ADVERSE CRITICISM

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 May 1925, Page 8

ADVERSE CRITICISM

T ♦ ; s'? OF HIGHWAYS BOARD. Adverse criticism of the Main Highways Board has been made recently in 'connection with the issue of authorities for expenditure. Critics urge that there should be greater decentralisation. A statementissued on behalf of the Board states, however, that there seems to be some misunderstanding' as the procedure adopted by the board was intended to d<#2entralise the work as much as possible, and to enable authorities to be issued and payment made without delay. In all new ventures, explains the Main Highways Board, until the procedure is understood, it seems impossible to prevent misunderstanding and delays, although the board has provided against this as much as possible by making the matter as simple as is practicable. The procedure is as follows: —In the first instance, local bodies are asked to send in, through the local district highways council, an estimate of the works suggested for the year and the approximate costs. This is in general terms. The information when received is considered by the board, and on it the annual estimates are framed, and advice is then sent to the local bodies through the district highways councils. In. matters'of construction of roads, when the local body desires to proceed with th© work in inspect of which a sum has been placed on the estimates, the plans and specifications are lodged by it" with the local officer of the Public Works Department, and by him forwarded to the board. If the proposals, after examination by the engineer attached to the board, are found to be satisfactory, or require minor amendment only, they are immediately returned to the local body through the district highways council, with the necessary approval and authority .to proceed. Some delay may occur if important amendments are required, necessitating the' return of the documents to the local body, as no authority can be issued unless the plans and specifications are certified as satisfactory by the board’s engineer. To save time the authority is issued direct by the board to the local body. As the work proceeds applications are made for subsidy payments through the local officer of the Public Works Department, and on his certifying after examination, payment is made by him to the local body. In regard to maintenance, the matter is still further decentralised. On receipt of notification of approval of the annual estimates, the local body forwards to the Public Works engineer its proposals on a very simple form, showing how it is proposed to expend the.money provided. This is passed to the board for certifying and issuing authority, and that moneys to cover such authority are passed to the credit of the local Public Works engineer’s highway account, and the moneys can be paid out by that officer without any further reference to the board on receipt of application from the local body for payment, and after his inspection of the Work, ,and relative accounts. It should be noted that the board has made provision for Iqcal authorities to be paid at intervals) of not less than one month, in order to assist local authorities to the utmost in the matter of finance. It is hard to conceive, in the interests of proper control of the funds entrusted to _ it, how the matter could be further sin) plified or decentralise dby the board. From investigations made, continues the statement, it Would seem, that mary of the delays have been called I y local authorities proceeding wit h, uo»k placed on the estimates without Ripply-

> mg tor any auinonry, ana wji.-u application for payment has been subse- ! quently made~the money is not avail- , able because application for authority had not been made, and therefore authL. orities not issued before the work y commenced. Naturally the board could not credit its representative with the ■ amount for payment. When such a position has arisen, however, the board 1 has met it without insisting on the prior authority, realising that the posir tion has arisen through misunder- ’ standing, but the local body’s attention ■ has been drawn to the omission, so that the procedure would be understood 5 in future. In some instances delays ; have also taken place owing to inc speefions at a distance through pressure of work on the local departmental staff. In December, last the board, being concerned at the small amount paid up to that date to local bodies on 1 maintenance account, sent a circular to all the counties in New Zealand, drawing attention .to the matter, and as a result many more claims have been sent in and paid, and the authorisations during one month increased by . £30,000, while the payments for ' ‘March, 1925, amounted to £66,002, against payments of £53,000 during the period June 9, 1924, to February 28, 1925, a period of nine months. The position generally became more understood, and delays much obviated. It is the declared and earnest policy 5 dr the board to honour its commitments witout any unnecessary formalities or delays, concludes the statement, and the procedure has been drawn up to enable this to be carried out as effectively and expediently as possible, provided the local authorities cooperate in the carrying out of the procedure.