ANGRY COUNCILLOR

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 186, 28 November 1941, Page 5

ANGRY COUNCILLOR

UNAUTHORISED ACTIONS ALLEGED "BREEZE" AT COUNTY MEETING With somewhat frayed temper and in no uncertain terms Cr H. C. McCready voiced hils opinrion at Tuesday's meeting of the County Council, when he alleged that unauthorised! action hadS been taken by the chairman, and! clerk regarding an endeavour to obtain the vacating of a council house at Taneatua. He claimed that the clerk had in letters and 1 by a visit taken an attitude he should not have d'one, and that a motion passed last month had been wrongly recorded and pursued. Cr McCready was alone in his allegations, the remainder of the council regarding the a<j' tions taken as fair, considlerate and in accordance with the wishes of the council. The argument arose from a decision made last month. The council having a house at Taneatua occupied by a State Highways surfaceman, who six years previously Avas in the employ of the council, felt that they should have the dwelling for the use of one of the council staff. They realised their tenant had been a good one, but considered that the Highways Board should house him and were chiefly concerned in accommodating their own staff member.

Another House Available It was agreed that they had no wish to embarrass the present tenant, but would ask him to vacate the house as soon as possible and in the meantime endeavour to make arrangements as satisfactory as possible for their own employee. As a result of the communication with the present tenant it was offered to compensate him for his garden, and a house found, a suggestion made that Ire move into this. However, the rental was higher and not acceptable, and in the meantime the council had taken the vacant dwelling at a rent of 30/- and was charging their employee £1. At Tuesday's meeting a letter was received from the Highways employee (Mr Delaliunty) claiming that In letters and conversation the clerk Ikul adopted a threatening attitude, and Cr McCready then asked bis questions. Letters in Order

The clerk read the letters written which were couched in very considerate terms expressing regret at the necessity of asking such a good tenant to move. He explained his visit to the house and denied the tactics alleged, stating that he had sympathised with the tenant, but had had to state that the council was forced to use every endeavour to obtain the dwelling. Cr McCready agreed that the letters Avere in order but claimed that he had been told that the conversation had struck a different note. Other members disapproved of Cr McCready quoting "tittle tattle." and expressed the opinion that the leters were exceptionally considerate and polite. Every effort was being made to arrange the accommodation without unnecessary inconvenience to any party. A Lot of "Piffle" Cr L. W. Luxtoin stated that Cr McCready had no right to obtain information second hand and quote "tittle tattle" at the council table. That a very fair thing had been done for Mr Delahunty was claimed by Cr W. A. McCracken, who. said the council also had to be fair to its own employee and get him a house and the chairman's action had been a very reasonable one. "Cr McCready is talking a lot of 'piffle' over nothing," he said. Cr F. J. Burt said that he had seconded the motion to> give Mr Delahunty every reasonable opportunity to vacate the house, but he could not see that any exception could be taken to what had been done. He was supported by Cr T. G. H. Cawte, who added that Cr McCready should read his minutes more carefully. That Cr McCready was unfair to bring hearsay to the table was the opinion of Cr A. F. McGougan, who considered the allegations unfounded. Other Complaints Cr McCready then demanded to know on what authority an arrangement had been made to commit the Council for 10s per week on the other house. Such decisions he claimed should be made at the meetings.

The chairman explained that the house had become available during the month and he had done what he considered best, secured the accommodation temporarily to ensure retaining their employee. If the council did not agree then the arrangement could be terminated. Other members agreed that the chairman had acted rightly and his action was in accord with his duty as chairman. The next point claimed by Cr McCready was that the l resolution passed at last meeting had been wrongly recorded, and he was contested on this point by the remainder including the seconder Cr B^irt. The chairman also pointed out that the minutes were circulated in good time and if am'thing was wrongly recorded then Cr McCready should not have agreed to their confirmation.