Fall on sword hoped for
Well done David Hall for your arrant letter in trying to defend your position by suggesting that the council managed to get 150 projects right.
That’s exactly what you and your staff are paid to do.
The two major events you managed to get entirely wrong were the upgrade of the sewerage plant and the management of the contract for waste handling. As to the former, what is all this nonsense about over-running an estimate?
As I understand it, you employ a registered engineer, a legal requirement for local bodies, and it was his responsibility to manage that project.
Initially an estimate for the supply, installation and commissioning of the new plant could have been obtained from the supplier, and this would be acceptable for the council to debate and approve. A legally binding written quotation should then be obtained from the supplier. Any over-run at the end of the project would have then been to his account.
This should be the standard procedure for all projects, no need for guesstimates.
As for the mis-management of the waste handling contract, this is entirely in your court Mr Hall. Is there any chance that you might do the honourable thing and fall on your sword?
As for the mayor dismissing you or anyone else for incompetence; he is an elected member of council and unfortunately doesn’t have the authority to do this, contrary to what people might believe.
Fortunately the whole matter of the structure and administration of local councils is being debated by central Government with a view to making them operate in a more business-like and efficient manner. It can’t happen soon enough.
F Lawton (Retired Chartered and Registered Engineer)
Tokoroa known to us all. Do these correspondents have any basis in real life for these allegations? If so then they should make a formal complaint to the council or to the appropriate authorities. If not, are they familiar with the word ‘‘defamation’’?
Meanwhile, in regards to the administration of a certain contract, the council’s tender documents include the statement ‘‘the lowest or any tender will not necessarily be accepted’’. This proviso is routinely used in notices of tender to protect organisations from action by unsuccessful tenderers. The council’s lawyers have addressed councillors and advised us to appeal against what is considered the surprising decision of a judge to award damages to our unsuccessful tenderer despite our inclusion of the usual proviso reserving the right not to accept this or any particular tender. Cr Adrienne Bell