HARBOUR BOARD MATTERS AND METHODS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15233, 21 February 1913, Page 4

HARBOUR BOARD MATTERS AND METHODS.

Sir,' The letter from Mr. J. H. Gunson published by you on Saturday is an interesting commentary on the way-the board of which ho is chairman carries out its duties. For instance, tho board decides to. have a pilot launch, and, without consulting its engineer on the matter, sets \ip a committee to deal with it. This comf&iittcc, still'; without consulting tho engineer, who from his position is tho board's expert in such matters, calls for tenders and designs for a launch suitable for the purpose. Mr. Gunson says that " tho engineer was never consulted till after the tenders : were received and the competitive designs were in tho hands of tho committee." We have often had it assarted that in some of its methods the board i•_ antiquated, not to ray -unfortunate, and it really looks as if tho assertion had a good foundation; and one is tempted, to ask, Does the board always follow this method? For, if so, then one can understand many things in connection with its past which have been hitherto hard to understand, for .tho engineer, instead of being tho designer and tho exnort in matters , connected with his department, is only called in, after the board or a committee thereof has received " tenders and competitive designs," and his opinion is desired on some technical point. Then, again, to judge from Mi:. Gunson's letter, the matter of tenders preceded that of competitive designs, for he always in. his letter puts that word first; " tenders and designs" ho says repeatedly, when oven an ordinary " man in the street" would have wanted designs before ho called for tenders. Then take these two sentences from Mr. Gunson's letter, and say if they can be reconciled with ordinary . business methods: "The engineer never did estimate power required," and this, ."The engineer submitted to the committee ail tho weights and full particulars regarding the engines." If the first of these statements is true, then the second ono cannot be true, for " full particulars" must of necessity mean particulars as to tho power of tho engines. Then Mr. Gunson says that the committee accepted a tender " retaining tho right to substitute a British engine. This was eventually done, two 75-hotwo-power British engines being adopted." By whoso advice were they adopted, Mr, Gunson? Tho methods adopted by the Harbour Board in its administration- of tho affairs of the harbour are of public importance, and I think justify any Auckland' citizen in criticising those methods when exposed by the chairman. H.N.B.

• Si r> I have read with great interest the correspondence in connection with th© Harbour Board launch. Many ; others besides myself consider, that an. expenditure of about £3000 on a launch for the pilot service was unnecessary, and a gross waste of public money. However, th© board in its wisdom ■ decided -■ to have an oil launch for the pilot service, and stipulated that the speed must be 12 knots. The cost of running such an oil launch as compared with a steam one apparently was not considered, although the chairman of tho board states tho engineer recommended that steam was the most economical. There is no doubt a serious blunder has been made, and that tho new pilot launch will be an addition to the many white elephants of .'tho board; but the trouble now is that the launch (whether suitable or .unsuitable, and certainly most extravagantly expensive to run) has been built, and falls far short of tho 12 knots speed intended to bo attained. The question naturally arises, "Who is responsible for this wretched blunder' Mr. Gunson says the engineer is not to blame, and states definitely that tho contractors guaranteed a Bpeed of 12 knots, although they in the first instance objected to th© type of engines which the committee of the board insisted on having. If this is so tho responsibdity falls cither upon the contractors or the committeo of tho board. If on the contractors, then lot the penalty be enforced. If on the committee, then let the committee take tho blame. Regarding Mr. Virtue a cheap sneer at Mr. Bradney s voiceraising over what invariably turns out to bo a mare's nest," I can inform Mr. Virtue that this is certainly not a ' mare s nest, and that tho public of Auckland holds a very different opinion to Mr. Virtue, and reeosrnises that it is a good thing that Mr. Bradney and some other members 01 the board to "raise their voices' in defence of the public interest, • St. Helieks Bat.