RATEPAYERS' MEETING.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 513, 30 October 1912, Page 5

RATEPAYERS' MEETING.

The Editor. Sir,—l must ask you in .justice to myself and others who took part in the public meeting of ratepayers on Thursday ia3t, to allow me a reply to the Mayor's statements in your reported interview, with that gentleman after the meeting. I pass over his Worship's generous innuendos as to fireworks, and of individuals at tempting to teach the council how to conduct its business, as anvone who was present will have no difficulty in placing the true value on such. I shall deal only with the Mayor's direct statements, as reported by you, which are as follows:—"His action "throughout as chairman had been logical, and consistent, and he failed to see hnw he could have acted otherwise. The meeting, after he had left the chair, was quite illegal, and anything that had transpired there at was ultra vires." Let me say at once, that liis Worship must have a very poor opinion of the general intelligence of the great body of the ratepayers if he thinks he can explain away the exhibition to which the meeting was treated by any such inadequate and misleading statement. What are the facts? The Borough Council, having decided to go in for a further loan, resolved to bring the proposals before the ratepayers at a public meeting before taking £ poll. A public meeting of ratepayers was called by the Mayor, and a very representative meeting assembled, a far greater number being present than on any former similar occasion. The Mayor, as is usual, took the chair, and having cutlined the proposals, six of the other councillors spoke on different phases of the subject; but only one was prepared to support the scheme advocated by the Mayor. Hence the pitiable spectacle, referred to by Cr Walsh, of the council coming before the ratepayers without having any definite policy agreed upon. Indeed, it was frankly admitted that the loan proposals, although involving an expenditure of £2,1,000, had never once been considered "in detail by the council," and that not until after the scheme had been adopted, were councillors aware that various items, now objected to, were in the schedule. It was only reasonable, therefore, that the meeting, assisted by several councillors should endeavour to eliminate some of the objectionable items,and it endeavoured to do this in the constitutional manner, viz.: by motion, counter motion, or amendment. This, however, the chairman, would not allow, and absolutely refused to accept for discussion by the meeting, any of the three motions proposed, the result being that the meeting protested in such an unmistakable manner that the chairman left the chair. If any evidence was required that the chairman had forfeited the confidence of the meeting, it was found* in the fact that the meeting at onco elected another chairman, and without discussion passed the resolutions, without amendment, which had been rejected by the former chairman. Therefore, for the Mayor to.say that the meeting was illegal because he was forced to leave the chair, and that anything done was ultra vires, is only "pure piffle." The meeting was not a statutory one, as scufc meetings are not now required, although his Worship may have thought it was. It was'simply an ordinary public meeting of ratepayers, and as such had a perfect right to elect its own chairman, and if that chairman failed, or refused to carry out the wishes of the meeting in a constitutional manner, they bad an equal right to turn him down. Thi<? the meeting did, and although it was a very regrettable incident, there was no other course left open, unless they were prepared to sit still and be treated like schuol boys, and be prepared tu pay and look pleasant whether they liked it or not —a course of procedure which is not likely to meet with the approval of the democratic spirit of the age. One more point and I am done: The Mayor declared that the council's only desire was to give effect to the wishes of the ratepayers. How can he reconcile that statement with his action at the meeting and the decision of the council tu ignore the expressed wishes of the ratepayers by stilt proceeding with the poll for £21,000. Does he imagine that his assertions at the council meeting on Saturday that the meeting was controlled by the rowdy element, and was not representative of the ratepayers, will deceive anyone' but himself. If so, I think he is making a serious blunder, for I am very greatly mistaken if the ratepayers will agrea to give the council a "blank cheque" for £21,000 under present conditions, and if the loan is thrown out, they will have no one to blame but themselves.—l am, etc., JAMES BODDIE.