PORT CHALMERS AFFAIRS

Evening Star, Issue 21131, 17 June 1932, Page 10

PORT CHALMERS AFFAIRS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I attended the last meeting of the Port Chalmers Borough Council and am of the opinion, which is supported ■by your report of that meeting, that the municipal management at Port Chalmers is very far from being on a satisfactory footing. The meeting can be described as a fiasco, and the commencement of the proceedings—that is, the refusal of the mayor to confirm minutes of a previous meeting until piessed to do so by one or two of his councillors—signalled tho commencement of a very enjoyable evening spent by the many spectators in the gallery. Then there was the spectacle of -a councillor charging one of his colleagues with using some of the implements in the borough workshop, and that colleague counter-charging that councillor with removing trees from tho borough reserve. The explanation given by the councillor who removed the trees that he used them for wireless poles, and as a result obtained practically every foreign broadcasting station, would perhaps indicate that such trees'are valuable commercial assets. The point, however, appeared to be overlooked that the borough by-laws prohibit the removal of any tree, dead or alive, from a borough reserve. The chairman of the committee admitted having removed these trees, but no action was apparently considered to be necessary. One can only assume that by-laws at Port Chalmers were made not for observance, but to be broken by members of the council. . Then the question of levying the rates for the ensuing year was considered. A month previously the Finance Committee had been asked to bring down an estimate, which was approved by a special meeting of the council. It was recommended that the rates be the same as last year. The estimate also provided for a reduction of over £I,OOO m the expenditure. Tho matter was further considered by the council at its last meeting, and despite the fact that at the previous meeting, by eight votes to two, the council had decided that no further reductions in staff or of salaries or wages be made, the mayor, in an effort which was successful in reducing the rates, also moved successfully that two men be put off the staff, ono or whom was not provided for in the estimate of expenditure in so far as his wages were concerned, aiid that the three salaried officers be reduced by £25 per annum. One of these officers salaries had nothing to do with the estimate of expenditure already approved of The actual saving to the_ ratepayers by the reduction of salaries therefore amounted to approximately £2OO, which represents a little under a reduction of 2d in the £ on the general rate. The average rateable value of a bouse at Port Chalmers was stated to be between £35 and £4O. Most of the councillors who previously voted m favour of no further salary reductions or dismissals reversed their vote and in doing so, stated that they always adhered to Labour principles, but that the reduction m salaries meant a relief to ratepayers None of them, however, pointed out what the actual relief would be. It represents to the . average ratepayer, based on a valuation of £4O per annum, the magnificent sum of 6s 8d for a year Spread oyer fifty-turn weeks, the amount is almost infinitesimal. X am satisfied that the average latepayer of Port Chalmers, whilst appreciating a reduction of rates, holds no brief for the repugnant method adopted in bringing about such a reduction. If the staff had been overpaid iu tho past, and the reduction m salaries aftorded considerable loner to ratepayers, then perhaps theic could have been no objection, but it appears that certain members of the stall had to suffer a reduction in salaries, whilst the other section, iu order to a reduction iu 'salaries, had their hours of work reduced, whilst in one case, that of the water officer, absolutely no reduction in wages or ot tune worked was approved by the council. The whole position seems to savour ol absolute favouritism. If reductions in salaries were approved for one section,

they should have been applied to every section of ■ the employees, but, seeing that that was not the case, that the salaried officers have to perform the same number of hours’ ' work each week and it might be said have additional duties placed on them, it seems only fair to conclude that their hours of duty should have been reduced on a similar basis to that of the remainder of the staff. However, the council had the estimate of the expenditure before it, and although the reduction in rates approved of by five to four—the Finance Committee voting against the proposal—involved a reduction in revenue of. £3OO, the matter of reducing the items of expenditure to bring them in line with income seemed to be dealt with in a most lackadaisical manner. The mayor himself did not seem to be clear how much would be saved - by the salaries and what other items of expenditure were to bo cut to bring the total expenditure in line with the estimated income for the year, despite the repeated requests made by members of the General Committee for such to be given. Perhaps this information will be given at a later meeting, which |it is hoped will provide as much amusement to the public. In conclusion, can it be taken as an indication that the Labour Party has changed its attitude in regard to the salaries and wages reductions? As two of the councillors stated definitely that they had Labour leanings, and one in particular had just returned from a Labour conference in Auckland, and is also a leading official in the Waterside Workers’ Union at Port Chalmers, his action in voting for a reduction of salaries and wages and the dismissal of men Seems to be at absolute variance with that of his definitely expressed leanings.—l am, etc., Curious. June 17.