QUESTION OF TASTE.

Putaruru Press, 7 June 1928, Page 4

QUESTION OF TASTE.

COUNCIL AND BOARD. Two Chairmen’s Views. Mr. Buchanan’s Rejoinder. Reference to the criticism made in regard to himself and Mr. B. C. Taylor, by the chairman of the Matamata County Council, was made by Mr. J. Buchanan, chairman of the Matamata Town Board, on Monday night. The chairman stated he had read the report, and as part only of the controversy had been referred to by Cr. Anderson, and as his remarks might leave a false impression upon the public mind, it would not be amiss to shortly recount the facts leading up to the remarks:

“ On March 7 last this board wrote asking the council to support a pr®posal to have the Tower-Turanga-o-moana road made a main highway, and pointing out the advantages to be gained by both bodies. Tt was mentioned in the letter that the board intended to enlist the help of local M.’sP. in the matter.

“ The council’s response appeared in the Record of March 12, and it was to the effect that the council strongly opposed the project for several reasons, and gave as its first reason that it was entirely opposed to the principle of endeavouring to bring political pressure to bear upon the Main Highways Board. This reply was also contained in a letter subsequently received by the board. The board asked the council to reconsider its decision, but that body replied reiterating its first decision. It was upon receipt of this later letter from the council that the remarks referred to were made by Mr. Taylor and myself. “ It will thus be clearly seen that the council was the first body to offend (if it is an offence) in the matter of criticism, and in view of that criticism Cr. Anderson’s latest outburst is quite refreshing. It would not be out of order to suggest that his homily on local body ethics might with advantage be headed ‘ for home consumption.’ “ However,” the chairman said, “ I refuse to believe, upon the authority of even Cr. Anderson, that it is v. rong to criticise the work, or rather the inaction, of another local bady in a matter which concerns and would be to the benefit of the town district and this end of the county. I repeat the remarks to which Cr. Anderson takes umbrage, and if Cr. Anderson will read the reports of the proceedings of the Auckland Transport Inquiry he will add to his experience on the question of local body criticism regarding matters of common interest.

“ I feel obliged to say that prior to my remarks this evening all the members of the board, in speaking of the council, have invariably directed their remarks to the council as a body and not to individual members of the council, and I regret that Cr. Anderson’s pointed remarks necessitate a temporary- departure from that time-honoured custom. In introducing the personal element Cr. Anderson had trespassed new ground which would be challenged in spite of his long local body experience. “In conclusion, I do not wish to create an ; mprcssion that I am thinskinned when it comes to a matter cf fair criticism, and I trust that lcnger public experience will not change me in that respect.”