“CHAIRMAN’S ROAD”

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 95, 13 July 1927, Page 13

“CHAIRMAN’S ROAD”

WHO GAVE AUTHORITY? STIR AT MOUNT ROSKILL A LTHOUGH gentle hints had gone before, it came as a surprise to a SUN man last night to see a police constable just inside the entrance to the Mount Roskili Road Board chamber, and a few extra ratepayers assembled, probably in pleasurable anticipation of a “bit of easterly” inside in unison with the weather outside. The trouble was that the chairman had taken upon himself the authority to instruct the board’s engineer to carry out improvements to Quentin Avenue, at the cost of about £SO. without seeking consent from his fellow members, and fuel appeared to be added to the fire by the fact that Quentin Avenue includes the private residence of Mr. Jones. Mr. L. A. Tozer opened the skirmish by asking upon what authority the chairman had ordered the execution of the work, to which Mr. Jones replied that he was well aware of the motive of such a question, but would explain at the end of the ordinary business. Then Mr. J. R. Robertson took a hand, and demanded immediate settlement of the subject, protesting that Quentin Avenue had been improved on the ipse dixit of the chairman, when other roads were in a far worse condition. After repeated essays, Mr. Robertson failed to get an answer as to what extent the chairman was legally authorised to expend the ratepayers’ money on his own initiative—whether £5 or £SOO. Whereupon he declared that if a limit was not named, he would refuse to sit on the board under such chairmanship. The chairman claimed justification for his action, on the ground that under the old board, many desirable works had been shelved, and the new board had determined to take a hand in the business of progress. He was not aware of the limit of his authority, but took the blame if anything was wrong. More than that he did not intend to say. Mr. W. ICerr entered strong protest against the chairman’s action, particularly as it referred to the road in which he was living, and which was certainly not in a bad condition compared with other roads. Mr. Robertson insisted upon a stated limit of authority, explaining that on being interviewed by a number of ratepayers he expressed disbelief in the alleged action of the chairman.

Other members claimed that some limit to the chairman’s authority was a most reasonable thing to ask; and at one juncture things appeared to be getting “warm,” the majority requesting enlightenment, while three members considered the chairman’s action was not ultra vires.

Finally, upon being pressed upon the point, Mr. Jones conferred with the town clerk, and then announced that he discovered he ha,d the power to authorise works up to the limit of £5. This appeared to satisfy members, but throughout the rest of the meeting repeated references, sarcastic and facetious, were made in inquiries as to whether certain other works referred to were “the chairman’s road.”