CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS

Nelson Evening Mail, 19 May 1917, Page 6

CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS

PROPOSED TERMINATION OF ENGAGEMENTS. -A "DRASTIC" AND "AUDACIOUS" MOTION. DEFEATED BY SIX TO FOUR. The City Council last night discussed a notice of motion by Cr. Gibbons regarding the salaried officials of the Council. The motion was as follows "That all salaried officers having charge of employees of the Council receive three months' notice, subject to re-en-gagement within eight weeks." The Mayor said that he had gone carefully into'the wording of the resolution, and the persons affected were the Town Clerk, City Engineer, Gas Engineer. Abattoir Manager, Gasworks Foreman, Road Foreman, Water-fitting Foreman. Gas-fitting Foreman, and the Foreman Butcher. Cr. Gibbons said he offered no aoologv in moving the resolution. He recognised the drastic nature and the audacity of the mot-ion, but the times in which they lived were of a similar nature. There was a mandate to cut down expenditure, and Cr. Carlisle intended moving in respect to one officer, but he thought it fairer to deal with the officers collectively. It did not follow that all or any of the officers would be dispensed with, but after the ordeal was over the officials would be able to hold their heads up more proudly than before. By carrying the motion "the Council would save time and monev, and if it was defeated he would have "no feeling about it- Until the thing was settled the Council was in for stormy times. He would support Cr. Carlisle's motion — The Mavor pointed out to O. Gibbons that Cr. Carlisle had no motion before the Council. . Cr. Gibbons concluded by saying that he would give every man fair and impartial treatment. Cr. Baigent seconded the_ motion. Cr. Hampson said he did not know whether Cr. Gibbons was to bo congratulated or otherwise on his unique document. He pointed out the contradictory nature of the motion, which lead three months' notice subject to re-en-gagement. The motion was an anomaly and an absurdity on the face of it—it was not understandable English. In regard to its spirit the motion was_ the biggest insult he had ever heard of. IE there were superfluous officers, or the salaries were too high, the matter should be discussed in committee and specific cases dealt- with. But to L r ' 1 ' lot of men notice was unthinkable. He could not understand a motion to clean out the whole of the officers—it was notonly the height of absurdity but the height of cruelty. . , ■Cr. Marris said Cr. Gibbons had brought the motion forward with a view to economising. He would support economv, but lie could not support the motion." The Council should inquire as to how many of the officials were needed, and then decide whether any or them could be dispensed with. So far the Council had not- considered the question. If the motion was carried, lear ot dismissal would be hanging over the heads of the officials for eight -«eeks. and he would be sorry to see them m lsl Cr. P Watson pointed out that the Maitai lands would come up for consideration this vear. and the Council s most important'official in this conne.etion >*as the Citv Engineer, who if the motion was carried, might go_awav Those who had sat on previous Councils knew t ~ amount of work the Town Clcik *as called on to do, he being at the beck and call of citizens. Cr. Watson wa. astonished that the Town Clerk had had the health and strength to do all he was called on to do. In fact he rathei thought that Town Clerk should receive three months' holiday instead of three months' notice. As to the Gasworks he had opposed the appointment ot an Engineer, but the Ensrmeer had not vet ■Bad an opportunity of showing results After two years on the Council lie \va.s onlv beginning to understand thin<r-. and he asked the new Council to be careful as to what it did After the first year the trouble; with the gas "would be a'thing of the past. While m ttellin«fton he had been told tliat Nelson had in Mr Neil one of the best gas engineers in New Zealand. . Cr Gibbons rose to a point or order, 3e c r . Watson had mentioned a name. When he had mentioned a name he had be«n ruled out of order. The Mayor said Cr. Gibbons had referred to a motion that was not before the Council, wlr'le Cr. Watson was dealin<r with a matter that was before the Council, as Mr Neil was included in the list- of those affected by the motion. Cr. "Watson, continuing, said a committee should be set up "to so into the working of the various departments. Had the Council had an engineer during the construction of the drainage works thousands of pounds would lia've been saved. Cr. Pettit spoke against the motion. He said that on one occasion the Council got rid of its .engineer and the ultimate to the city was anything from £6OOO to £BOOO. and on the drainage perhaps another £10.000.. To leave the officers affected on the gridiron for eight weeks was to his mind S -wrong thing. He thought the motion would have received the consideration it deserved. if it had failed to find a seconder, a"d be would not waste time by further discussing it. . Cr. Carlisle, in supporting the motion, said the public considered something was wrong, and that something shqnld be .done. There was a rnandate from the people for reforms in the Cfiuncil. as was evidenced by the ousting of so many of- the old Councillors. He did not 'blame the last Council entirely, but he blamed the officers for recommit-.dai-i<?n« which they knew could not be carried out. If in eight weeks' time the officials were not re-engaged there would be a saving to the Council ; and if they were re-engaged no great harm would be done; He could not see that it was necessary to retain the Citv Engineer 1 ecause of the 'Maitai lands. At one time the Gasworks used to pay: Why did t7iey not pay now? The Gas Engineer should be given an opportunity of justifying his retention. He believed the officers could be cut down, and the motion was the way to effect a - reform and keep down the expenditure. Cr. Rout said the motion was worthy of but the scantiest criticism. He bad anticipated very excellent and weigr.iy reasons in support of such a drastic motion. but had heard none. Cr. Gibbons had given no arguments, and Cr Jfrlisle alone had spoken in support of ihe motion. Cr. Rout said he could rotfind words allowable in debate " bich would describe his opinion of such motion. Nine officials of the Cou i<Jl were affected, and would any of the Councillors supporting the motion t.nvc dealt in the wav proposed with any of tbe'r own emplovees? The Mayor said he could not -iiMport the motion. He intended effecting economies, and he believed it •<orl.i be shown where economies could be "IFcci ed. but not in the form propo<od by f*i. Gibbons. He considered Cr. C' bbto.s bad been very fairly treated in t-ie criticism levelled at him. The motion verv welt have been ruled out «. f o'der. as it was absolutely contradicto \\ II- ut ever, it was just as well that the discussion had taken place. Cr. Gibbons, in reply, said he was not surprised at the discussion, but he never expected such scathing criticism of a. Difficult breathing, due to Nasal Catarrh, can be promptly relieved by NA - ZOZi. Its penetrating properties kill the gerroe of catarrh Use the Naz;o!

motion that was moved in good spirit. He was sorry, the Council would not take the officials on a. face. When Counji'l.jrs later heard the reasons for his motion they would agree with him. He did iot •regret bringing the matter forward, but he felt hurt at some of the remarks 11 at had been made. Each official would now have to be dealt with individually, and he (Cr. Gibbons) would lose no opportunity of bringing before the Council matters with which he was conversant. It would be done in open"Council—there were to be no Star Chamber methods about it. The Mayor said there had been no Star Chamber business nor would there be any. The motion was put and lost by six votes to four. Ayes (4) : Crs. Stringer. Baigent, Gibbons, and Carlisle. Noes (6) : Crs. Watson, Pettit. Rout , Hampton. Marris. and the Mavnr.