ENGINEER HITS BACK

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 166, 4 October 1927, Page 9

ENGINEER HITS BACK

MOUNT ALBERT COUNCIL’S CHARGES “TOO PUERILE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY”

ANYONE who dispassionately examines this reply will see £» that the council’s charges are too puerile to be taken seriously.” to presenting a reply to the Mount Albert Borough Council s cited reasons for dismissing him, Mr. W. H. Cook, late es nfi. eer 40 b^ roT, gh, says the public must now judge whether the council was justified, or whether it had failed to show that the motives actuating it would not bear the light of day .

I HA X. E been th « means of placing I borci utrhir, ensmeerln « works of the thev a "°“ nder condition than r a b S s!s n teS r L Vlo p^« t 0 examine the council’s dellv or,' „ iss “ ed - after considerable delay, on September 2s, Mr. Cook sta.es that he can readily show that In f* V^ n are not reasons at _■ a ,na that he cannot accept the council s plea, that it was out of conyderatlon for him that it so long deto res , p ? nd tc appeals that it should reveal its reasons. , _*'?? '*®. hQ P e of obtaining a statement of the charges I not only applied to the council, but went out of my way to call upon the Mayor, and invited h*, m . t . c ~e ve his reasons, either confidentially or otherwise; to this request; I got no response and consequently took further action to clear myself.” SPECIFIC CHARGES -^ e f®rring to the specific charges mentioned in the statement, the first charge is in regard to the New North Road. It is stated my estimate is £30,378 and the contract price £23,810, and that the estimate is too high by £6,500. Now the contract price is not the whole cost of the work. Certain items have to be added, including supervision, and overhead charges, etc. These items, of course, had to be included in my estimate, and represent a sum of £1,592, which, when added, gives a cost of £25.400. The difference is £4,978, not £6,500, less than the estimate. “That my estimate is a reasonable one is seen by examining the tenders for this contract, which are as follow: £23.812, £23,992, £25,548. £25,935, £26 144, £27.989, £37,786. The average is £27,300, and adding the previously mentioned charges of £1,592, brings the total to £28,900, which agrees closely with the estimated cost of £30,378. Tenderers had special reasons for quoting low prices, and a factor which accounted for low costs was a substantial reduction in the price of cement, representing over £I,OOO on this job. I had absolutely no right, when preparing my estimate, to figure on any drop in price. I should have been culpable had I done so. In any case, Mount Albert is not the only authority which has had experience of a fall in the cost of concrete road construction. The Great South Road at Fapakura is a well-known example and was constructed much below the cost indicated by the Highways Board. The council made no complaint about my estimate at this or any other time, but on the contrary expressed satisfaction at the keenly cut prices, and said the saving would allow them to lay down Mount Albert Road in concrete instead of hot mix bitumen. Yet this is now given as one of the chief reasons for my dismissal. The council charges me with general over-estimating of costs and of not getting value for money spent. But in the above Instance (which the council quotes to prove its assertion) not onty did the council get exceptionally good value for its money, but also, as shown, my estimate was a reasonable one This assertion will be supported by any competent expert. Generally speaking my estimates have beer, remarkably close. Thus the Mount Albert: Road contract, which I estimated after the fall in price of cement to cost. £23,544, was let at £23,274, a difference of only £270. A SEWER CONTRACT

The second charge is that my mate for a sewer contract was £:LI77, and the contract price £2,214. a difference of £960. Here, again, the position is misrepresented. The job referred to is in Mount Albert Road, and in making any comparison of costs all charges must be taken into account. Hence supervisional and overhead charges, etc., must be added, the amount of which is £536. Thus the cost is £2,750, or only £430 below the estimate, not £ 1.000 as steted. Five tenders were received, of the followin-- amounts: £2,214, £2,600, £..,718, £3,461 and £4.350. My estimate falls about midway. To merely take the lowest tender and compare with an estimate is quite incorrect, as tenderers have their reasons for Pricecutting, and this does not reflect c fair Pr The fo couScn WO ll k so cited Allendale

Road, comparing the cost of its Bft path and lift grass margin (at £SB a chain) with Cromwell Street, Mount Eden (36ft road and two paths, £ll9 a chain). The council ignores the fact that concrete edging, kerbing, channelling, road-forming for metalling and blasting were involved in the Allendale Road job, on which, also, a 300 ft wall had to be built, and many fillings hand-packed with rock, whereas Cromwell Street had been previously formed and required only very light alterations. . . .. , Turning to the statement that Reimers Avenue “will cost £206 a chain, which the council considers excessive,” my estimate lor a sound engineering job was £163 a chain. After the work was well under way, however, the council instructed me to lower the level of the road by two feet, involving the removal of over 900 cubic yards of rock. In spite of this the cost will not exceed £IBO a chain, or £26 a chain less than stated by the council. The coLincil next quotes, as proof of my extravagance, a proposal which was made for remedying what is termed a “small drain leakage.” This was discovered in an old sewer in King Street, after a subsidence of the embankment took place, which at this point is on a steep hillside. The sewer is laid under a deep filling and upon opening it up it was found that generally speaking the joints of the pipes had been made with clay, thus allowing sewage to escape. As the whole length is probably in a similarly defective state, and to avoid relaying future costly tunnel work to gain access to it, I suggested relaying it in such positions that service connections could easily be made. This would have provided sound sewers in the sides of the street, in place of a defective one in the centre. The council, however, preferred to patch up a short length only of the old sewer. Thus it claims to have saved the difference between my estimate of £ 436 for new sewers, as against £IOO cost of patching a portion of the old sewer. COMMITTEE'S OPERATIONS

Regarding the meetings of the combined committee and the statement, “at most of these meetings dissatisfaction with the administration was discussed.” I emphatically deny this and a reference to the minutes of these meetings fails to support the statement. Not at any one of the five meetings was I criticised. On the contrary, at the first meeting of June 14 the council recognised I was overburdened with routine work, and unanimously carried a resolution to appoint an assistant engineer who would relieve me of this work.

My reason for considering my resignation earlier was not that I felt I had lost the confidence of the council, but as a protest to bring prominently before it the continued interference with my work. The council further states, to show why it became dissatisfied, that it was unable to get a certain return in under 16 weeks. This is untrue, the council was furnished with a return seven weeks from date of instruction. Any delay was in no way due to myself. At the time the return was asked for the clerk in charge of the “cost records” had just left for his annual leave, and it was three weeks after his return before the posting of the books was completed. Thus it was five weeks from the date of the instruction before I could obtain the data from him whereby to compile the return. As I had not a sufficiently experienced typist to do the tabulation work, the return was handed to a professional typiste in the city. Owing to the amount of work involved it took several days to type the report, and it was only completed by 5 o’clock on Saturday, July 2, when I personally collected it and it was delivered to councillors’ private residences that evening. At a meeting held on July 5 the return was considered by the Joint Committee. Subsequently, the Mayor requested me to recast the figures in a different form. This was done, and the opportunity taken to add later information for which I had not been asked. This return was circulated on August 12, considered on the 16th and deferred to August 30. DISMISSAL OF MEN

The council states that the special committee which was set up to take over control of the outside staff was appointed as the outcome of my action in dismissing local men with large families. The facts are that when authorised by the council to reduce staff I instructed my gangers, through the foreman, to shorten hands—l took no personal interest in which men were discharged, but I desire to say that each man reinstated by the committee had, on previous occasions, been warned by their respective gangers of unsatisfactory service. As to the denial of my statement that the Mayor asked me to discharge men who were disloyal at the elections, I can only say that I made the statement on oath, which I treat as sacred, and as further confirmation I now add that another officer of the council was asked by the town clerk, in my presence, to do the same thing. The deputy-Mayor was not present. No complaints were made to me concerning my work, or anything else, yet the council suddenly demanded my resignation. I consider it has perpetrated a deliberate injustice.