The Chronicle LEVIN. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1916. LEVIN BOROUGH COUNCIL PARSIMONY.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 5 April 1916, Page 2

The Chronicle LEVIN. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1916. LEVIN BOROUGH COUNCIL PARSIMONY.

J lie principle of giunting leave oi ab- | sencc to members of local oodies cau Ibe overdone. Many reasons in sup- | port ot the practice are given from ■time to time. The reaJ" _ one is sedu- | loudly kept in the 'background—it is j the disinclination of the average local j body to spend the sum of £2 7k 9d or thereabouts on the cost of the extraordinary emotion necessitated whenever a councillorship becomes vacant. Economy in reason is commendable, but when any aggregation of civic representatives carries the principle to extremes some protest snoiild be made. Levin Borough Council is a hardened offender in this way. Lu the council of 1913-15 there was a continuing vacancy lor twelve months or so, occasioned by the permanent departure from this district of a former councillor. The council, every three months, extended his leave of absence,- and; finally the whole council went out of existence, through effluxion of time, with the vacancy still unfilled. Several months ago tliis council gave six months' leave of absence to a councillor who had done his duty to the country by going on active service. In granting this leave the council was following tl'ie precedent set in Parliament, but the practice was little the better for that. If any councillor litis to leave bis duties, tor any reason whatever, his constituents should not be disenfranchised. In passing we may note that Parli-iment' ' pays fuV. stlnry to all its members on active service, instead of doing what the average private employer is compelled to do: suspend payment of wages until the volunteer can return to his labours. The sentimental side of Parliament's action is udimiiable, but in effect it disfranchises several eonstituences, just as the Levin Borough Council's action does. On Monday night the council found that another admirable councillor was absent from Levin on military duty that would detain tim for several months. The councillor had expressed his opinion that his office should be vacated audi an election hold, but he left ded>sion to the council: and its own precedent Mas followed by the council. Thus we have the position that seven councillors are left to do the work of nine, and the probability seems rJi&t in at least one of the two instances a year or so must elapse before the councillor can return to Levin, while the other certainly will be away lor several months. Are nine councillors necessary? The statutory low says "Yes'' ; Levin Borough Council "No." In that- case, are seven necessary r And if seven needed, why ' ot simplify the matter by letting the ; mayor and town clerk run the borough, ' wit-li merely occasional callings-together : of the council? It wouldi save a iot I of gaslight and stationery if tbis were j done. The chief objection to' it would j be the inability of two men to find out all the various needs of the various citizens and localities of this extensive borough. It was in recognition of., this fact that councils were instituted f by Parliament, and the_ statutory , methods established ascertaining mem-

bership quotas. Any council that takes upon itself the. onus of diminishing its effective membership does wrong. One such act makes less difference than two do; but one is wrong, and half a dozen would be so. Ancl when once the practice oecomes sanctioned by precedents, wnen is it to determine P The cheeseparing spirit that underlies the practice is to our mind the least praisewoi tliy; and we say this in * full recognition of the fact that some local critics wili reply •that The Chronic>i's grief springs from its regret at the loss of ten shillingswortlj. of advertising and a guinea's worth of job printing. such arguments carry 110 weight with fair-minded men, but it is as well to meet them 111 advance now and again.