Borough Finance.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 58, 10 January 1913, Page 2

Borough Finance.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUKEKOHE BOROUGH COUNCIL AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. [TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —As indicated in my letter appealing in your issue of December 31st, it was my intention to again communicate with the Council re the question of loans However, learning later that there will be no meeting of the Council prior to January 18th, I have decided (anticipating your kind permission), in order to save time, to address my remarks to them, and ro the general public, per medium of your columns. It is almost universally recognised that it is not ouly the privilege of the electors, but their duty to in a proper way criticise the public actions of their representatives on public bodies, the importance of this privilege being recognised by the Press in throwing open theii columns (at what must be an enormous expense) for the free discussion of all public questions. In the exercise of this privilege it is the duty of the electors to remember that the gentlemen elected to these bodies are, generally speaking, giving their time, ability and energies for the general good, and often at a considerable personal sacrifice, and in their criticisms endeavour to avoid personalities, or the imputations of improper motives. There is nothing so dishearfening or depressing to a public man than when, after days or possibly months of anxious thought and unselfish work, he finds that his best work and actions are misconstrued, and selfL-h or unworthy motives are imputed to him. It is the duty of the elector, when he sees his representatives wittingly or unwittingly taking any course of action which is, in his opinion, prejudicial to the public good or dignity, to either privately or through the Press point out in a courteous and conciliatory wny wherein he thinks they are in error, and if he has any information which he thinks may be for the public good it is his bounden duty to communicate it fur the general benefit. The critic who sits idly by when he sees what he thinks a serious mistake being made, or a wrong being done, without giving friendly advice or warning, is just as much to blame as the man or body of men who are responsible for such mistake or wrong; and the person who does not speak out when he knows it is his duty to do so, is an enemy rather than a friend to all. Of course, I am assuming that we are giving everybody credit for doing their best according to their ability. There are exceptional cases, when you are absolutely certain that a serious and wilful wrong is being done, or that some individual very different from what he appears, and that it is in the public interest that he should be exposed. Then once absolutely sure of your facts it is your duty to speak out with no uncertain sound, but as a general rule we should remember that these men are presumed to be representative of the best men we can find, and are elected by the majority of the people, and to wantonly traduce or ridiculet them without very exceptional cause is to in I'ke degree reflect on those who sent them there, and to lower the whole moral tone of the communfty. It is the duty of the public man or body of men to remember that the position he holds is a position of trust and honour. The people who have placed him in that position have conferred on him the highest honour in their power to confer; they have made him not only the dilector of their financial all, but to a large extent the custodian of the public dignity and honour, and if we are not (the young particularly) to look to our public men for an example of c»uttesy and forbearance to each "Ottrer, and for all that is supposed to be most noble in manhood, then pray to whom are we to look ? if he thinks of all this, then in the performance of his public duties he will be careful to take no important step without due consideration of what the immediate and future results will be, because the results of such actions may bo felt for many years to come. He will make no impoitant statement without feeling assured that such statement is in all respects correct, and will make no promise unless he is prepared to abide by it at any cost. He will also remember that although he is for the time being in commanu of thi situation it is the people's business, and that by custom and law alike they have the right not only to criticise, but to be supplied with full and definite information in connection]with.each and every transaction. It is not by the courtesy of any local body that their meetings are open to the public. The law of the land provides for this, and also that any ratepayer has the right at all reasonable times to examine all books, papers and documents the property of such body, and to make and take away copies of any entry or entries therein which he may think tit. It is also his duty when his constituents do criticise or offer suggestions, that although he may know from his moie intimate and inner knowledge of the position that the former may be irritating and without justification, and the latter of no practical value, yet it is probably honestly what the critic may think and merits to be treated accordingly. It is given to few, very few, to say and do just the right thing in the right way and at the right time, and I am sorry to say that unfortu-

nately I am not one of the few above referred to. Yet it was in the spirit as described that I penned my first ietter to the Council. I saw them taking what was in my opinion a wrong course, a course which I thought and still think fraught with injurious results, and which involved the breaking of a public pledge. I had also heard damaging rumours and uncomplimentary remarks, and instead of doing nothing and allowing them to unwittingly make these mistakes, I did what I would expect any frieud of mino to do to myself in similar circumstances, wrote to them privately (not even through the Press; they will remember that they published the letter, not me), pointing ont wherein I thought they were in error and my reasons for thinking so; also mentioning the rumours with the object of giving them an opportunity of explaining the facts and correcting any misapprehension that might exist. I djd not allege reticence. If you will refer to my letter you will notice I used the word apparent, with " possibly necessary " iu brackets, so that there shoul 1 be no mistake about my meaning. Neither did I wish to make comparison. The present Council are the people who are doing the work, and if Hrown is doing the job and Jones has nothing to do with it, it is idle and mischievous to bring Jones into it at all. There was no reason why I should do otherwise. I looked on them all as past colleagues and practically all my present friends, and although I did not think it necessary, yet lest there might be any possible chance of misconstruction I gave my assurancethat the letter was written in no critical or unfriendly spirit, and I cannot help feeling pained and hurt that my assurance should have been disregarded and my motives misconsti ued.

Now having got over this long but let us hope not useless preliminary we will, if you will permit the privilege, discuss the subject in a friendly and conversational kind of way. When the Council oveitook the affairs of the Town Board, we were all ablaze with righteous indignation when we found that the Board had by a private 1 arrangement increased the debt on the town by a sum of £2OOO without the consent of the people. Oar criticisms on that occasion were both forcible and free and I am afraid without much regard for the feelings of those concerned. It will always be a matter for regret with myself that I did not display moie tact and consideration on that occasion. Now, wherein is the difference ? One body of men after careful consideration and with expert advice obtain the ratepayers' consent to a loan of £12,500 as sufficient for their purpose. After going more deeply into the matter, however, they find that a desirable change of phns and other circumstances necessitate the expenditure of a much larger amount than tad been authorised. Then after much serious thought and consideration and with the very best intentions as a temporary expedient conclude an arrangement whereby the debt of the people is innocently but wrongly increased without their knowledge or consent.

The second body of men after the same due thought and consideration agree that in the interests of the place it is desirable that a further loan should be raised, and, after enquiry are satisfied that they can obtain the required amount at 5 per cent and % per cent brokerage, get the consent of their constituents to a loan on these terms, except that as a precaution they provide for 1 per cent, brokerage inetead of 4 per cent. When, however, they come to negotiate the loan they find that through a change in the money market and other circumstances which few of them anticipated they cannot raise the amounts at 5 per cent, then they, with the same good intentions, but also without the .knowledge or consent of their constituents until it is too late, raise the money at a higher rate than that mentioned, and it should be remembered that while the first body had no previous experience to guide them, or newspaper in which to publish their proceedings, the second body had both. We need not discuss the legal aspect. I once heard it said that we should do right because right is right, and not because the law or other circumstances compel us to do so. Now whether permitted by law or even custom they are both equally unsound and dishonest systems. Where is the use of placing £12,500 before the electors on the ballot papers if by an unauthorised arrangement the amount can be indefinitely increased, and where is the use of asking the people's consent toaloan with a limit of 5 per cent., it by a sid» wind the amount can also be indefinitely increased ? It may be argued that the amounts in both cases are so small that they are not worth making a noise about, but the question of amount does not affect the position. It is the wrong principle and precedent I am attacking. The law or custom that permits £2OOO to be added in the one case, and £IOO bonds to be sold for £97 or £9B in the other would not prevent £20,000 to be added on the same basis to be sold for £BB or loss, it would then be only a question of necessity and the moral fibre of the men engaged. As the errors were the same so the remedy. Propound the best alternative scheme you can, explain your scheme and the reasons for the change to the people and in niue cases out of ten they will endorse what you propose. When your people know that no important step or change of policy will be taken without their consent, then when you happen to make a mistake even they have to pay the cost you will have their sympathy instead of condemnation. Even if, however, there was no legal or moral objection to selling your bonds at les9than par you have contracted yourself out of the right to do so. You will remember it was my custom when acting as your spokesman on any occasion to specifically request councillors to correct me at once if I made any

statement or promise with they did not agree, and at meetings I always invited you on to the platform with me -kr this \i purpose, and after giving the pro j *~ mise, viz., " That if the Council found they could not borrow at 5 per cent., und not more than 1 per cent brokerage then they would not borrow at all," I turned round to the councillor and appealed to them whether they agrood' with it or otherwise and they gave an emphatic aud unanimous assent. Now, gentleman, this was not (as my friend •' One Who Pays " says) a tentative or implied promise but a very definite and binding one. I have real " One Who Pays " letter with much interest and although he rubs it into me pretty stiffly it is on the whole from what appears on the surface logical and fair criticism, but he is mistaken in assuming that certain events transpired and certain conditions existed which did not transpire or exist. I have been probably very much to blame in many respects but not in the way supposed by my friend. Hoping that explanations may yet be given.—l am, etc., WILLIAM DUNN.