CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 20447, 27 March 1928, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

TOTE MONEY OVERPAID. To the Editor. Sir, —My attention has been drawn to the advertisement in your issue of Saturday the 17th inst. over the signature “Totalizator Proprietor, Dunedin.” I beg to state that neither I nor any member of my permanent staff had anything to do with the insertion of same. While I did not insert the advertizement there is no doubt that someone was overpaid something like £5O at the Wyndham Trots, and I would point out that the person who knowingly receives more than he is entitled to is, according to the law, guilty of theft. Some of my men reckon they know the person who received the money, but we are reluctant to take extreme steps as the consequences must be serious to the person who received the money. It will be satisfactory if the money is returned to the Times Office I am, etc., W. F. JAMES.

THE TOWN ENGINEER’S STATEMENT.

To the Editor. Sir,- The ratepayers who have taken an intelligent interest in the difference which has arisen between the Borough Council and the Town Engineer have had time to fully appreciate the latter’s statement at its face value. As my name has figured fairly prominently in that statement I have the option of either referring to the matter in open council or of following the example set by the Town Engineer, and make my statement through the Press. I am not going to allow the statement to pass without making some comment, criticism and refutation. 1 have with your permission decided upon the latter course, and in making such a statement on my own account I have no desire to injure the reputation of any individual. A quotation from Monk may be apropos: “No man was ever written out of reputation but by himself.” The chief concern of most local bodies is that of finance. Most of us are agreed that any sign of waste or extravagance should be avoided if possible. Is it possible, therefore, to safeguard the finance qf a local body? If so how is that desirable consummation to be brought about? Tlie question could be asked are we getting full value for services rendered in all municipal departments? Certain sums are placed on the estimates at the beginning of each financial year. Who is to safeguard that expenditure? Ratepayers I imagine have sufficient confidence in certain individuals to look after their interests in that respect for at least two years. At the end of that time they have the right to either re-elect or reject. If economic expenditure is to be the guiding principle of a councillor what action is he expected to take in order to safeguard the spending of that money? If, therefore, one has reason to believe that certain works upon which a good sum has been allocated appears wasteful or has proved wasteful, is this sort of thing to be looked askance at because inquiry into it may hurt, the feelings of some individual? Are the interests of the individual of paramount importance and that of the ratepayers of secondary consideration? If an inquiry is deemed necessary is one to be so circumspect that questions must be couched in such terms that they must suit the individual and not the occasion? There is no sentiment in business however disagreeable an inquiry might be. The Town Engineer has taken upon himself the responsibility of placing his side of the case through the Press. In his opening remarks he makes use of (he following words:—“That there has been a determined effort to discredit me ” “that I have been deliberately and determinedly misrepresented.” “That the Mayor and one or two of his associates have now shown their hand.” As these are strong statements one might be pardoned for doubting them in the absence of some adequate substantiation. Why should the dignity which one would expect to be attached to an honorable profession be partly obscured by this kind of innuendo. The Engineer at the outset appears to adopt an attitude savouring more of malice than of loyalty. He has made certain statements regarding myself and has made use of the columns of your paper for that purpose. Personally I have no objection to the course he adopted. It may help to clear the atmosphere. I accused the Engineer of neglect of duty and waste of public money. His first complaint so far as I am conI cerned has reference to twenty-two questions which he alleges were sprung at him | at the second inquiry. It so happens that 1 was the only councillor who submitted questions in writing, a copy of which was handed to the Engineer. I was not the only questioner by any means. Mr. Gumbley was given the option of either answering the questions verbally or in writing. Where, however, a question could be answered by a simple yes or no it was quite superfluous to get it in writing. Questions 1 to 6 which are mentioned in his statement had reference his attendance at his office, a place where one might expect he would be easily located. The questions were not offensive, but relevant and were prompted by the fact that ratepayers complained to me that he was a most difficult man to find. Is it not reasonable to expect that a Town Engineer should either be found at his office, or in the vicinity of some work where borough workmen are employed in order that inquiring applicants may be able to locate and interview him ? In these circumstances I consider the questions were to the purpose. Questions 8 to 12 were not- unreasonable. According to his evidence his system of accounting and recording were the acme of perfection. I have always had grave doubts about his methods myself. Questions 10 and 12 were answered in the affirmative and No. 11 in the negative. Questions 13 to 22 involve the clearing up of several reports which were then outstanding and were afterwards referred to the Engineer in writing by the Town Clerk for written replies. They are still outstanding. Mr. Gumbley’s complaint that he was taken by surprise by me is therefore not in accordance with fact. Regarding Question 14 you will notice that, he states he was not in charge prior to the 22nd November, 1926. I was well aware of this fact myself when I asked Question No. 1. The clause which he quotes and which I quoted is an extract from the Special Road Committee’s report of the Ist November, 1926, and consisted of at least two clauses and reads as follows: 1. Having asked they new Town Engineer (Mr. E. A. Gumbley) to report, (a) What saving would accrue, etc., and (b) what would be the cost, etc., and (c) To a width of 40ft, etc. 2. Having instructed the Town Engineer (Mr E. A. Gumbley) (a) To spray between the two outer tram rails in Dee and Tay streets (instead of paving with hotmix) etc. Seeing that Mr Gumbley pleads ignorance because he had not taken up duty until three weeks afterwards how is if. that on the 241 h March following he reported that he understood it. was the intention of the Council to pave between the tram rails in Dee street by the penetration method but that it would cost 3|d less per square yard to lay a thin coat of hotmix and that he gave instructions to use hotmix. If, therefore, the Engineer could report on Clause 2 above mentioned which concerned the tram track what was the reason of his failure to report on Clause 1 of the same report ? This is surely evidence of a looseness in his system of recording. This report is the first he should have tackled after his appointment My question No. 1 on this subject was, therefore, quite in order. Question No. 15 had reference fo a number of questions arising out of the recent gravel and sand controversy. Mr Gumbley took three weeks to answer them but never a word in his statement about them. I presume that the article which appeared in your columns on the 28th November last was deemed by him to be sufficient and was the best answer that he could supply I at that time, notwithstanding the fact that

“Argus” in your issue of the 24th November asked more searching questions than I did. The Engineer when questioned about W. H. Crooks’ straightout denials (see your issue of the 29th November last) was unable to refute the latter’s statements. Here are two questions put to the Engineer regarding the gravel contract: 1. What was the estimated saving on gravel for the last five months? (July-December). 2. What would have been the saving for the previous seven months if tenders had been invited and accepted at the present rate? (Gravel was costing 12/6 and 13/6 and after tenders were called it was secured for 7/5 and 8/5). His reply to No. 1 was £245 and to No. 2 £l2OO. If the Works Committee had recognized earlier that the Engineer lacked a little foresight a considerable saving on gravel alone was within the bounds of possibility. If the Works Committee again- had remained silent or in ignorance in regard to the royalty to be charged on Otatara sand the probability is that the Council would have been compelled to pay 5/11 per cubicyard instead of 3/5 as at present. Even now we are paying 3d. more than was really necessary, but as the Engineer named a particular pit out of which the sand had to be taken, and declined the responsibility of taking sand from another pit which was considered equally as good, his judgment in the matter although questioned at the time, was agreed to. The effect of his reply to Question No. 19 regarding the increased cost of the extra 8 feet which he proposes to add to the width of the roadway under the £60,000 loan remains to be seen. Regarding Question No. 7 I have before me an extract from the Town Engineer’s schedule and conditions of duties wherein it is specifically provided that he is required to confer regularly with the Town Clerk as chief administrative officer of the Council to discuss the general policy of the works in progress, the scope and proposals for contemplated works —and all other kindred matters of administrative detail. In his statement he states that, “Councillor Cooper asked me if I conferred with the Town Clerk upon engineering matters.” I did no such thing, therefore, the silly statement is not in accordance with fact. Mr. Gumbley would also lead your readers to believe that he has performed wonders at the waterworks. The coupling up of the tramway bore was a good move on the part of the Works Committee as the increased supply secured from this source probably saved the situation in so far as a possible shortage was concerned. With or without this particular supply he claims to have increased the amount being pumped by 10,000 gallons daily at very little expense. How this has been brought about is a puzzle to me. For instance last April he informed the ratepayers that the supply from No. 5 bore when all the bores were working together had shrunk to 5,000 gallons additional and was still shrinking. I have a recollection that in January, 1927, he reported that he could save £24,000 on the £74,000 road loan by using sand carpet, but in January, 1928, it was discovered that he did not mean that, he could actually save the amount. We may possibly get a different story about the limitations or otherwise of No. 5 bore. He, however, states that I, as a member of the Works Committee knew that he had increased the supply by 10,000 gallons per hour. I should like to know when he made such a statement. What I do know is this: That his reason for recommending that the new pump should go into No. 4 bore was because he could get to as low a point as anywhere else, and what was more important, he could pump 40,000 gallons per hour with least interference with other bores. If this work had been- carried out as I was led to believe it could, then his claim to an increased supply would have been justified. You will notice that Mr. Gumbley is most exact in recapitulating a telephone conversation so far back as October last, but at the inquiry his memory did not stand him in good stead when questioned about the information regarding the strata to be met with before a commencement was made to sink the shaft in this particular bore. He, however, goes on to tell us that we have had the driest season for many years past, yet for the first time no restrictions have been placed on the use of water. When one considers that all the water at the present time is being pumped from Nos. 2, 4 and 5 bores, and in 1924 from Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 bores, with the very same plant with stringent restrictions why did the Town Engineer attribute the 1924 shortage to natural causes. Mr. Gumbley was very wise perhaps to omit all mention of his attempt and subsequent failure to sink the shaft at No. 4 bore. He was sanguine that the new pump would be supplying plenty of water in three months time from last October. We have not yet been informed

what this gamble as he described it has cost the Council. This is an item of expenditure that could have been avoided if the correct method of tackling the job had been known. The Engineer refers to a matter of sinking a well on reclaimed land. This I presume arose out of a complaint made by a Mr Curren on the 22nd December, 1926, wherein he drew the Council's attention to the serious position regarding his . water shortage. Mr. Gumbley has evidently forgotten that on the 25th of the following month he reported that this was an urgent matter and that water was urgently required. He was authorized in the following April to go ahead with the work. I believe the work was completed a few weeks ago but I have no knowledge that he reported in writing to that effect. In connection with the Tay street gang of workmen the Engineer laboriously deals with the accusation that the gang under Withington was marking time. I, however, can corroborate the waste of time taken over this particular piece of work myself. There are others who could possibly do likewise. Practically the same thing was going on in the Crescent and Dee street about the same time. In this connection the Engineer stated that he was not satisfied with one of his responsible subordinates. Is not this admission proof that certain Work in his department was not being carried out satisfactorily? So far as the condition of the roads are concerned—l refer to the use of gravel particularly—l admit the Town Engineer has done good work. Unfortunately tjje late Town Engineer did not favour the use of gravel. It might be asked, however, does it require a genius to discover a suitable gravel for road maintenance in Southland, or is there any engineering difficulty in the application of it ? The question of cost is a factor that requires just as careful consideration, but unfortunately that cannot be determined until the expiry of a certain period. The Town Engineer complains about the treatment he was subjected to at the inquiry. I for one consider that his action in ventilating his dissatisfaction with the Council’s finding was a grave breach of discipline. He had the right and had sufficient time to prepare his case and place it through the correct channel. The resolution as passed by the Council was based on evidence heard at two meetings at which Mr. Gumbley was in attendance, at which he had, and at which he took advantage of the opportunity to rebut that evidence and to state his own case. He evidently failed to convince councillors who heard the evidence to take up his defence. He subsequently tried to secure the support and enlist the sympathy of the public by publishing a statement contrary to the standing orders of the Council. He has now Jiad two lessons, the last perhaps being a severe one. The resolution in question gives him another chance. It is hoped he will profit by it and do the work for which he is paid a handsome salary.—l am, etc., G. R. COOPER. Invercargill, March 26, 1928.