“INTEGRITY OF MEMBERS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 621, 25 March 1929, Page 1

“INTEGRITY OF MEMBERS”

HEAT AT POWER BOARD MEETING EXPENSES FOR LOAN POLL Hot words were exchanged at this morning’s meeting of the Waitemata Electric-Power Board, when Mr. S. Lamont questioned the legality of fees paid to members of the board for time spent on what Mr. Lamont asserted, was not actually power-board business. Mr. J. W. Hayden presided. Prior to a loan raised by the board two years ago, members toured the power district addressing consumers and the fees, which have been approved by the Auditor-General, were questioned by M,r. Lamont. The discussion arose when a motion by Mr. Lamont that the payment be not validated, was read. Air. Hayden said Mr. Lamont. had already brought the question up about half a dozen times. Air. Lamont: That’s not right. I don’t want any remarks like that from you. Mr. Hayden: I don’t want to be personal about the thing, but you knew auite well when you tabled your motion that it would not be carried. “Nothing of the sort,” said Air. Lamont. “WHY THE CONTROVERSY?” “You know payment has been legalised by the Auditor-General at his own instigation,” said the chairman. “Why the controversy? You are attacking The ability and integrity of your fel-low-members when you maintain they are accepting money to which they are not entitled. You forget that in assisting me with addresses to consumers two years ago, members had to travel long distances. If that is not the board’s business, I don’t know what is. The Auditor-General thinks so, too.” In answer to a member, the chairman said Mr. Lamont was absent on 12 months’ leave at the time. Air. Trevithick said members had not voted that they should have a fee, and if there was anything wrong about it they would give it back. But Air. Lamont should withdraw his attack against the integrity of board members. The chairman said the Act distinctly stated that members should be paid one guinea for board meetings to deal •with board’s business. The contention was simply that the assistance given by members in touring the district addressing consumers was not board’s business, which was obviously wrong. Air. Lamont began to speak, but Mr. Greenslade rose to a point of order. Both numbers talked at once. Air. Greenslade appealed to the chair and the chairman ruled Mr. Lamont out of order amid a babel of talk. The discussion of the motion was closed and the motion losit. MERGER PROPOSAL Immediately afterwards Air. Lamont asked why another motion, of which he had given notice, was not on the agenda paper. “Why was I r.ot told it would not come up?” he askpd. The motion was to the effect that negotiations b? opened with the Auckland Electric-Power Board with a view' to the amalgamation of the two boards. ! The chairman said it had been found ! that the motion was ultra vires. Legal opinion had been sought. Amalgam aj non would be considered only when i the ratepayers themselves made the ! first move. j Air. Lamont accepted the pxplanai tion. but pointed out the saving that i would be effected if the two districts j -were administered by the one board. At j present there was too much expense.