MUCH ADO

Southland Times, Issue 25309, 12 June 1935, Page 8

MUCH ADO

ABOUT A CONTRACT WORK ON SALFORD STREET COUNCIL DISCUSSION A seemingly innocuous clause in the report of a special meeting of the Works Committee caused a long discussion at the City Council meeting last evening, most of this being in committee, The bone of contention was a contract let to Mr A. C. Baird for the construction of portion of Salford Street. The City Engineer had reported to the Works Committee that the job had not been done in accordance with specifications. The Works Committee reported that at a special meeting held on June 6 a recommendation was made that the balance of the contract price, less £5, be paid to Mr Baird. From Mr Baird was received a letter on the subject in which he made certain allegations about the treatment he had received from the engineer.

Councillor W, M. C. Denham: I am not going to move the clause as it at present stands. I think we should hear what Mr Baird has to say first. The Mayor (Mr John Miller): I am not going to have any discussion between Mr Baird and the councillors.

Councillor Denham: I am supporting Mr Baird being paid in full. I think he should get the full amount and I shall move a motion accordingly. Continuing, the speaker said that Mr Baird’s contract price was £l9B. There were also two other contractors whose respective prices were £256 and £367. “I have taken a very keen interest in this work,” Councillor Denham proceeded. “It was a work that was necessary. Mr Baird drew my attention to some complaints having been made about it. I went and saw the work. Mr Baird is a very experienced man and he has carried out the job well and good. I do not know why there should be this opposition to the man being paid the full amount. The road may have been two or three inches out of level, but what road isn’t? It is ridiculous to bring that matter up. Councillor Denham then moved that the recommendation, with the deletion of the words “less the sum of £5,” should be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councillor J. M. Grieve.

When Councillor A. W. Jones suggested to Councillor Denham that, as chairman of the Works Committee, he should move the recommendation as it stood at present, Councillor Denham retorted that he was not going to move any motion with which he did not agree. Councillor E. J. McLauchlan moved an amendment that the engineer should be given the opportunity to reply to the statements made in Mr Baird’s letter.

In seconding this, Councillor A. W. Jones said that the council must be fair to both parties. “It would be very unfortunate if we moved in this matter without the engineer being first heard,” he added. “I think that when we have heard the engineer’s explanation wou will agree that the recommendation is a fair one.”

The amendment was then put to the meeting and carried. Councillor W. G. Tait: I suggest that we should go into committee seeing that this matter affects one of our principal officers. I shall move accordingly. Councillor H. Ritchie: I don’t think we should.

Councillor Tattersfield seconded the motion, which was carried.

After much discussion in committee the clause was carried.