Disqualified by Auditor-General

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 192, 3 November 1927, Page 13

Disqualified by Auditor-General

TOWN BOARD MEMBER GLEN EDEN TROUBLE With the Auditor-General’s disqualification of Mr. A. J. Routley for the topic of discussion the special meeting of the Glen Eden Town Board last evening waxed lively and produced some very heated exchanges. The meeting was called to discuss the tag on the balance-sheet, “that the transactions between the board and Mr. A. J. Routley disqualified that gentleman as a member of the board.” The board room was crowded with ratepayers ardent to hear the latest in the episode, and a big throng endeavoured to follow the proceedings through the open doorway. A covering letter from the AuditorGeneral stated: "I have to direct attention to the terms of my certificate to your board’s balance-sheet for the year ended March 31, 1927, and shall be pleased to learn that the board has taken the necessary steps to adjust the abovementioned matter.” The full board participated in tl)e discussion. Mr. W. H. Shepherd presided, and there were also present Messrs. G. H. Ambler, J. M. West, J. H. Hayes, W. E. Martin, W. F. Rosier and A. J. Routley. RIGHT TO SIT Mr. Routley was the last to arrive. His presence at the table as a member was objected to by Mr. Hayes on the ground that he was no longer a member, having been disqualified in terms of the tag. The chairman formally moved, and Mr. Martin seconded, that the bal-ance-sheet be received. Mr. Hayes thereupon asserted that Mr. Routley could only be present as a ratepayer. Mr. West supported Mr. Hayes. The chairman, however, ruled that Mr. Routley was entitled to remain, but requested him not to vote. On the demand of Messrs. Hayes and West their protests as mentioned were recorded. They were persistent in their opinion, Mr. Hayes proposing, and Mr. West seconding, that Mr. Routley be requested to leave the table. Mr. Shepherd contended that the tag should not have been attached to the balance-sheet. It did not refer to accounts. Mr. Hayes insisted on his proposal being put to the meeting. Mr. Routley: You can do as you like. I have had enough of the humbugging already. . Mr. Shepherd; Until the chairman declares the seat vacant Mr. Routley is entitled to sit here. The motion was submitted, however, but was defeated, the chairman and Messrs. Martin. Ambler and Rosier voting against it, and the mover and seconder for it. THE CHAIRMAN’S DECISION Messrs. Hayes and West next demanded to know why the balancesheet had not been subnnted m complete form for the inspection and approval of members. Messrs. Martin and Ambler con tended that it had been before memThe chairman here expressed the view that the onus of deciding m connection with the disqualification was left on him as chairman. He would have to be sura that he was acting on the right lines. He had no desire to shirk his duty as friend " e was not quite sure yet. and considered it far better to reserve his Oecision until lie received a repl> from the Audit Office to information he had b °Mr. West claimed that Mr. Shepherd had no option but to act ance with Section 22 of the Town Boards Act. The tag had been Panned on the balance-sheet by the AuditorGeneral. and that officer would not alter his opinion. ... The chairman said that this case | was without precedent. „ I \ir t Hayfts moved that tho chairman j

take immediate steps for an election to be held as required by Section 22 of the Town Boards Act, 1928, in view of the Auditor-General’s disqualification of a member of the board. Numerous amendments were forthcoming. and the decision was finally reached that “in the opinion of board the instructions as set out in the tag attached to the balance-sheet should be carried out.”