Cr J. Patterson's Resignation.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 262, 27 March 1917, Page 2

Cr J. Patterson's Resignation.

TO THE EDITOR.] Sir,—ln your issue of Friday last you state : "The Borough Council, at its last meeting, received a communication from Cr J. Patterson, resigning his membership of the Councilalso that a bi-el<»ction was avoided bv Cr Patterson (at the suggestion of the Town Clerk), withdrawing, for a fortnight, the resignation." Clause 364 of the Municipal Corporations Act says: Any person may resign any office held by him under this Act. Clause 39 of the Local Elections and Polls Act, 1908, states: In the case of an extraordinary vacancy, the Clerk, or proper Officer of the local authority "hall forthwith give notice to the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer "hall forthwith by public notice appoint a day ... for receiving the nomination of candidates; and Clause 37 says: Every Returning Officer is liable to a fine not exceeding £SO for any wilful or negligent act of omission or commi-sion contrary to tbe provisions of this Act. Now, Sir, I contend the word shall is mandatory, having no option either for the Council, Cl9rk or Returning Officer to make a proviso of any kind regarding resignations. Consequently Cr Patterson having once tendered his resignation, in writing, had no power to withhold same nor ha I the Council piwer to allow same to be * ithheld ; further, the Town Clerk, in his pisitio i as Returning Officer, has made himself liable to a fine up to £SO for neglecting to take steps to fill the vacancy. I here is another phu3e ox thin episode, viz : If Cr Patterson could so readily agre6 to withhold his resignation for 14 days, presumably to get outside the Act, surely two or three weeks more would make no important difference to him if there is not something more at the back of this move than what appears on its face.

Some months back Cr Patterson tendered his resignation with practically the same result, viz.: At the Council's request it was with Ira wn, but from a legal aspect there is this difference—the first resignation was tendered at one meeting and withdrawn at a later date; therefore if a loophole could bi fouid in the later resignation to get Outside the provisions of the Acts bearing on the matter none auch could appiy in the former case. Consequently I contend Cr Patterson has been illegally occupying a seat in the Council, since his first resignation was tendered. Again, Sir, there is another very pertinent question to be asked on behalf of the Batepayers in connection with Cr Patterson's occupancy of a «e it in the Council, viz: During the first year of the present Council's existence Cr Patterson received a payment of upwards of £l6 in one sum for work done and goods supplied to the Council of which he was and still is acting as a member, in direct defiance of the law as laid down by the Act. Clause 42 subclause (h) states: " Any person concerned or participating . . in any . . work to be done, or the supply of goods for the Council, if payment of such work or supply exceeds £5 for any contract or work or supply, or, £lO altogether in any one year, shall be incapable of being . . . Councillor or Mayor," and Clause 43 says: "If any person, while holding office as Councillor or Mayor, becomes incapable under the last preceding section, his office shall be thereby vacated and such vacancy shall be deemed an extraordinary vacancy." Does this account for Cr Patterson's desire to resign his seat, so that he can again offer himself for re-election at the coming poll ? There might be some excuse for Cr Patterson if the receipt by him of this illegal payment had not been drawn attention to by the Government Auditor, who attached a " tag " to last year's balance sheet thereby refusing to pass it as correct in accordance with the law. Therefore I contend no excuse can be found for Cr Patterson for illegally occupying a seat and voting upon Council business.

This payment was made before I became a Councillor and it was only when the matter had to come before the Finance Committe (of which 1 am a member) fir their consideration, that I was partially informed of the position (I use the word " partially " advisedly as the sequel to this letter will show). My sympathy for Cr Patterson was engendered at that meeting by information given to me " that most of the work had been done before Mr Patterson became a member of the Council" but, neither the Mayor, Town Clerk nor Cr Patterson —the only three at the meeting besides mysaf— drew my attention to sub-Clause (h) of Clause -12 as giv<m above. If they had done so 1 certainly should not have been a party to the Mayor's suggestion which was adopted, \'u., that Cr Patterson should tender a I cheque for the amount paid him by the Council, the cheque not to be presented for payment but to be held in the Council's safe. So the matter, as far as the writer was concerned ended until some months later my mind suddenly reverted to the incident and I wondered what had become of that cheque; con equently I made enquiry of the Town Clerk and was informed " it had been presented for payment " at the Bank a short time before my inquiry. A. new phase then presented itself to me and I asked "why had the full sum of i'l6 odd been taken back from Cr Patterson when a matter of i' 7 at most would have made the payment to him legal." The reply received quite dumfounded me, viz., Cr Patterson had been paid other monies in addition to the £l6 odd which the Auditor had drawn attention to as an illegal payment. So you see, Bir, although I was a member of the Finance Committee my judgment was misled Lew use the

full legal position was not explained to me, nor the fact that Or Patterson had been paid other monies besides the £l6 odd objected to by the Auditor. There is still another phase oi this matter that will give the Ratepayers a little glimpse of how things are done in connection with their Council's business, viz, Three members are necessary to form a ijuorutn at a Finance Committee meeting and until such quorum be present no business can be legally transacted. The three members present when this illegal payment to Or Patterson was considered were the Mayor, Or Roadley and Or Patterson, also (he Town Clerk in his official capacity. Now I find Clause 43 sub clause (2) says: If any person does any act as a Councillor or Mayor being incapacitated under the last preFTl!Tceding section . . . he is liable to a fine not exceeding r a =?£so Consequently, as Cr Patterson according to the &ct and the ruling of the Government Auditor was incapacitated from sitting as a Councillor but still did so, he is liable to a fine not exceeding £SO and if Cr Patterson was not legally entitled to sit then there were only two legal members of the Council at the meeting. Thus the meeting not legally constituted and the business done thereat was ultra vires. This view of the position is strengthened bv 'Clause 59 (1.) A member of the Council or Committee shall not vote or take part in the discussion of any matter before the Council or Committee in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any pecuniary inter-Sub-Section (2 ) A member who knowingly offends against this section is liable to a fine not exceeding £SO for every such offence. If Cr Patterson was ignorant of the above clauses is it likely the Mayor, a lawyer by profession, was also ignorant aud if both agted in ignorance is it likely the Town Clerk was not acquainted with the clauses of the Municipal Corp>ratius Act under which he is supposed to conduct the Council's business. The subject matter in this letter only refers to a mere incident—a passing phase—in the Council's business. lam wondering if the Ratepayers would like to hear more of the "inner " working of this wonderfully conducted organisation knowa locally as " The Pukekohe Borough Council." Yours &c., CECIL ROADLEY.