The Harbor Board and Contracts.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 304, 28 May 1889, Page 3

The Harbor Board and Contracts.

|TO THE HDITOB.]

Sib, —From the report of the Harbor Board’s meeting, in last Thursday's Standard, I judge that the McLoughlin-Harbor Board fiatco is at an end, for it is very evident that the majority of the Board are determined to let McLoughlin off with a clean sheet. The present time might be suitable perhaps to draw the ratepayers' attention to the way things are managed. As regarda tendering, would any business man give a contract out on his own account, without responsible sureties ? This present system of surety in tendering suits perhaps some of the business men in Gisborne (who, to get custom, have to act as sureties for contractors), as they do not have to carry on the contracts when the contractor, after having taken it at far too low a price, finds that, having taken the plums out of the cake, it is not worth having, and consequently " chucks ” it, and only the ratepayers' money is wasted, not their own.

Accept the lowest tender by all means, but see that the sureties are good, and make them, indefault of the contractor, carry out the contract to the last letter, and let the Board have no sympathy with the contractors; I wonder how many of the Board would show sympathy in dealing with their own money. Once contractors knew that they would be strictly but fairly dealt with, there would soon spring up again a class of genuine contractors, a class that unfortunately is not easy to be found just now, the present style of tendering, where a man says, “ I will make a low shot at the price; if it does not pay me I can chuck it,” having driven them away. The ratepayers should remember who it was that brought about the present style of security in tenders, one of the supporters of the present style having, fortunately for him self, no constituency—at least, he certainly does not represent his nominal constituents, nor evidently does he wish to. Some of the others favored it from a private business point of view, but they will, I fancy, find they have overstepped the mark.

Going back to the report of the Harbor Board’s meeting, in Thursday’s Standard, I gather from that that the Chairman acted in a very unconstitutional manner in not forcing Mr Matthewson to record his vote or leave the room, but as you have dealt with that I will only add that it seems but just in the interest of the ratepayers that the Board should elect a Chairman who understands and acts up to hie duty. It seems a great pity that the County, which is and will be the mainstay of the harbor, should have only two representative men out of the nine members of the Board. The rest of its nominal representatives seem to be working in the interests of certain Gisborne people, but I suppose the usual apathy of the Poverty Bay people is the cause.— lam, etc.,

An Onlooker.

[to the editor.] Sir,—l studied your note to my last letter, but with all deference to you, I think it is the business of the ratepayers to gnaw what is being done by their representatives, and when those representatives are afraid to let their actions be made known it is not a healthy sign. Perhaps, however, it is well that it should be so, for if a cloak had bean oast over the proceedings of the last meeting of the Harbor Board, we might have remained in a state of bliss as to how things are carried on. We would have felt greater pride in our public man, for instance, if Mr Matthewson had had the pood sense to absent himself from the meeting when he found he was unequal to the task of expressing an opinion. He has completely shattered the airy oastle he had built for himself—(in his own mind) —and he need no longer attempt to pose as a reformer when he is so easily swept here and there by the gentle breezes of autumn —in the caie of McLoughlin’s contract I should say spring, tor he had not got through the first season. I suppose it was delicacy on the part of the Chairman that prevented him ordering Mr Matthewson to leave the room while the vote was being taken, but I consider he did not act wisely. There are times when members of

public bodies do well in not voting on certain subjects, because those members might be in some way connected with the matter, but this can in no way apply to the stone contract, and for a member to act ati Mr Matthewson did, it is—well, I am afraid that my opinion is too strong for a place in your column's. I differed entirely from you a short time ago when you opposed letting the breakwater pier by contract, but now I am quite as much opposed to it as you are; experience shows that you are right—perhaps you judged from a knowledge which could not well be communicated to the ratepayers. The principle Of contracting still holds good, but when it is a case of (as Mr Clark put it) “ heads you win, tails we lose," it is time to draw the line; and then when a member of the Board advocates a “ give and talks ’’ policy between the Engineer and the contractor, well, it is time for me to lay down my pen ? The same member advocates that the stone contract should be part of the main work, That is enough for me; I hope that our country members will resolutely set their faces against the proposed changing of the manner of constructing the pier, for I, as one ratepayer, object to our money being messed away as it appears to have been over the atone contract.—l am, Ao., Countrt. (Our correspondent is in error in indicating that we suggested otherwise thin that it is " the business of the ratepayers to know what is being done by their representatives we simply said that Committees have always the Privilege dlMhMing .their in pflV&tC,-fiSl BTlSßlabi]