ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCANDAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 978, 2 January 1883, Page 3

ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCANDAL.

(Wellington Post.) Not very long ago wo referred to some extraordinary disclosures in respect to local government administration at Knmaro. on the West Coast of the (South Island, where the auditors reported some remarkable proceedings on the part of certain officers. It seems, however, that the South Island is not to retain a monopoly of these eccentricities, for we now find some exceedingly curious circumstances revealed by the Wellington Provincial District Auditor as having occurred on the West Coast of this island, namely, in connection with the County of Patca. Mr Macalistcr’s report is somewhat formidable in hulk, extending over six columns, but is extremely clear and intelligible—too much so, probably, for the officers whose strange financial freaks are brought to light. Mr Macalister reports that “ moneys collected by the County Treasurer, Mr Black, were not paid into the Bank in the manner prescribed by law, but were retained in hand for a most inconvenient length of time,” that “in many instances the Treasurer has failed to account for rates collected until after the lapse of long periods subsequent to the dates of collection,” while that officer “is unable to give any satisfactory explanation of these irregularities.” Various statements were made as explanatory, but were rejected by Mr Macalister, who remarks “ The objectionable course pursued by the Treasurer of keeping those moneys in his possession for a most inconvenient length of time, and of endeavouring to mislead the Auditor and the Council by placing a certified statement before the latter officer for his signature, showing that those rates were in arrear, cannot be too strongly condemned.” One discrepancy of £32 which had found was set down to rates remaining unpaid, but this was disproved. It was further observed that certain disbursements of lump sums were entered somewhat suspiciously in the Hospital accounts, so it was considered desirable to inspect the Hospital hooks, as the Treasurer stated he was unable to supply information as to 'the details of these disbursements. Here again a discrepancy of £l3 was detected, which the Treasurer stated he was “ unable to explain.” Next it was found that, in respect to the Dog Tax, a sum of £6O had been paid to the Collector, no portion of which has ever been paid in to the County Fund Account at the Bank.” The Collector, Mr Beamish, on being appealed to, replied that “ one of the books kept by him had been lost, and that he was therefore unable to state the exact-sum collected!” He further stated that he had handed various sums to the Treasurer on account of Dog Tax, but Mr Black, on being requested to account for the moneys, answered—“ I have never received any moneys from Mr Beamish on account, of Dog Tax, but all fees received by myself were handed over to him.” Extended enquiries increased the sum unaccounted for to £B2, and Mr Macalister remarks “ the amount still remains in possession of one or oilier, or of both those officers,” and he proceeds to add — u All ordinary means have been used and exhausted for the recovery of this branch of the revenue, but without success ; it is therefore considered that a public prosecution should immediately be instituted by the Council for the recovery of these funds.” It is also noted significantly that “it does not appear that any steps have been taken to compel the previous defaulting collector, Mr Winchcombe, to pay into the County Fund moneys collected by him on account of the dog-tax.” The accounts of revenue from publicans’ licenses proved equally 7 unsatisfactory 7 . One of the printed forms was missing without (lie usual amount which it represented, £25, having been entered in the cash account or paid into the hank. The treasurer alleged that the missing form had been destroyed. It was found on investigation, however, that the license teas issued, and the £25 duly 7 paid so far back as Juno last. Mr Macalister grimly 7 observes : —“This is another in--stance in which the treasurer wilfully endeavoured to deceive the auditor, but without success.” Next we come to slaughter-house license fees, and here on omission of £ls was discovered. In reply 7 to the auditor’s enquiries, the treasurer offered “ the extraordinary 7 curt explanation, ‘ this item was overlooked !’ ” None of the fees' have been accounted for, although duly paid to the treasurer, nor has tlie “ head money ” for cattle slaughtered. No receipts wore enteied in the cashbook on account of rents of reserves, and on a memorandum being sent to the Treasurer requesting information, it was “ returned to the Auditor without any 7 reply 7 or explanation being given by the Treasurer, who, immediately afterward absented himself from his office.” A deficiency of £75 was discovered under this head. OnJMr Black being pressed for an explanation, his solicitor replied that he was “ laid up with lumbago.” The Auditor terms tins letter “ a peculiar document,” and points out that Mr Black’s lumbago need not prevent his handing over to the County the money 7 he had received on its behalf. In short, Mr Macalister indignantly dismisses Mr Black’s statements as “ lame and unsatisfactory,” and proceeds to sum up as follows : —“ It is quite clear that both the treasurer and the collector of Dog Tax have for some time past abused the trust of public moneys reposed in thorn, and that they continued to abuse that trust up to too last moment of examination of accounts.” He therefore “ feels it incumbent on-him to declare both Mr Beamish, the Dog Tax Collector, and Mr Black, the Clerk and Treasurer, to be defaulters,” and he recommends that they be required instantly 7 to band over all books, [papers, keys, documents, and money 7 s, and to make good their defalcations without delay. lie also “ feels constrained to point out that the Council has not exercised that supervision over its officers which is essential to the proper conduct of public business.’’ Cheques had even been signed in blank in the cheque book by Councillors, thus leaving everything in the uncontrolled power of The Treasurer. Mr Macalister observes, with much force and truth, that the “ objectionable practises ” disclosed, are “ calculated to bring the Council and local Government into contempt with the people.” It is quite clear from the Kumara and Patea exposures that a most stringent periodical audit of these local Government accounts is absolutely essential, and this applies equally to CityCouncils.