OFFICER DENIES THAT HE CRITICISED POLICY OF HARBOUR BOARD

Wanganui Chronicle, 21 June 1949, Page 4

OFFICER DENIES THAT HE CRITICISED POLICY OF HARBOUR BOARD

The action of the board’s supervisor, Mr. T. G. Mullins, in attending a recent meeting of the Wanganui Electors’ Association, at which he discussed harbour proposals, was the subject of a lengthy debate at yesterday’s meeting of the Wanganui Harbour Board, but no decision was made on the matter.

The matter was raised in a report of a meeting of the Works Committee in which a clause stated that Mr. D. McGregor had explained that he had attended a meeting of the Wanganui Electors’ Association when matters relating to harbour works were discussed at length. The report stated that Mr. Mullins was also present and submitted certain proposals which he considered would improve the working of the port. Mr. McGregor, stated the report, promised that the suggestions of Mr. Mullins would be forwarded to the proper quarter for examination Mr. McGregor’s action was endorsed. Moving the adoption of the Works Committee’s report, Mr. G. G. Burgess said he understood that the supervisor (Mr. Mullins) was present at a meeting of the Wanganui Electors’ Association and criticised the policy and activities of the board. “I would like to know what right he had to criticise our activities. I think that as an employee of the board he owes a certain duty and loyalty to the board and I do not think it is part of his duties to criticise our activities and our policy. He was present at the meeting as a private citizen and not as a member of the board and had made that clear at the meeting, said Mr D. McGregor. “I think I am entitled to attend any meeting as a private citizen.” Mr. Mullins was there and they had made the position quite clear that they were present as private citizens. “Mr. Mullins made certain suggestions but I do not think he criticised the board at all. Mr. Mullins had mentioned the groyne that was being built and expressed the opinion that he did not think it would serve the purpose the board expected, said Mr. McGregor. However, he did not think that that could be construed as criticism. He had asked the Works Committee to endorse his action in attending the meeting because he wanted to be on side and did not want to do anything behind the board’s back. He considered that any organised body of citizens who wanted statements from the board were entitled to them. Mr. Kirk: No one has implied that a private citizen cannot attend a meeting. The chairman, Mr. E. A. Millward. Certainly not. Mr. Burgess said that he had not referred to Mr. McGregor at all. “Mr. McGregor said he was at the meeting in a private capacity. I should say he was there in a dual capacity,” said Mr. W. Morrison. “If Mr. Mullins put any opinions forward, and I do not know if he did, in my opinion it was wrong. Mr. Mullins is here to see that the policy of the board is carried out whether it is right or wrong." If Mr. Mullins had any suggestions he should make them to the board’s consulting engineer who would consider them and no doubt would act on them if they were sound.” “HEAT BEING TURNED ON” “It seems to me that the heat is being turned on Mr. Mullins. If that is so then I will stand up for him,” said the Hon. W. J. Rogers, M.L.C. “If there is any move being made to shift Mr. Mullins there will have to be a very close examination as far as I am concerned. Is there any suggestion that Mr. Mullins has been disloyal to this board. If there is I have yet to learn about it.” There was no proof, said Mr. Rogers, that Mr. Mullins had criticised the board, nor did he think that Mr. Mullins would forget his position and criticise the board outside. Mr. Mullins had been very keen but he believed he had been subjected to a certain amount of frustration. “If the intention is to shift Mr. Mullins I will want to know a lot more about it,” said Mr. Rogers. Mr Burgess explained that he had prefixed his remarks with the word understood. He had not criticised Mr. Mullins for attending the meeting but for what he may have said at it. The chairman said that Mr. Mullins was a supervisor of labour and he was not prepared to accept his recommendations and his condemnations of the Marine Department and the Ministry of Works. Mr. Mullins was not a qualified engineer and if he had any suggestions he should place them before Mr. Sampson (Ministry of Works representative in Wanganui), who would be the first man to give him every opportunity of proving his case. • Mr. McGregor said he had placed the suggestions of Mr. Mullins before Mr Sampson, who asked that Mr. Mullins should place his suggestions before him in black, and white. Mr. Sampson, who was at the meeting, agreed that that was so.

SUPERVISOR’S STORY “This meeting was not arranged by the Electors’ Association,” said Mr. Mullins. He explained that he had been approached about his scheme and asked to attend a meeting to see “if we can blow you to pieces.” The meeting was nothing to do with the Electors' Association but a member of the association happened to be there. He considered that Mr. Burgess had been grossly misinformed. He had no desire to criticise the policy of the board nor had he condemned the Ministry of Works. His only criticism was when he objected to men being sacked off the job when there was work to be done. Mr. E. J. Kirk said h > understood that the meeting was convened by the Electors' Association as he had received an invitation from that body to be present but was out of town. A business man had approached him, said Mr. McGregor, to see if “we can get together to blow Mr. Mullins out.” The meeting was held at the home of Mr. R. O. C. Marks, organising-secretary of the association. The meeting had been called by the Electors’ Association. Stating that he was unaware that the meeting was called by the Electors’ Association, Mr Mullins said he had been given to understand j that several members of the board | would be present. The discussion terminated with the > adoption of the Works' Committee report.