That he shall be a man of good personal habits.
That he shall be habitually punctual, industrious, and alert, and shall possess a fair share of that quality commonly called “backbone.”
It will not, I am sure, be denied that a very large number of the inspectors found upon municipal public work fall short in one or more of these qualifications.
Inspectors who habitually expect or accept compensation or gratuities from the contractor violate the first requirement, and their number is astonishingly large. These are useless, or worse than useless, to the municipality. There are not a few contractors who will take advantage of the presence on the work of such inspectors to do things that they would not do if thrown wholly on their own honor and responsibility. Contractors can hardly be blamed for expecting some compensation for the money thus exacted or accepted by the inspector from them.
The requirement that the appointee shall have some practical knowledge of and experience in the work he is expected to do, while often disregarded, is of real importance. Good workmanship embraces many small details that are essential, and inferable from the specifications, but cannot be stated at length therein, and the inspector should have a good working knowledge of these.
Unfortunately, large numbers of inspectors are employed for personal or political reasons, or because more competent men are not available. They know little or nothing from practical knowledge and experience about the work they are assigned to inspect. Efficient service cannot be expected from such, even if they possess the other necessary qualifications. The obvious remedy, where a sufficient number of qualified inspectors cannot be obtained at call, would be to train up a permanent force by having the promising tyros serve a sufficient apprenticeship under older and more experienced inspectors; but this is seldom done.
Inspectors, whether appointed by the engineer in charge or not, should be absolutely under his control, including the power of dismissal without unnecessary formalities. Where they are under civil service regulations and can be dismissed only upon charges and after a hearing before some third person, the obstacles in the way of promptly getting rid of an incompetent or unfaithful inspector are often so great as to be discouraging if not deterrent. He may be clearly below a reasonable standard of honesty or efficiency but it may be very difficult to formulate distinct charges and support them with positive evidence. Thus, one may be morally certain that an inspector is accepting gratuities from a contractor, but unable to prove it by legal evidence. If in such cases the judgment and integrity of the responsible engineer cannot be trusted, he is not fit, himself, for the position he occupies.
The question of how much authority and power shall be given to the inspector is always a troublesome one. If he be too much limited or restricted, he cannot properly discharge his duties or command the necessary respect from the contractor and his employees; if he be given too much authority and is disposed to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the contractor may be unjustly treated. So far as the definite requirements of the specifications are concerned there can usually be no room for going astray, but in the numberless little details not specifically covered in the specifications, or where their language and intent is not clear, differences and disputes may result which require a degree of knowledge and judgment that the inspector may not possess, and where his decisions might be against the interests of the municipality or unjust to the contractor. In such cases the matter should always be referred to the engineer or his assistant.
Where inspectors are employed upon work done directly by the municipality the relation between them and the superintendent or foreman should be clearly defined and understood. Briefly stated, this relation should be the same as that between the inspector and the contractor on contract work.