WHY?

Southland Times, Issue 21771, 28 July 1932, Page 9

WHY?

To the Editor. Sir.—ln yesterday’s issue a correspondent signing himself “Bewildered” holds me inconsistent because I opposed dealing with the Power Board wages and salaries question in committee while the South Invercargill Council dealt with borough business in committee on May 30th last. On the date mentioned a letter was received from a ratepayer laying a charge against a certain person and at my request the charge was investigated in committee. I would act similarly in any body I am connected with. Discussions on wages and salaries have always been conducted in open meeting by the South Invercargill Council. “Bewildered” then goes on to say “that at an unreported meeting of the South Council held this month, it was decided that the lowest paid employee on the council should in future receive £4O as against £45 previously, per annum.” The meeting in question was a special meeting and the Press was not present, but it was not held in committee. The salary in question (Inspector of Nuisances) was fixed at £4O (not £45) in 1928 and has not been reduced. For some years the sanitary fee accounts were delivered half yearly by the inspector for which service a bicycle allowance of £5 a year was added. The sanitary fees are now collected as a rate and are attended to by the Town Clerk, hence the discontinuance of the bicycle allowance. The inspector’s duties will not occupy fifty days of his time in the year. Your correspondent ends by saying “that he is not capable of reasoning etc. etc.” I cannot accept any responsibility for his lack of understanding, but would suggest that he consults his medical adviser immediately.—l am etc., w. McChesney. South Invercargill, July 26, 1932.

GORE’S TRAFFIC INSPECTOR. To the Editor. Sir.—l think it is time the shopkeepers in Gore, in their own interests,

asked the Gore Borough Council to dispense with the services of the present traffic inspector. If any motorists see him “parked” in front of a shop they keep as far away from that shop as they can in case he shakes his stick at them for something or other. This is bad for business, and shopkeepers should in self-defence put up a notice in front of their shops “No parkin’ hear.” The ratepayers in the town also have a grievance and should take this matter up, for the council recently increased the wages of the traffic inspector at a time when they should have been practising economy. In my opinion it is a waste of the ratepayer’s money to be spending £l3O a year on a luxury, when the money could be spent to much better advantage by putting some of our streets and footpaths in order. In any case there is no necessity whatever to have a traffice inspector in Gore. The police who have plenty of time on their hands could quite well carry out these duties. There is always at least one policeman on duty and very often two, and, as the sergeant is always liable to appear on the scene, the town is well patrolled and a traffic offender hasn’t got much chance to escape. Besides, of course, there is always Mr Kelly, the inspector of nuisances, to reckon with. I notice the Mayor is worrying about the audit fees the borough has to pay, and he says that a 20 per cent, reduction amounting to about £8 would ba a big saving these days. Now, if he wishes to be consistent he should dismiss the traffic inspector and save the borough £l3o—that would be something worth while. Then there is Councillor Young, who questioned the necessary expenditure in connection with the lighting in Talbot street the other day. Why doesn’t he raise his voice against the needless expense of employing a traffic inspector? Perhaps the' tactics of the inspector appeal to Councillor Young, who in this instance overlooks the expenditure and the question of economy. I have no personal grievance against the traffic inspector and I have not been one of his victims. I often hear complaints, however, and I think that the ratepayers’ money could be spent in more useful directions. —I am etc. W. T. TRUSLER, jun. Gore, July 26, 1932.