THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 P.O. Box 44 Office Oxford Place THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1929. TOWN HALL LOAN PROPOSALS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 290, 30 May 1929, Page 4

THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 P.O. Box 44 Office Oxford Place THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1929. TOWN HALL LOAN PROPOSALS.

IN another column the chairman of the Putaruru Town Board takes us to task for allegedly conveying a wrong- impression as to what transpired at the last meeting of the board, when the question of the proposed new Town Hall was discussed, such discussion arising out of the receipt of the letter from the Putaruru Bowling, Croquet and Tennis Club (Inc.). In the first place we deny that a wrong impression was conveyed, for there is indisputable evidence that the chairman regarded it as impertinence on the part of the club to write such a letter, and the chairman’s letter confirms this, though by what means he arrives at this conclusion is hard to understand. To say that he suggested that the letter should be so treated because it nearly bordered on impertinence, instead of actually moving it, is merely splitting straws, though, as the report stated, the chairman later admitted that it was probably not meant to be so.

Nowhere in the report do we suggest that the chairman wanted to block discussion, and frankly we marvel at the idea that a local body cannot be written to in a respectful mariner making suggestions, though the chairman in the concluding portion of his letter says that deputations and suggestions are welcomed. In the same report of the board meeting is a letter from the Prime Minister stating that the board’s objections to a reduction in the motor taxation had been noted ; one wonders if the Prime Minister regarded the letter as bordering on impertinence on the Putaruru Town Board’s part. Any body or persons have the right to place their views before a local body, and the Putaruru Town Board is no exception to the rule. In reference to the word “ board ” in the leader, 99 people out of 100 knew- that the board referred to was the Local Government Loans Board. Everyone knew that the matter had been before the Town Board. The whole context of the article showed that the board referred to was the Loans Board, the veiled hint that the board might not approve of this proposal indicating this to be so. The only possible misapprehension that can have arisen is that part of the report dealing with the calling of tenders, and even if it is admitted that the chairman said that it was tenders for the hire of the hall and not the cost of the building, as was stated, yet the chairman is wrong in saying that we report him to be responsible for Mr. McDermott’s suggestion ; nowhere in the report is this stated. If the chairman, as he admits in his letter, knew that the legal position prevented Mr. McDermott’s suggestion from being put into action, why did he agree to the ratepayers’ money being wasted on the cost of obtaining legal advice ?