OFFICIAL IMPERTINENCE.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 266, 28 February 1889, Page 2

OFFICIAL IMPERTINENCE.

The conduct of the Engineer at the last meeting of the Harbor Board was such that it cannot be glossed over without comment. Manners cost nothing, we are told ; and at least that much might be expected from a public officer without any addition to his salary being required as a recompense. Mr Thomson’s salary at any rate ought to cover any such consideration. On Tuesday evening Mr Bennett wanted to know what an account of about /8 had been incurred for and objected to amounts over/ - 5 being incurred without authority of the Board : the Engineer replied that he did not know what the article was and that if he could not get authority for incurring expenditure over the Board had better do the work itself. Cross words followed, the Engineer telling Mr Bennett to his face and before the Board that he (Mr Bennett) had not the ability to judge. This was not during any heated discussion, and nothing had been said that would justify such impertinence on the part of an official, and the Chairman would have done right had he asked Mr Thomson to leave the room. But this was not the only display of irritability. When the Board was in Committee, Mr Shelton asked the Engineer whether it was true that men were employed early in the morning working on the spit opposite the pier ? The only reply given was an impudent question, “ What do you want to know for?” If the representatives of the ratepayers have to submit to this kind of “back slack” from those whose position entitles them to be regarded as gentlemen, what may be expected from the errand boys ? Assuming that both Mr Bennett and Mr Shelton were at fault in putting such questions—and they certainly were not —they should not be snubbed in this way. We hope that Mr Thomson is sorry for his conduct : if he is not then we are both ashamed of and sorry for him.