“MUCH ADO-”

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 January 1926, Page 7

“MUCH ADO-”

ABOUT A LETTER OF THANKS. rrr Should a servant of a public body paid to do certain work, also receive a letter of thanks upon the satisfactory completion of that work? The question gave rise to a somewhat ; lively debate at the meeting of the Gr.eymouth Borough Council last evening;, and .was finally..decided.Jn the afflrmativef by the. casting, vote of the Mayor (Mr. W. H. Parfitt); The report of the Waterworks Committee (published . elsewhere.) contained the following clause:—“We desire to. thank, the Engineer, Mr,. E. M. Williams, for coming to the assistance of the Council in the crisis they have just passed through. His services have been much appreciated and we congratulate him on the great improvement effected in the water service, in so short a period and that the Town Clerk be instructed to send him a letter to this effect.” Cr. J. W. Greenslade, while giving due credit to Mr. Williams, did not see the necessity for sending him a letter of thanks. He had been paid well, at 30/- per day, and it was. not necessary to thank any employee who had been paid for his services. . Cr. J. O’Brien said that if the highly technical nature of the work were considered, and the future engineer’s wages were considered, it would be found that Mr. Williams had been underpaid, as he came to the rescue of

the Council in their difficulty. Had the water pressure not been improved, he understood that the underwriters intended to put up the insurance rate; Nine or ten days’ work by: Mr. Williams had already saved the Council a good deal of money. He was rather surprised at Cr. Greenslade taking exception to a letter of thanks. It was not everybody who would have come back to help the Council after leaving its service. Mr. Williams had not received an adequate salary while employed by the Council. Supporting Cr. Greenslade, Cr. R. J. Williams said he did not like the word “crisis” .in the report. It would leave a nasty taste in the mouths'of the underwriters, and it was a mistake on the part of the Waterworks Committee. It was a reflection on the Borough staff if one man had to be depended upon. He did not wish to belittle the work of the Committee, but maintained that another member of the staff (Mr. Evans) could have

done the work as well as Mr. Williams. “Would you have put Mr. Evans on yourself?” asked Cr. O’Brien. “Yes,” said Cr. Williams. Cf. Kent (Chairman of the Committee) : “Perhaps you could have done the work yourself?” Cr. Williams: “Yes, I might. You are not the only pebble on the beach!” He added that he would like to know the present depth of water in the reservoir. Cr. Kent said it was 15ft 6in. The Mayor stated that the pumping engineer came to him and said that something would have to be done quickly, as the reservoir was so low. “I was so worried about it,” declared

Mr. Parfitt, “that I got up three or four times one night, although I usually sleep well!” He added that he took his full share of responsibility for the engagement of Mr. Williams. He regarded the matter as very serious. Cr. G. R. Harker: “I don’t think anyone takes exception to the attitude the Committee took up, but I also cannot see why we should send a letter of thanks to Mr. Williams. He got paid for his work.” “I am sorry that the discussion has taken the direction it has done,” remarked Cr. H. F. Doogan. “I am also surprised. Although we know the man was paid for his work, we should recognise also that it is only the ordinary courtesies that make life worth living. We should do a little more than cut things down to pounds, shillings and pence.” He went on to praise the work of Mr. Williams generally. “Hear, hear!” said Cr. Kent. * Cr. “I rise to a point of order! It is not a matter of send- 1 ing a letter of appreciation for past * services. It is in connection with this special work. I consider that Cr. ■ Doogan has misconstrued the position. , Mr. Williams was thanked publicly by J the Council for his general work.”, At the request of Cr. Doogan, Cr. ‘ Kent re-read the clause fn the Com- 1 mittee’s report. 1 Cr. F. A. Kitchingham asked

whether a letter of thanks was sent' to Mr. Williams when he retired from the Council’s services. If so, that should be sufficient. The Town Clerk looked up the records, and discovered such a letter, which he read. “My personal opinion,” said Cr. Kitchingham, “is that letter covers the matter fully.” Qr. Greenslade (to Cr. Doogan): “Well, what do you think? You did not finish your job.” Cr. Doogan said he had misunderstood the report,' but still maintained’ that a letter of thanks would be only ordinary courtesy and might be of some assistance to Mr. Williams. He would like to see it go through. “As Chairman of the Committee,” said Cr. Kent, “I take full responsibility fqr the report. I am grieved to think that certain Councillors should be so deficient in common courtesy, or possibly inspired by personal animus—”

Cr. Kitchingham: “I object to that remark!” Other Councillors also protested strongly. The Mayor: “Leave it at that, Cr. Kent!” “Are you against Mr. Williams?” heatedly demanded Cr. Kent. “No,” replied several voices. Cr. Kent: “We get a lot of wise people after the crisis has passed, but we did not know what to do before we got Mr. Williams. It is as little as we can do to thank him. I move that the report be adopted in toto.” Cr, R. J. Williams: “I would like to object to Cr. Kent’s remarks. I have been on the Council for four or five years, and have bumped against all sorts of councillors, but I have never

heard such .personal remarks as Cr. Kent used. He has. accused councillors of personal animus and he should withdraw' that.” Cr. Kent: “I won’t withdraw it!” Cr. Williams: “We do not come ’ here, at least I don’t, for purely personal motives. The only word I objected to in the report was the word ‘crisis.’ ” Cr. Kent: “If you only referred to the word ‘crisis’ I will withdraw unreservedly.” . • . • > ’ The , Mayor called for a vote on the adoption of the report, but Cr. Green- : slade, not satisfied with the voices, asked for a division. Cr. Kent objected, on the ground that there was no amendment. “I have the chair Cr. Kent!” said the Mayor, sharply. “Cr. Greenslade

has asked for a division and is entitled to it.”

The voting was as follows:—Ayes: The Mayor, Crs. O’Brien, Doogan and Kent. Noes. Crs Kitchingham, Williams, Harker and Greenslade. The Mayor gave his casting vote in favour of the adoption of the report, and Mr. Williaihs will, in due course, receive his letter of thanks. .