that it was utter waste of time for the Board, with their year’s work before them, to go into matters settled in the past. They had plenty to do without raking up the dead. He objected to ihe whole thing and to this motion. The motion was put and carried. Dr Coughtrey then proceeded to recapitulate and go at length into the story of the Frederick street sewer. It was necessary he said, that mistakes be avoided in future, and with the view of protecting the Board’s interests he would suggest that in all future contracts accepted by the Board, or any committee to which it may have delegated its powers under tine Act, the signing of the contracts on behalf of the Board be left in the hands of the principal executive officers of the Board, the Board’s engineer and the secretary of the Board pro tern., and that those two officers be held responsible for seeing that the various documents and schedules of those contracts were correct before affixing their signatures and the Board’s seal to them.

Mr Gore said that this was simply a storm m a teacup raised by Dr Coughtrey for the purpose enumerated in his last suggestion, to which he (Mr Gore) objected. The engineer should see tenders, no doubt, but they must be first opened by the Board. He then spoke at some length in support of the Works Committee’s action re the Frederick street sewer, and in refutation of what he considered the implied reflections of Dr Coughtrey’s motion. Dr Coughtrey explained that what he intended was that the tenders should be opened by the Board or by the Works Committee, and that the question of acceptance should be with the Board, but that the actual signing afterwards should be carried ■out hr the executive officers after everything

had been found to be correct. He had never accused the Works' Committee of altering the schedule, and his motion did not bear that construction What be wanted to know was who was to blame for the alteration, and his whole object in moving in the matter at all was to prevent errors or discrepancies of the kind occurring again. Mr Gourley moved as an alternative—- “ That in future all tenders be opened by the Board and be referred to the engineer to report to the proper .committee, who shall report to the Board.” Mr Burnett seconded the motiou. Mr Denniston protested that a resolution of the sort was not required, and as the secretary pointed out that already the Board had resolved that they should open tenders consideration of the matter was adjourned to next meeting, so that the exact wording of that resolution might be ascertained.