COUNCILLOR ASSAILED

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19455, 20 December 1934, Page 10

COUNCILLOR ASSAILED

DELIBERATE PIN-PRICKING.

MR LAFFERTY UNDER FIRE. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST INSPECTOR There was some plain speaking at a meeting of the Hamilton Borough Council last evening, when the appointment of Mr J. W. Lewis a-s chief inspector to control inspection work in the borough was questioned by Mr G. Lafferty. The discussion arose from a recommendation from the general purposes committee, that the council should confirm the arrangement for the co-ordination of the inspection work under the control of Chief Inspector Lewis. In opposing this proposal Mr Lafferty said he was against th» appointment of Mr Lewis to be chief inspector, on the grounds that his position as sanitary inspector should provide sufficient work to keep him fully occupied. 'ln his opinion three traffic inspectors were not necessary, as Inspector Courtney had carried out the whole of the traffic work alone, and, in addition, had controlled hawkers’ and heavy traffic licenses, and had done street patrol and court work. Abuse Alleged. Referring to borough cars, Mr Lafferty said he had been accosted by several people concerning what he termed the abuse of the car. He alleged that he had seen it at the Technical College, and outside the Whitiora bowling green. “ It is stated that I have a grievance, but I am only here to do my duty to the ratepayers,” continued Mr Lafferty. “ I consider that Mr Lewis’ car is being used unnecessarily."

The speaker read an extract from a minute passed in 1931, stating that the council’s cars should be garaged at the end of each day's work. He contended that this had not been rescinded and asked why the car was not put in the garage at nights. “At the last meeting of the council I think a valid reason was given for Mr Lewis’ use of the car on a Sunday," said the Mayor, Mr J. R. Fow. “I am quite sure that he can give good reasons for these other occasions. I want this matter cleared up to-night. Mr Lewis has had 16 years’ service with the borough, and I believe that he has the full confidence of this council. As chief inspector of a town the size' of Hamilton it appears to me to be absurd that a councillor should harbour the suspicion that be is not using his car as he should."

Subjected to Pin Pricking,

Mr Fow said that the minute adopted in 1931 was apparently found unworkable. He was strongly opposed to the chief inspector being subjected to what lie termed pin-pricking, and intimated his intention of moving at a coming meeting that the 1931 resolution should be rescinded and the inspector be given authority to use his car as he deemed advisable.

Mr A. J. Denz ■said he aid not know whether the Mayor’s statements .would stop tongues wagging in the town. Mr Lafferty had been courageous enough to express his views, and had made some charges which could not be passed over lightly. He considered that Mr Lewis should be asked to make some statement* in answer to Mr Lafferty. At e same lime, he did not think there was anything in the charges to disturb the minds of the council, but the public should know the true position. “•Mr Lewis is on duty at all hours of the day and night, and if he is not to have the full use of a car the borough will suffer,” observed Mr 11. M. Hammond. “ I think that. Mr Lafferty’s remarks are part of a policy of deliberate pin-pricldng in which he has been indulging for some time. A short time ago it was the borough engineer who' was th'e butt; and- how it is Inspector Lewis. I will resort to the tactics of Mr Lafferty and ask a question—Did Inspector Lewis prosecute Mr Lafferty recently?” Mr Hammond received an affirmative reply. Mr 11. D. Caro said Mr Lewis was like a doctor, and had to use his car at alltimes. Even if he took it to bowls or to the pictures he was liable to be called away at short notice. Discussion then lapsed and the committee’s recommendation was adopted, Mr Lafferty being the only dissentient.