A COUNCILLOR'S REASONS.

Patea Mail, 31 May 1882, Page 3

A COUNCILLOR'S REASONS.

• In- vindication of the implied charge of neglect against councillors, of shewing want of .interest in the plans, now before the ratepayers for expenditure of £SOOO, made ■ -by" the Mayor when he stated in reply to Mr Aitchisbn that ample opportunity had been given to consider them, and that they were laid before; the Council in an official manner, 1 and again that councillors • should have objected,-—I may say for. myself, and I believe nearly all the other councillors '.will agree with me, that until the last monthly meeting we were not aware the plans were ready; that : while ip course of preparation, it would Kaye been , likely, to retard his work if the Engineer had been frequently interrupted by councillor requiring information ; that the Mayor having the power, under the Act to determine what may be esteemed extraordinary :: business to. be brought before? a meeting, did not apparently so deem the consideration of the scheme for, expenditure, and is open to question of his proper judgment in having prevented the required notice being given, whereby councillors might have posted themselves up for the occasion. At the meeting itself, the Engineer’s report and estimates were read in coramit-

tee, but not recommended to the Council, therefore not- adopted ; which, if not sufficient to 1 ijlegalise the whole proceeding, is at least contrary to usage, and appears to have been taken advantage of. If the adoption of the report had been moved, there would certainly have been amendments proposed. The Mayor’s ruling on (Saturday appears to amount to this; The Council agreed to borrow £SOOO ; they appointed the chairman of Works Committee and himself to give instructions to the Engineer ; and they have nothing more to say in the matter until coming before them as ratepayers. Although I cannot find that it is expressly provided by the Act that the ; Council shall approve the scheme for expenditure before taking a poll, yet no one knows better than the Mayor that it is contrary to the spirit of the Act to consider any question as carried by the Council unless by a majority of votes. It may have been ah oversight that further considerar tion of the matter was not moved by resolution, but it cannot truthfully be said that formal objection should necessarily have been made to it there and then, seeing that it was not proposed to be adopted. . '

As events have shewn, ~the ; Council would I think have done'better if at the meeting in January they had merely authorised the. employment of an Engineer, and reserved their voting on the resolution to borrow until the detailed mode of expenditure was before them, which I advocated at the time. . ! John (libson.