WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 56, 16 March 1943, Page 4

WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Sir, —In the. County Chairman's departure l'rom the strict (?) rule regarding correspondence lie has certainly wielded the big stick, but facts are hard things and he lias not refuted the. statements in my letter. He has vaguely referred to instructions to the County Solicitor inferring that the solicitor was not notified that one area of land was required for bridge protection. For the chairman's information I will publish briefly my action in this matter. I wrote to the Minister of Public Works to find out the cause of the long delay and on receiving his reply 11.I 1 . interviewed the* County Clerk and to my inquiry why the Minister had not been informed that this land was require ed for bridge protection. I \Vas toldl "that the County Solicitor had the choice of representing the area as either for protection or plantation >—the matter was left, to him and h& chose to represent the area as for plantation purposes." If the chairman is anxious to cor-» rcct erroneous impressions why has he told only half the story—why has he not mentioned the' letter from the Minister of. Public Works—written .to the Council after he had received the legal documents from the solicitor—stating that he could not issue the Proclamation unless the land was required for protection purposes. Even then— for some occult, reason—the Minister was not informed that the land was required to. prcn tect the bridge. My request to the Council asking for an explanation of the delay was - referred to the. County Solicitor and the voluntary explanation—mentioned by tlicfc chairman—was. received three months 'later. Could anything more severe in the way of censure be directed against the County Clerk than the tions contained in the chairman's letter—that, lie had failed in his duty by not taking the' necessary action to carry out the wishes of the councillors as embodied in a resolution in the minute book passed on 22nd January 1941. The County Office should be the place for a ratepayer to obtain information but there II have been refused information unless I got coiP sentf rom the. Council—but I can see the County Solicitor's; file without consent from the Council,, and have been chided by the chairman for not perusing that file. The County Solicitor's step by step explanation: The Survey Plan was the basis of my instructions. County chairman's letter: The initial legal in-» structions in this matter were sent to the County Solicitor accompanied by the' Survey Plan. I wonder if this road plan, which showed things so clearly to the» County Solicitor regarding this matter, was the same plan which the solicitor consulted when he made a statement about the road in the Magistrate's Court. The main 'jjob of a County Coun-» cil has always been to keep roads open for the use of ratepayers. I would like to hear the chairman's views regarding the County Solicitor's 'voluntary' opinion sent to the Council—"that, they had no right to treat as a road land which is fn process of being taken for a road.,"' This opinion was forwarded to the Council while the solicitor was handling this matter of. taking land unr der the Public Works Act for my „ road, and was the 1 outcome of an enquiry from a client —name suppressed. Yours etc., G. KIRKBRIDE.