DASH LTD. AND THE POWER BOARD.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19375, 27 December 1932, Page 11

DASH LTD. AND THE POWER BOARD.

To the Editor of “ TUe Timaru Herald." Sir,—Prior to the Power Board election, some months ago the subject of the amount of Power Board busines put through Dash, Ltd., Waimate, was commented on by Mr C. E. Kenin the following words: “Prior to the appointment of Mr Morrison as engineer-secretary, the amount of Power Board business put through Dash, Ltd., Waimate, was close on £2OOO, and other firms got little.” My knowledge of Mr George Dash impelled me to voice my opinion of the merit of Mr Kerr's statement and in “The Timaru Herald” of May 5, 1932, where I wrote, “the information volunteered by Mr Kerr .... throws a most interesting side light on Mr Dash’s interest in Power Board matters. If true, it raises the same important points. Immediately this correspondence appeared in "The Timaru Herald," Mr George Dash penned two ve y subtle and most evasive letters published respectively in the local Press and in the “Timaru Herald" of May 11, the obvious object of which was to discredit Mr C. E. Kerr’s statement and negative the influence of my comment thereon. Here is a copy of the one published in the “Timaru Herald”:— “Dash, Ltd., and the Power Board. To the Editor of "The Timaru Herald." Sir,—During the years 1925-25-27-28, the South Canterbury Power Board spent, while reticulating the district, £276,000. It was during those four years that Dash, Ltd,, was sometimes the successful tenderer for requirements, and was paid £1897. No contract was given to Dash, Ltd., where their tender was not the lowest. The bald statement that “Dash, Ltd. had received £2OOO and others very little,” makes one wonder what was done with the remaining £274,000.—1 am. etc., George Dash. Waimate, May 9. This contribution from Mr Dash was effectively countered in further correspondence I sent to your paper, in which I exposed his very subtle evasion, and challenged him to produce the figures relative to the amount of Power Board business distributed to other firms in South Canterbury engaged in similar business to and therefore in competition with Dash, Ltd., but Mr Dash assumed the role of the proverbial oyster. Now, sir, I put it to you, that here we have definite proof of Mr G, Dash bluffing the elec&BEs in the South Canterbury Power Board area. If this is bo, then surely there is need for labile enlightenment in respect to the

comparative figures I challenged Mr Dash to produce, but about which he maintains a discreet silence: I have made extensive inquiries on this topic, and learned quite a lot of interesting facts. Further north, the South Canterbury Power Board was known as “Dash, Ltd's, milch cow." Most jobs, no matter how small, had to be sent to Dash, Ltd., even though it involved transport from the further or most northern portions of South Canterbury. In Waimate, if it was a horse to be shod, it had to go to Dash, Ltd., and it is a fact that other garages or service stations here only secured a measure of petrol business with the Power Board after they had forwarded a petition in 1927. In .his local letter of May 9, Mr Dash sought to counter the impression that his firm had a monopoly of the Power Board business: “Here are the facts.” Mr Dash wrote: “In the four years, 1925 to 1929 .... the Board expended a total of £276,000 ... .of whicn amount Dash, Ltd., received less than one per cent.” “ Tenders were called by the Power Board for work, supplies, etc., required by them: Dash, Ltd., put in the lowest tenders for work, supplies etc., totalling about £1900; many more tenders were put in by the firm, for other work, supplies, etc., but others quoted lower, and got the business. Had the other firms quoted lower in every case. Dash, Ltd., would not have had even the 1 per cent, of the Board’s business that they managed to secure.” Please compare this local effusion with that appearing in “The Timaru Herald” two days later, wherein he writes. “It was during those four years that Dash, Ltd., was sometimes the successful tenderer No

contract was given to Dash, Ltd., where their tender was not the lowest. The bald statement that Dash, Ltd, received £2OOO and others very littD, makes one wonder what was done with the remaining £274,000.” This type of propaganda deceives only the inexperienced electors, but as they constitute the majority in voting strength, then Mr Dash should be compelled to put all the cards on the table. I am informed: First—“ The statement that, ‘‘tenders were called is ail guile”; second, “tenders were invited on one or two occasions, but the business was, in nearly all cases, swung to Dash, Ltd”; a third gentleman told me, ‘there were hardly any tenders called at all,” while others say, “tenders were called in—but they were very few.” In view of these statements, is it possible to ascertain: First, how many times public tenders were called in the particular class of requirements catered for by Dash. Ltd., and other similar competitors in the South Canterbury area, when they were called or advertised, and the aggregate value of such tenders secured by Dash, Ltd., as compared with that secured by similar competitive rivals? Second; is it true that Dash, Ltd , were always the lowest tenderers in respect to tenders secured. (I am informed, that on one occasion. Dash, Ltd., got the business with the highest tendbr). Third, is it not a general rule that the “lowest tenders” are not necessarily acceptible, in local bodies’ parlance? Fourth, what was the aggregate value received by Dash Ltd., for materials and workmanship put in to jobs, for which no tenders were called, and what proportion does this aggregate value bear to the total value of business tendered for and secured by Dash, Ltd.? Fifth, have these tenders been preserved in the South Canterbury Power Board’s records? In conclusion, sir. I must apologise for the lengthy nature of this letter, but' in view of the very obvious lack of frankness shown by Mr Dash on the eve of last Power Board election, his subtle and evasive answers when challenged on the relations of Dash, Ltd., with the Power Board during 1925-29, and his subsequent silence when his evasive attitude was exposed, I think members of the Power Board should tell the whole story about the relations between Dash, Ltd,, and the Power Board. Mr Leggott has made “a comprehensive report,” but I suggest it is not nearly sufficiently comprehensive, and that it should embrace the period 1925 to 1929 inclusive.. When Mr W. Angland, some months ago, produced certain figures and challenged Mr Dash to disprove them, all that Mr Dash could do was to side-step the issue, bv an extremely vulgar and improper insinuation. Such tactics do not inspire confidence. By ail means let us have the truth, but let us have the whole truth. —I am, etc., OWEN J. F. McKEE. Waimate, December 23.