MOUNT ALBERT ENGINEER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19753, 28 September 1927, Page 14

MOUNT ALBERT ENGINEER

REASONS: FOR DISMISSAL. STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL DISSATISFIED WITH WORK. '' f; ? " : S SPECIFIC, INSTANCES GIVEN. The Mount Albert Borough Council has replied to the criticism stirred up in the district by its- dismissal of the engineer, Mr. W. H. Cook. A special meeting was called last evening to consider the matter, when it was decided to appoint a new engineer, applications to close on October 31. Until the appointment of the new 'engineer, Mr. W. F. Bagby is to take control under the direction of the Mayor, Mr, L. E. Rhodes, and the Works .Committee. The council went into committee to discuss the report prepared on the engineer's dismissal, an amendment moved by Mr. B. Brigham that the matter be dealt with in open council being defeated The report 'was adopted "Although under no obligation to dr so, vet at the invitation of the late en gineer, Mr. W. H. Cook, and at the request of certain ratepayers, we giv* the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Cook," says the report. "We have re framed from doing so before, as we thought it would be in Mr. Cook's own interests if he left quietly, without the council being' compelled to advertise the fact that he had been" dismissed from its service. The - council had determined that his . administration was so unsatis factory that he must be dismissed, and therefore" any silence there has been on the of the council has been solely put of consideration for Mr. Cook. Four Grounds Stated. "In dealing' with this matter the council feels';'its ; first duty is to the ratepayers, irrespective. of personal feelings and wishes and that, being trustees for the ratepayers and electors, nothing should interfere with its proper administration - the trust reposed in it. It was for these reasons only that Mr. Cook's services were dispensed with. "In our opinion, broadly. speaking, the grounds for hia r dismissal are as follows: —(1) That Mr.'- Cook's retention as borough -engineer was not m the interests of the ratepayers and electors of Mount Albeit; that Mr. Cook was dismissed because x>t the. unsatisfactory manner in which the " work has'" been carried out under his administration; (3) that there has been a general over-estimating of costs and the counci? has not been getting, in many mstaness, value for money spent; (4j--of ..this dissatisfaction on the part of the council Mr. Cook has had ample notice " "• The report goes on to deal spwiificaHv with these charges. It says:—"The New North Road allocation for the portion recently " concreted was £34,089. Mr. Cook's estimate of the cost of the work, •in accordance with plans* and specifications prepared, was 1*30,37b. The actual contract price was £23,810. The council suggests that on a £30.000 contract there should not be an over-estimation by its engineer of approximately £6500. Estimate and Contract Price.

" In another case in connection with a .Sewer contract recently let, the engineer's estimate-was £3177 and the contract price was actyaliy' £2214. The engineer's estimate in this case was, therefore, £963 over the a|ttial contract price In other words, tract thefeHvas an approximate over estistation of £IOOO 'Again,"to compare the costs nt v.inous voiks undei .Mr Cook's super' Vision we wous'HfeCfo a footpath which was constructed, in Aliend-il" Road'.. 530 yds. long, with' an Bft - far. cd. path and lift, grass margin bordered .with a concrete kerb. This work took si a months to complete The la! out- cost £763, and ■,material £6Bl. making a total of £1444 Tliis work cost £SB a chain, or £33 a chain for , labour only It represents an approximate' total cost of over £2 10s a yard. "This work has to he compared with work doiM 3$ ' i'podiwt'ii Street, Mount Eden, a boundary street between the two The council found this road is 270 yds„ long, has a 36ft. carriageway, and two "15ft.' tarred footpaths, and has a good permanently-sealed surface across the entire width of the street. This street also cost £1444, representing £ll9 a chain, therefore, it cost Mount Albert £53 a chain to construct an Bft. footpath and grasis border, whifo Monnt Eden did have reconstructed a read 36ft. wide, and two 15ft. wide footpaths at £ll9 a chain. "Reimdfw Avenue, recently under conBtractionV will cost £206 a chain to com plete. The council thinks the cost excessive and has frequently complained about the 'way the work has been carried out during construction Cost of Drainage. ""We hare-picked out a few illustra- j tions,"* the report says. "These, the coun- i eil suggests, bear out its contention that ! there have been over-estimating of costs j and extravagant expenditure An example of proposed or suggested extravagant expenditure by Mr Cook is in the road construction of King Street On account of a small drain leakage Mr Cook suggested a drainage deviation estimated by him to cost £436 The council refused to adopt this suggestion, and the difficultywas eventually overcome- at a cost of approximately £IOO Even this, in the council's' opinion was too much If Mr. Cook had- carried out the council's instructions. which he omitted to do, it would have cost considerably less than even- £IOO I? the council, however, had adopted Mr. Cook's suggestion, it would havs cost it an extra £336 of the ratepayers' money Other matters can be mentioned, but these are sufficient to give an indication of the grounds of the dissatisfaction. , "The combined Finance and Works Committee? set up specially to deal with j borough administration met on .Tune 14. J 1527. Siibseqnent to tVmt iVii? committee I met on four other separate occasions, and j at most of meetings dissatisfaction j with the administration wr« discussed. | The first two meetings, a? far Hack as j June, were devoted almost entirely to the j question of dissatisfaction. At each meet- | jng every councillor and the engineer were j present when these questions were discussed ' and some of the meeting® extended over i a period of four hours There is no exeu«e jfor Mr. Cook or any councillor to say that l he or they had no idea of the reasons for Mr. Cook's dismissal tnquiry by Council. *' Mr. Cook practically admi's that he knew he had not the confidence of the council. He » reported to have stated in ; the press that he had contemplated resign i ing at an earlier date The inquiry ex- j tended from' June 14 to Angus* 30. To j show why the council became dissatisfied j it may He mentioned that on May 10 the f engineer "was asked to bring down a com- t ptehensive report showing the works j undertaken to date and their estimated!cost, the-; eost -of completed works, -the j amount -required to complete the unfinished works, and to prepare a schedule of the proposed work for the current year in connection with loans. " It was not until 16 weeks later that the council was able to get a correct return. Previous to this request, Mr. Cook did not -keep the council informed nor did he sub to it any-statements showing the council's financial position in connection *nti* tfaa 1926 loan expenditure and combailments.

"As the result of these five special meetings, at eacb of which Mr. Cook was present, and in view of the excessive costs of some of the works contained in his report, the general dissatisfaction expressed repeatedly by individual members of the council, and the complaints of alleged wasteful expenditure as officially recorded in the joint committee minutes, it was at this final meeting that Mr. Cook was requested to hand in his resignation. It is therefore simply futile for Mr. Cook or any councillors to say that he or they did not know of the grounds for Mr. Cook's dismissal. "Mr. Cook had complete control up to about three months ago. It, was then unanimously decided, and Councillors Brigham and Russell both agreed, thai a special committee of four councillors out of eight, one councillor from each ward, should be set up., This special committee was set up as the outcome of Mr. Cook's action in discharging local men with large families, and the general dissatisfaction with his administration. For instance, among those dismissed by Mr. Cook were men with large families resident in the borough, one having nine children and another six. These men were reinstated and paid by the unanimous vote of the council, at which meeting both Councillors Brigham and Russell were present. They were not reinstated by the committee, as Mr. Cook is reported to have stated. "The statement by Mr. Cook that the Mayor had approached him immediately after the election and instructed him to dismiss any men who were disloyal at the election is absolutely untrue. The council wishes tc place on record its regret that Mr. Cook should have made such an unfounded allegation. The deputy-mayor, who was present at the interview referred to, also emphatically states that there was not a scintilla of truth in Mr. Cook's statement. "The councillors, with every confidence, leave the issue to the ratepayers, and feel sure that statements made by a disgruntled dismissed employee will carry no weight with them when considered in the light of cold facts. The council feels that it would not be doing its duty to the ratepayers if it allowed the engineer to spend money which, in its opinion, was unjustified and amounted to extravagance."