CORRESPONDENCE

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 30 March 1932, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE

THE BOROUGH ENGINEER

(To the Editor). Sir, —As you are aware, 1 wrote you on this matter before the council anally decided what it would do, and you, holding that my letter was premature, refused to publish it. 1 intended writing you again after the council met, but several factors, one of which was absence from town, stopped me. 1, like “Very Puzzled, ’ think that the ratepayers have small cause for satisfaction with the councillors wiio voted to reinstate the engineer. But before touching that aspect or the matter 1 complain of the secrecy which has veiled the discussions. It is true that a man’s livelihood bus been concerned, but we all remembei tlie discussions which took place last yeai on the floor of the House of Parliament regarding Mr, H. H. fetor ling s appointment. There was no mincing words there and our engineer, as a public servant, should be as ready as Mr. Sterling to 'be criticised. Ihe major principle is that the councillor.-' are spending our money' and that without giving the ratepayers an opportunity pf saying what they wanted. I have no hesitation in saying that the best trustee will take as many opportunities as possible of ascertaining the wishes of his beneficiaries, but here the council has done as little as it could and yet, despite the secrecy, it was known .pretty generally. about town that, after the engineer resigned, lie put in three, if not four, alternative proposals —if lam wrong I look to a councillor to correct me and to give us the facts—(a) the engineer to attend to the engineering of tlie borough in his own time at £340 per annum, (b) to give half time each week at £3BO per annum and to carry on as at present at the old salary, less cut. Why were we not invited to discuss these terms?. The answer as made to me by one borough councillor was that, having been elected for two yeais, lie was inferentially authorised to do anything that happened during that period. I consider that a narrow, dictatorial attitude, and one not calculated to serve the best interests et the ratepayers. Let the council aigue as it will, there is no justification for re-appointing a man who has resigned. It is against human nature, it the engineer had the council m his hand before, he has got. them a hundred times as safely now. *' hut answer will they be able to make hereafter to the observation, unuttered, perhaps, of the engineer— ‘''ell, gentlemen, you refused my resignation and re-appointed me, was not that sufficient indication of your satisfaction?’’ I, with “Very Puzzled,, applaud the action of the four businessmen who voted against the re-ap-pointment, but 1 am sorry that before the appointment could be made, they did not resign from the council and fight a by-election on the issue, reappointment or not ' l 7 l A a^ A YTjd[R.

JUBILEE FUND

(To the Editor);

Sir, —May I make _a suggestion re the surplus Jubilee Fund? I suggest that it be set aside as a donation towards building a Jubilee Town Hall; one that would do credit to the town and district.. X am. Normanby Rd., Okaiawa.