HUIA DAM

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 575, 30 January 1929, Page 12

HUIA DAM

MR. H. P. TAYLOR REPLIES “ENTITLED TO INFORMATION’’ In connection with Mr. IT. P. Taylor’s allegations of extravagance in the construction of the liuia Dam and the City Council’s refusal to answer the list of 20 questions forwarded by Mr. Taylor, on the grounds that he was not the class of ratepayer entitled to examine the council books, Mr. Taylor has submitted the following reply' to The Sun: *Y am getting more publicity over my criticism than I anticipated but your report of the City Council’s refusal to supply replies to 20 queries asked for by me calls for a reply. “The doubt raised as to whether I am a ratepayer because property' is in my wife’s name is comical. 1 am entitled to vote for or against any loans and on which ratepayers only can vote; therefore to all intents and purposes I am a ratepayer and entitled to the information. “Councillor Mcßrine stated my questions were impertinent and there would have been few' objections if a reasonable lot of information had been desired. Surely', then, it was up to him to move that. 1 should be supplied with that which he considered reasonable. This would have shown a bonafide desire to enlighten ratepayers. A candidate at a professional examination might be justified in refusing to answer any portion of the paper on the same grounds, viz., the quantity or number of questions set. “I challenge Councillor Mcßrine to point out any one question in which impertinence has been shown by me. “Councillor Crookes’s statement: ‘The extreme discourtesy displayed and- his reference to the Town Clerk is most unbecoming and insulting,’ causes me to ask you to publish in full a copy of my letter of the 11th to the Mayor and Councillors, to which exception was taken. “This letter was not read to the council, but the Town Clerk took extracts and put them on* the order paper.” COPY 11/1/29. To the Mayor and Councillors. Gentlemen, — On the 13th ult. I wrote you objecting in accordance with a duly advertised notification from the Town Clerk to .-the proposal to borrow £200,000, being balance of the £400,000 loan authorised in 1926, and in said objection stated some 12 reasons for so doing. ' I notice in the Press that your council received a report from the Town Clerk but up to present w'riting I have not received from him an official reply. On the 22nd ult. I also wrote him asking for certain information embodied in some 20 questions as to the disposal of loan moneys for waterworks extensions and costs re Huia Dam, etc. I have not had an official reply or acknowledgment to On the 9th inst. I personally asked the Assistant Town Clerk for replies and he informed me that he was instructed to say by Town Clerk then that same would be posted me that night. Up to present writing I have not received them. I am at a loss to know whether his (the Town Clerk’s) _ remissness is deliberate or an oversight- in either case it appears to me to be gross discourtesy and I feel sure that such conduct does not meet with your approval. Commending the foregoing to your attention. Yours faithfully', IT. P. TAYLOR. “I leave the public to judge of the value and sincerity <pf Councillor Crookes’s comments. Surely a mild criticism is quite in place, or does the council consider that our paid servants should be placed upon a high pedestal and that the only duty of ratepayers is, through them, to pay high salaries and suffer any remissness without complaint. The position is Gilbertian. “The point at issue is that £700,000 has been authorised and the council appears to decline to let the ratepayers know in what manner it has been, or is being, spent. What with the Murray complaint and my criticism of construction of Huia Dam, I maintain there is sufficient subject matter for a searching investigation. I would point out that T have received a letter dated 26tli from the Town Clerk intimating the decision of council at meeting of 24th. Evidently my complaint has borne fruit rapidly. H. P. TAYLOR.