WHO LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG?

NZ Truth, Issue 1152, 29 December 1927, Page 7

WHO LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG?

"Do You Know ? "

Mayor Resents Statement That Council Employee Was Sacked For Revealing "Stable Information"

HOW THE RATEPAYERS' MONEY IS SQUANDERED

DURING the course of his resume of the facts upon the charges tabled

by Councillor Murray, Lawyer McLiver gave the committee a definite assurance that he would bring evidence to substantiate any. definite charges made. Continuing, Lawyer McLiver asked for an- assurance from the committee that any employees of the Council would not be punished for giving evidence because they happened to be members of the staff.

Mayor: I think it is a downright insult to suggest that we would victimize anybody who comes along and speaks the truth. It is belittling the committee to ask it to do so. I am not going to give my word at all that I won't victimize or I will. We are here to get the truth and the man that speaks the truth is the man I want. Chairman: I think I could give an assurance from the mayor and Council that they would not deal harshly with any employee who is working in the public interests, so long as he does not incriminate himself and somebody else.

Lawyer McLiver: I feel constrained to answer the remarks made by the mayor. Let me repeat again, when a member of the City Council staff has been peremptorily sacked because of a suspicion that —

Mayor: You have to prove that. Lawyer McLiver: I will certainly prove it. I have evidence to support it. He is- sacked, and a suggestion is made to him that he has given information to Councillor Murray.

Is it an insult that I stick up for a man who is sacked on the day he is suspected of making statements?

Councillor Casey: Prove the statement.

Councillor Davles: In reading the evidence taken at the previous meeting it was suggested by one of the witnesses that they were advised that if they wished to retain their jobs they had to give information to Councillor Murray. The inference to be drawn is that anyone keeping back information would get the sack.

Waste Charges

Lawyer McLiver: That witness will be called by me or the Council and a different aspect put on the matter.

Touching on the charges concerning the kerbs and pitchers contracts aiid the city engineer's estimate, Lawyer McLiver said that in 1925 the price for this material was high — 1/1 tor kerbs and 1/0% for pitchers. The price at the present time was considerably lower, as evidence would be called to show 4d. and sd. per foot respectively.

The Council, he said, was still paying the 1926 prices, and the suggestion was that if orders to outside suppliers had" not been griven the orders to the contractors would have been fulfilled, and the Council would now be able to buy in the best market.

Dealing with another matter, Lawyer McLiver said: An employee of the Council is the owner of a quarry supplying: kerbs and pitchers. He has visited the quarry and paid Uie auarrymen at different times. 1 am not suggesting that these kerbs and pitchers have been supplied to the Council. Evidence will be called on that point. He is apparently one of the officers with whom is vested the duty of ordering the pitchers. It seems to be a wrong thing to me.

In answer to repeated requests that he name the official concerned, Lawyer McLlver stated he would do so at the proper time and that anything he stated he would prove.

Councillor Patterson, chairman of the Stores and Supplies Committee, in explanation of the kerbs and pitchers matter said that when the 260,000 feet odd of kerbs and the same number of pitchers were ordered from the nine suppliers It was not intended that the material should be supplied within a year. The people concerned in the first place could not supply, and the department had to go outside and buy, otherwise the work would have been held up.

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) !lli!ll!|l|!lilllll!ll!IJl!|[|llli|ll!ll § The Special . Committee set up to inquire into Council- § I lor W. H. Murray's charges of waste and serious irregular- | | ities in the Auckland City Council has at last got down to | | business. . When the meeting adjourned, after sitting on the j | afternoon of December 13 and the morning of December 14, | | matters had progressed to the stage where the town clerk | 1 and the chief engineer had been cross-examined by Lawyer g 1 F. McLiver, who is conducting the case for Councillor Mur- g I ray. From this point onwards the Committee decided that | I. Councillor Murray must call his witnesses before any fur- g I ther Council officials were called upon to enter the witness g | box. " |

Under cross-examination by Lawyer McLiver, the town clerk, J. S. Brigham, was unable to throw much light on the question of the kerbs and pitchers, the matter being one, he said, which could be explained by City Engineer Bush. Lawyer McLiver: Were you interviewed by any contractors who complained that they were unable to get their orders fulfilled for supplying kerbs and pitchers?

Not that I can remember. The town clerk also said that he could not remember receiving any written complaint from any contractors on this subject.

Lawyer McLiver: Were you aware that Mr. Mathieson had a quarry on which kerbs and pitchers were cut and also stone to be used for a special purpose? Town Clerk: I am not aware of it now. I have heard it said so. I have heard statements in the street, but T have no definite knowledge that he has a quarry.

Lawyer McLiver: If a suggestion came to you, aa chief administrative officer of this city, that one of your officials was the owner of a quarry, do you consider you were discharging your duty to the ratepayers in not making immediate inquiries?

Yes. unless an allegation was made that he was usinpr improper methods in his quarry. It is not my business to make inquiries.

So as chief executive officer you do not consider it your dutv to inquire into that?

No, I do not. Do you approve of higher Council officials signing statements to Councillor Murray in reerard to matters that are being investigated?

I should like to see some of the statements before I say that.

Would you be prepared to discipline an officer who made a statement to Councillor Murray which he honestly believed? By reason of the fact that he made that statement — no.

After some further questions concerning firms supplying metal, the city engineer was then called. Regarding his estimate of kerbs and pitchers, Mr. Bush said that his estimate went to the Stores and Purchasing Department so that the quantity of this material likely to be used during the twelve months could be ascertained. Pencil notes showed the quantity that the Council would require in the year to be 163,500, but owing to the fact that there were cer-

tain quantities quoted per month, the order against each quantity per month was based on what was thought to be the estimated quantity the suppliers could deliver during the year.

There had been a slight slip made, stated Mr. Bush, in furnishing that information. The quantity per month was erroneously assumed to be the stated requirements for the year.

Lawyer McLiver: Can you tell us on what basis you estimated you would use 516,000 feet of kerbs and pitchers in the year 1925-26?

Mi\ Bush: I prepared for the City Council, before it went in for the £ 710,000 loan, a complete schedule of different streets to be done in various parts of the city. It was after this programme had been authorized that the prices were obtained for the kerbs and pitchers and the estimate obtained. Lawyer McLiver: As a matter of fact you did not use even half the kerbs and pitchers during the year? I should say about half. So that in giving your estimate to the Council you were about 100 per cent, out Yes. The figures "I gave were really based on the quantity per month whic h could be supplied by the various firms. Did you personally, or do you know that your subordinate officers were purchasing outside the co ntracts that you had recommended i n 1925? Yes. Lawyer McLiver: Your explanation as to the purchases being made outside the contractors is, I think, that those contractors could not supply enough

stone?

I understand that the supplies Avere not coming along quickly enough. Replying to a

question as to whether he had been approached by any of the contractors with complaints that they were unable to get orders, or did he know whether any of his officers had been approached, Mr. Bush said he remembered Mr. Tyler, assistant engineer, coming to him from time to time. Mr. Tyler had shown him certain lists that had been supplied by different men. They had discussed the placing of orders.

Regarding- the. orders to outsiders he had suggested to Mr. Tyler that he confer with the purchasing officer and see what was best to do in the matter.

Lawyer McLiver: Were you ever advised by anyone that Mr. Mathieson

had a quarry which was producing kerbs and pitchers?

Yes. I heard that was the case and I sent for Mr. Mathleson. He told me that he was interested with another man in a section which he wanted to clear, and he was having kerbs cut there. Men were cutting I understood under a royalty. The information he gave me was that nothing of any kind was being supplied to the Council through those sections. He told me he would not be "such a fool as to do such a thing-." I said, "Well, you want to be very careful in a matter of this kind. Personally I would avoid having anything to do with it. I have refused to have anything to do with any undertaking that might be supplying material to the Council." He was fully Impressed with the desirability of this, and so far as I am aware nothing from that source ever comes to the Council. When had Mr. Bush first become aware that Mr. Mathieson had this quarry or was interested in it? His reply was about 18 months or two years ago. Lawyer McLiver: Do you know if Mr. Mathieson still owns the quarry, or do you know what I know, that he sold it quite recently? No, I do not even know that. Were you informed by a man named Tostevin what he was doing at Mr. Mathieson's section? I may have been; I have no very distinct recollection of such an interview. Lawyer McLiver: I have a declaration. Do you know if Mr. Tostevin made any complaint to you about Mr. Mathieson when he called? Mr. Bush: I will wait until Mr. Tostevin is called. Lawyer McLiver: That is an ingenious answer, Mr. Bush. You do not remember any. Mr. Bush said he remembered a - man with a curious name coming to see him, but could not recollect any details of the conversation. He remembered seeing a Mr. Bowers about carting, but not about Mr. Mathieson's quarry. Lawyer McLiver: Have you ever

seen that document before?' — I could not swear one way or the other about that.

Lawyer McLiver then read the document which purported to be a copy agreement between . Mathieson and Gordon and four others wnereby the latter agreed to cut kerbs and pitchers at Penrose on Mathieson and Gordon's quarry for the. sum of <5%d. per foot. The document was dated 18/D/26. It was witnessed by "J. Mathieson."

"Do you know if this is Mr. Mathieson's handwriting?" he asked.

Mr. Bush: Yes, that is his-hand-writing, and it is his signature.

Lawyer McLiver intimated the document would be put in later.

"Did you ever make any inquiry as to whether or not any of this stone was being- sold to the Council, except from questioning Mr. Mathieson?" he asked.

Mr. Bush: Tes; I discussed the matter with Mr. Tyler, and told him to look into the matter very closely. Was anything reported to you? Yes, the report to me was that there was no evidence whatever that any kerbs and pitchers from that section were coming to Council jobs.

Was it reported to you that a Mr. Bowers went in to see Mr. Black and informed him of dealings with kerbs and pitchers?

Mr. Bush's answer was not audible at the Press table.

He knew a man named Buisson who was supplying kerbs and pitchers to the City Council, but it was not on his suggestion or .advice that supplies were being purchased from this man. He knew Buisson was not one of the nine contractors and his first Knowledge that he was supplying was when he signed the first vouchers for payment.

He could give no reason why the supply of kerbs and pitchers from Buisson should have been discontinued ana he had no suggestions to offer as to the reason- beyond looking up the files , to see when the supply ceased. He knew that the contracts for kerbs and pitchers were unfulfilled, also that twelve months ago Williamson's contract was unfulfilled.

Lawyer McLiver: And you allowed the Council to go on paying 1/1 to outsiders when you knew that orders on unfulfilled contracts were obtainable?

Mr. Bush's reply was that the committee had already been advised that the Council officials thought Williamson had gone out of business. It was Mr. Tyler who told him that about 9 or 12 months ago.

Mr. Bush said he had no letter on his file from Williamson since February, 1925, which would show the former had complained that he could not get orders or have his contract completed.

When the proceedings were resumed on Wednesday morning, before the cross-examination of Mr. Bush was continued, there was considerable discussion as to whether or not Lawyer McLiver should give the committee the names of all his witnesses. In the Magistrate's or Supreme Courts the names would be given, the chairman said. There would be no question of tampering with witnesses.

Lawyer McLiver said certain members of the engineering staff had been round to various officials and asked them if they had made any statements to Councillor Murray, and had said they were not to do so. Was that a right and proper course .to pursue? he asked. "In view of the fact that one man has been sacked after a conversation of that nature,, you can see my evident reluctance in giving the details that are requested," said Lawyer McLiver.

Tiie chairman replied that he considered Mr. Bush was perfectly justified in finding out whether employees and staff were loyal. Loyalty was the first characteristic of an employee. If the engineer found that any employee Avas disloyal to the. department then it was his duty to investigate, and to dismiss the employee. "That is my view of the matter," he concluded. "I also see why Mr. Hale got the sack."

Lawyer McLiver said there was no suggestion of disloyalty at the time the conversation to'ok place. It was in regard to personal matters which would be developed later.

The meeting adjourned after further discussion.