NO SLUICE GATE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 59, Issue 4220, 6 December 1939, Page 7

NO SLUICE GATE

WORKS FOREMAN’ ATEDBOROUGH COUNCIL DISCUSSION. During the progress of Te Awamutu Borough Council meeting last Monday evening a letter from Mr R. H. Close, borough works foreman, was read, in which reference was made to a discussion at an earlier meeting of the Council, during which Cr L. S. Armstrong asked that the town clerk be instructed to investigate whether a sluice gate had been supplied to the water-works job some time previous and never used. As he (Mr Close) was in charge of the work, he considered that there was a reflection cast upon him. Definitely, there was never any sluice gate on the job, so that it could not have been used; nor had one been even ordered. He therefore asked that he be relieved of any imputation of wrong-doing. .Thp.Jpwn /clerk ..(Mr D. Bockett) said he'was satisfied no sluice gate was evei' ordered, supplied, or paid for by the Council through himCr L. S. Armstrong said he would accept tlie statement that the Borough Council had never purchased a sluice gate; but he proposed to investigate some other aspects of the position. He was not entirely satisfied. At last meeting he had asked if the sluice gate was ever purchased, because of a statement'to him that on e had been on the job, but that it was not used.

T/e _ Mayor advised the councillor that it was a serious imputation against the foreman, and should not have been made unless the councillor was prepared to substantiate it. Cr Armstrong said that if he found his information wqs incorrect he would do what was right by Mr Close, but as a councillor he wanted to know all about works authorised. The town clerk said his records were available for inspection. He had looked back for several years, and there was no mention of a sluice gate for the impounding basin at the headworks.

Cr J. C. Mbntefiore said Cr Armstrong should retract his statements. He had been unable to obtain proof of his allegations, and should withdraw the accusation.

Cr Armstrong said he had merely asked a question at last month’s meeting. He was entitled to do that without reflecting on any servant of the _Council. Now he would accept the town clerk’s statement that no sluice gate had been supplied on the obj and paid for, as he had no record of it; but he (the speaker) was going to investigate further. He wanted to know why there was provision in the dam for a sluice gate, and why only a concrete plug was ultimately used instead. Then the plug was dispensed with and the hole blocked with bags of cement. WJiy ?

Cr Wi. J. North remarked that the works foreman’s past record of good service was sufficient answer to any suggestion of wrongful actions. Members of the works committee would have known if a sluice gate had been procured. Personally he was convinced that Cr Armstrong had been misinformed. The town clerk’s assurance was also very convincing. Cr Montefiore said it would have been far better if Cr Armstrong had brought his informant before, say, the works committee, and the whole facts could have been investigated. Perhaps the councillor named was not aware that that was the correct procedure.

The Mayor said he and Cr North had been closely interested in the work of dam construction, and neither knew anything about any sluice gateThere had been no sluice gate. He felt that the whole matter in dispute should be cleared up, but a' councillor must be fair to the employees responsible for carrying out the Council’s instructions.

Then commenced a discussion between the Mayor and Cr Armstrong, in which the foreman claimed that the imputations were quite untrue, and should be withdrawn. There were reflections on both the works foreman and the town clerk, and these should be withdrawn unconditionally. Cr Armstrong said if there was any reflection on the probity of servants he would readily make amends. But he Rad, as a councillor, wanted information, and had asked for it. He was entitled to that much. He had not obtained all the information he had wanted, but it was gradually coming out. As a borough councillor he wanted to know what was going on, and if his search for information hurt somebody else, councillor or employee of the Council, that would be unfortunate. Definitely he had not reflected on the works foreman in his inquiry at last meeting. He had asked a question that should have been quite easy to answer. The Mayor said the Council owed a duty to its servants to protect them when they could not answer for themselves The information asked for by Cr Armstrong had been supplied, and it should be accepted. The subject was not further debated-