POWER BOARD

Southland Times, Issue 21607, 20 January 1932, Page 6

POWER BOARD

STAFF SALARIES REVIEW DEFERRED BY BOARD GOVERNMENT’S POLICY AWAITED '• A matter brought forward by Mr J. T. Carswell at yesterday’s meeting of the Southland Electric Power Board that the salaries of all the employees of the board and also all overhead charges should be reviewed by the Finance Committee, who should be asked to report, with recommendations, to the February meeting of the board was considered by the majority ol the members present as somewhat premature in nature, the general consensus of opinion being that the wiser course to be pursued in the matter would be to await the announcement, at the forthcoming session of Parliament, of the Government’s suggested steps to combat the present gra\e economic situation of the Dominion. After considerable discussion, Mr Carswell, with the consent, of his seconder, Mr P. Arnott, agreed to alter his motion to accord with an amendment moved by Mr W. McChesney that consideration of the question should be deferred until after March 31 next and, in that form, the original motion was carried unanimously. In speaking to his motion, Mr Carswell said that the board had started a new year which, unfortunately, did not give any further encouragement of prosperity than had been the case in 1931. He, therefore, considered that the board should go thoroughly into its affairs and exhaust every avenue of saving without, of course, being unduly harsh upon the employees. It was impossible to obtain further revenue for there were repeated requests, at each meeting, for reductions in the charges, which could not possibly be increased. "We seem bound in the interests of our constituents — the ratepayers—to do what we can to meet the situation,” continued Mr Carswell. “It will, at least, be a gesture on our part to show we are doing what we can to meet the position.” Chairma'n’s The chairman (Mr E. Bowmar) said that, as no doubt had other members ako, he had given considerable thought to the motion. He considered, however, as regards the question of a review of the overncad charges, that such a step was unnecessary. They had been carefully examined in the past and he said it was doubtful if it would be wise to recommence further investigations into that phase of the motion. "I should say we’ve already thoroughly examined these overhead expenses, and, to take the anology of the garden, the weeds have not yet taken time to grow again,” declared Mr Bowmar. “Like Mr Carswell, I think something should be done in respect to the salaries question, but seeing there is a special session of Parliament next month when drastic economy stepswill no doubt be adopted, I think the matter could be held over for a little while so that we can see in the meantime what is happening, and then we may come to a better and more satisfactory decision. The requirements of this board are obtained as cheaply as can be by the staff. We are not overstaffed and I do not think it is right for the members of the board to believe that we, above others, require to attend to this matter.”

Agreement with Mr Carswell’s remarks regarding the review of the salaries was voiced by Mr W. Hinchey. “As regards the overhead expenses, Mr McGibbon and myself thoroughly went into these and we could effect no material reduction without there being a likelihood of the efficiency of the board becoming endangered,” he continued. He did not think the board should single out its own staff for treatment other than that being adopted by any other borough or county council. “It would be a decided injustice to our staff if we effect further reductions and others don’t,” he said. “If the civil servants and the staffs of local bodies are to be reduced in salaries then our staff will also have to suffer a reduction, but at the present juncture I do not think we should inflict an injustice on our staff.” Continuing, Mr Hinchey said he considered that if there was a reduction in the salaries of the board’s staff the consumers should get that benefit, but he noticed that there was no recommendation to that effect contained in Mr Carswell’s motion. When the Government made its 10 per cent, cut it did so with the intention that it should be passed on, and, if the board reduced its salaries, the saving should go to the consumers either in a reduction of rates or in the price of the current. The only right and proper course would seem to lie in a reduction of the price of the current. “It is very important that, that aspect should be taken into consideration,” he urged. “I don’t think any interference should be made with our staff unless other staffs are also affected. Our staff are doing good, honest and efficient work and I do not know of any other staff doing their work so efficiently or so conscientiously. I would support our chairman in his view that the matter should be held over until it is ascertained what Parliament proposes doing regarding the economic situation.” Mr McChesney: I support the motion. I don’t see anything in it that the salaries are going to be attacked. In view of the financial situation right through the country and notwithstanding that the matter was considered last year, I certainly think the position should again be investigated. Every business reviews its financial affairs each year and so should we. Whether any reduction should be passed on to our consumers is a matter of opinion. There is nothing in this motion to say the staff are going to be attacked in their salaries. I have come here with an open mind and I think Mr Hinchey is throwing a wet blanket on the whole matter. Postponement Advocated. That Mr Carswell’s motion savoured of a new broom sweeping clean aspect was the opinion expressed by Mr A. le H. Hoyles, who said that only a few months had passed by since the whole question had been investigated. “If another review is to be conducted now it would be most unsettling to the staff and tend to prejudice that co-operation which should always exist between the staff and the board,” he continued. It might possibly be necessary to review salaries, but Mr Hoyles said that, like the chairman and Mr Hinchey, he believed the matter should be held over until it was ascertained what the Government proposed doing to meet the financial situation. “The old members of the board know very well that the staff are doing splendid work and the executive heads are endeavouring to effect economics wherever possible,” he continued. “If the motion is put to-day, I shall vote against it. I don’t, however, object to the reviewing of the salaries at a later date when the Government has made known its policy.” Mr D. J. Heenan: I, too, think we would be wiser in waiting. Reviewing the position so soon has a tendency to make the staff uneasy—a feeling of a want of confidence might arise between the staff and the members. Mr McChesney moved an amendment that consideration of the motion should be held over until after March 31 next. Mr T. Golden: We are following too closely upon the heels of the last investigation which, as far as I know, was a thorough one. I can’t see what is to be gained by our going over the same ground again. In seconding the amendment, Mr A. A. Mac Gibbon argued that the board’s position was becoming gradually worse and worse. “We have had to strike a rate to make good our deficiency,” he declared. “But in view of the fact that Parliament is gding to meet next month when, doubtlessly, very drastic steps will be embarked upon, I think we should hold off till then. The review, if any, should not be referred, '

to the Finance Committee —it should be for the consideration of the members as a whole. We are in the unfortunate position that something must be doncFto meet the position. We have nothing to do with other local bodies. We are a business, and if it doesn’t pay we ask the consumers to make good the deficiency.” That the chief trouble lay in the high rates of interest payable by the board was Mr T. Golden’s opinion. “The opponents of this motion have read a great, deal more into it than was intended,” said Mr Carswell in reply. “But the chairman and Messrs Hinchey and Mac Gibbon have agreed that something must be done. I thought it was the fairer way to refer the question to a committee and I mentioned the February meeting of the board so that the reductions, if any, could start from the beginning of the financial year at April 1. AVith the consent of my seconder, however, I am quite prepared to accept Mr McChesney’s amendment.” Continuing, Mr Carswell said he did not think it mattered what Parliament or any other local bodies did. “AVe are here as members of the Southland Electric Power Board,” he argued, “and we have to run it properly. I’m not here to inflict hardship on the staff—that is the last thing I wish to do—but we must be reasonable. Our work to-day is purely administrative—in field, in the office and in this board—and we should get the matter investigated from that view. The matter must be dealt with.”

Mr Arnott having signified his consent, Mr Carswell then altered his motion along the lines of Mr McChesney’s amendment which was withdrawn, and the motion was then carried. ,