COUNCILLORS’ EXPENSES

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1924, Page 4

COUNCILLORS’ EXPENSES

TAGGED BY AUDITOR

MAIvARA COUNTY COUNCIL TO EIGHT CASE.

WELLINGTON, October 13,

Recently the Makara County Council received its audited balance-sheet from the Auditor-General with the following tag attached:--“The Audit Office, Imvitig examined the halilhee-slieet ami accompanying accounts required by law to he audited, hereby certifies the same to ho correct subject to the exception that payment to councillors of a travelling allowance at the rate of £1 Is pitr meeting in lieu of travelling expenses colitravenes the terms of section SI), Counties Act, 11)20.”

Subsequently the Makara Council received a letter from the Auditor-Gen-eral, dated Septcnthef iotli, saying: “I shall he obliged if you will, within 14 days iroih date hereof, advise me of tire steps which have been taken to adjust the matter, and so.obviate the necessity for other proeeediligs in accordance with the law.” ... NOT A NEW PROCEDURE. To that letter the council replied through the chairman, Mr E. Wind ley that the allowance of Cl Is per sitting per member had been made in accordance with resolution ever since the council was constituted, and had never been questioned by the Audit Department. The endorsement on the last balance-sheet had certainly come as a surprise to a council that “ had endeavoured to more than keep within the four corners of the law,” and in the instance now objected to had followed a judgment of the Supreme Court with which the Auditor-General was no doubt conversant, and which ruled that an alowaiice of Cl Is per sitting nor member was “ ii reasonable sum ’’ to defray t ravelling expenses. The council desired to point out that while the. individual members received ail allowance of Cl Is per sitting of the council they receive no compensation for the many times ill each year they are called upon, liuleii to their inconvenience and loss, to act practically as foremen; necessitated by the non-employment ol an engineer by the council. Most of tlie councillors are practical men, and up till the moment have carried out these duties quite satisfactorily; .Meanwhile the Auditor-General wits asked to slate what adjustment he considered necessary and for what period of time, pending which the council was taking advice on the matter. It was suggested that the allowance made in good laith, and Pillowing a practice previously held to he legal, lie permitted to stand, and an endeavour made to have section 83 of the Act amended so as to leave no doubt as to its interpretation. NO SANCTION FOR THIS YEAR.

The reply of t'lio Auditor-General, dated October 3rd, stated that “Diverse conditions under which travelling allowances have been paid have made it incumbent on audit to obtain a more correct observance of the statutory provision, which requires the travelling expenses allowed to he •reasonable’ and ‘actual.’

"It is held that there is no vain reason for the more or less coinmoi view iill lately adopted, viz., that : council has the right to make .a lixct allowance per meeting without regan to the words above quoted, and I re gret that audit could not admit Mia anv claims arc within the terms of tin

Act unless they are sufficient to cover actual and reasonable expenses only.

"In the’ case of your council, apparently there are five o! the nine enuneillurs who travel hv rail, and the maximum distance travelled bv any one of them is sixteen miles, the first'class return fare for which is not more than Is, leaving a margin of 17s, for which <lO warrant exists in the Counties Ait •>r elsewhere. It •;. net the nitenlion "I Mm an lit to demand adjust meat in re.-p nt the balance-sheet under review, lull. I shall lie unable to extend this consideration to like payments if such are made during the year now current." ” COUNSEL’S OPINION. Legal opinion on the subject quoted the decision of Mr Justice Williams, who interpreted • the Act as “aut horising the payment of a icasonahle* sum of so much per mile, or according to a scale of distances, or a fixed sum to defray the travelling expenses.”

The opinion of coimsi'l lo tlit* Now Zealand Counties Association stated: "It seems to me that the law on the subject is settled by the said judgment.' I’nder section Stt the council is made judge of what are reasonable sums lo defray travelling expenses, and therefore iLs decision on the matter cannot be challenged unless it ehn he shown by those who question it that the council’s decision is manifestly unreasonable.

“As to a test case. The consent of the Crown would be necessary to the case being stated under the Declaratory Judgments Act, but this consent would doubtless be given, l’ersohally I do not see that there is anything left over from the Ewing ease for decisioif?’ takh soucrroirs advice. The chairman:' 1 am of the opinion that we should act on our solicitor’s advice. If it is going to lie cut down to actual travelling expenses we would not lie bothered aliout taking anything at all.

Councillor Howler: It would not be worth while. The clerk said he took it from the auditor’s letter that the members of the council would have to refund from April Ist of this year. The chairman: I don’t think Cl Is per member is too much at all. It is a matter of opinion. If councillors are not going to get anything but trainfare you will not get anyone to stand. Councillor Hell: By allowing it to go on so long it shows that the audi-tor-fJeneral considered it a reasonable thing. I think the most . reasonable thing is to take It to court.

Councilor Nairn: Every City Council in New Zealand will he interested in the matter. Councillor Hell: Most of the other people will very likely join in. The chairman: Some years ago it was decided in our favour. I think we should light it. Tt is a reasonable

thing. It is not only ourselves but future councils we have to consider. ' It was unanimously decided to eontest the auditor’s decision, and to inform other County Councils of the council’s decision in the matter, asking for their support..