THE CITY COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 3656, 10 November 1874, Page 2

THE CITY COUNCIL.

To the Editor. —The public care little about the regulations for the conduce of meetings of the City Council, but in order that business should be done ii a business-like manner rules and regulations must be enforced. T;ie i nseemly proceedings in the Council during the last two meetings would have been altogether obviated had the “ Regain, ti°ns been observed. The Mayor has no rignfc to expunge a notice of motion from the Order Paper. It is for the ouncil to determine whether the motion shall bo carried or injected. The Mayor, the power of rejecting notices of motion being in his hands, would become an autocrat : he would in P^ M fact possess the power of usurping the functions of the councillors as a deliberative body. No, no, the Mayor has his place assigned to him He cannot over-ride the Council Or. Fish’s “ discourtesy ” motion was merely an echo of the latter part of the 22id Standing Order. It was outrageous for the Mayor to attempt to rule that the motion should not be put to the Council. 'o mat ler what the nature of ihe motion so long as the language is not in itself disrespectful, the Councillor has the right to move it. It is, however, gratifying to find that*thongh the Mayor overstepped his right as chairman, yet he ultimately displayed the gentleman in expressions of regret for the discourteous expression. i presume the Standing Orders are placed before each councillor on a printed sheet, conspicuous, and convenient for immediate reference. It is of importance that connedlore should be well posted up in the Standing Orders, so that the business of the iouncil should be carried on by strict rule, ( Ur. fcish’s “discourtesy” motion would not have been placed on the Order Paper had one of the councillors at the meeting at ) which the Mayor made use of the offensive taugqego cast his eye upon the I6th Stand*

ing Order, by which it is provided, “ a councillor may require the enforcement of any Standing Order of the Council by directing the Mayor’s or chairman's attention to the infraction tberc< f.” Standing Order No. 22 fete forth that “ all personal reflections on councillors shall be deemed highly disorderly therefore the Mayor would 'have been called upon by the 23.-d Sta; ding Order, “to withdraw his expression, and to make satisfactory apology to the Council. ’ I write this in order to call attention to the importance cf observing the Standing Orders strictly to the btter. In debate this has not always been attended to. The Mayor op chairman, by the 19th Standing Order, can only speak once on a question ; and by the 83th Standing Order it will be seen tba% after the reply by the mover of the original propositkn, ’‘immediately the question shall be put from the chair.” From long experience, I can testify to the great advantage the enforcement cf the Standing Orders will prove in all that concerns the interests of the ratepayers.—l am. <*tc.,

One who has passed the Chair, Dunedin, November 9.