RETRENCHMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11058, 9 May 1899, Page 3

RETRENCHMENT.

TO TnE EDITOR. Sir,— correspondent, " One Interested," overshoots the mark when lie says " As to the injustice of his (Mr. Gulliver's) dismissal, that is for the public to judge, knowing, as they do, tho facts." Now, sir, if " One Interested' has followed the inquiry into tho alleged roll-stuffing and the charge of undervaluation (the latter preferred by an irresponsible body, viz., the Ratepayers' Association), lie will know that the finding of the committee in the first- case by a large majority acquitted me, and in the second, that of undervaluation, your Mayor (Mr. Goldie) thought fit to drop the inquiry, and never proved tho charge; further, that so far as the inquiry did go, I successfully rebutted the charge. And let " One Interested" remember that I distinctly offered to complete the valuation for this year, notwithstanding that I was under notice of dismissal, and that without prejudice to such notice; and let it' hero be distinctly noted that the Council holds no resignation from me. This offer was referred to the committee of which the Mayor is the head, and upon his motion it was resolved to forward the samo to the Council, and ho exceeded his duty when ho withheld such correspondence. This offer was made solely because I knew the muddle the Council would drift, into with the long delay that would take place in getting such work done by a stranger. "One Interested" practically admits this when he says "Tho clerk referred to is put on temporarily, to enable the Council to get the valuation notices out with all the expedition possible, because of tho difficulties the Council wero placed in through the change of valuers at the time." Your correspondent says Mr. Gulliver refused to avail himself of the usual notice. Does he know why? As ho probably does not, and as many of the ratepayers are in the same position, I will enlighten them. The Mayor, beforo ho was elected, said if he was returned lie would have mo out of office, *td at tho first meeting after his election he moved that my services bo dispensed with, and three months' notice be given. Now, as this term would cover the writing up of the valuation books, delivery of notices, and attendance at Assessment Courts, and give him tho work for a year ahead, I naturally deemed this to be unfair, and I told tho town clerk I declined to do any more work under tho circumstances. At the first committee meeting after this the Mayor dropped the inquiry, as before stated, although I told him I was quite prepared to go on with such inquiry. He further, at a later meeting, revived the question of roll-stuffing, which had previously been disposed of, and mixed undervaluation up with it in such a way as to completely bamboozle the councillors. " One Interested" may be correct in stating that another man is not to be engaged to make up the rolls (burgess, etc.), but if he turns to the finding of the committee on the alleged roll-stuffing, he will sco that this duty is in future to be performed under the supervision of the town clerk, and it must lie manifest to him that that officer, with his other duties, cannot do such work efficiently. Perhaps the temporary clerk will lie further kept on to do this work, and, as far as I am concerned, I hope it may bo so. By-the-byc, is not the heading under which this correspondence is written a misnomer? Would not "Municipal Muddling" bo a better term? Is "One Interested" awaro that on tho day Mr. Entriean was elected a vote was also taken which resulted in a proposed loan being defeated, and, if I remember rightly, the present Mayor took great kudos to himself for defeating tho same; yet, if " One Interested" is in " the know," he should be aware that a loan has been ■floated, or, rather, another overdraft, which amounts to the same thing, resulting in the ratepayers being bled to tho tune of £6 per week, He must also lie awaro that the impost of 10 per cent, charged on all rates overdue after six months cannot be enforced tins year—another loss to the Council. HlO question therefore arises whether the term " Municipal Muddling" is not a better term than retrenchment, as he will seo that under the present regime the valuation is costing £7 Per week, without the rolls, while formerly FA covered tho cost of valuation and compiling of rolls, loss of the 10 per cent, above stated and extra interest on overdraft of £6 per v,, °' c- lam not awaro who " Fairplay or " One Interested" may be, but the foimer is nearer the truth than the latter would care to admit.— am, etc., William Gulliver, Late City Valuer.