POWER BOARD MEMBERS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 278, 7 March 1929, Page 8

POWER BOARD MEMBERS.

MATAMATA COMPLAINT. Basis of Representation. Referring to a decision arrived at at the last meeting of the Thames Valley Power Board, the town clerk, Matamata, wrote to the board on Tuesday that his board was of the opinion that if the Putaruru town district could not be given separate representation Matamata county and Putaruru town district be represented conjointly. Such an alliance would at least be consistent with the past relationship between the two areas, and it was reasonable to assume that the county representatives had a better knowledge of the Putaruru district than any Matamata representative could have.

“ Furthermore, my board is of the opinion that, while and so long as boroughs purchasing power in bulk from you are considered entitled to separate representation, Matamata, which is Supplied on terms more favourable to your board, should certainly have separate representation,” the writer added. “ Matamata and Putaruru towns are not contiguous but are nineteen miles apart, and therefore; how can it be surmised that one representative could adequately represent the two towns ? Should it be impossible for Putaruru’s representation on the Power Board to remain as at present, then it is suggested that to give Putaruru representation that the membership of the board be increased by one.” After some discussion it was decided to point out that the board did not contemplate making a change, as the present basis of representation was quite satisfactory.