TRANSPORT SIX BACK AGAIN

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 677, 31 May 1929, Page 7

TRANSPORT SIX BACK AGAIN

City Council’s 4 ‘As You Were” GILBERTIAN DEBATE STAGED Mayor and Cr. Lundon’s Bright Turn ONE and all the six city representatives on the Transport ” Board, who were removed on Tuesday were restored to their lost stewardship last evening by the City Council after a debate which can only be called Gibertian. The corporation squabbled over motions and amendments and disputed with the Mayor about Standing- Orders in a manner which drew disgusted comments from councillors as “most undignified,” “absurd” and “farcical.”

Having recalled its transport representatives on Tuesday, the council adjourned until S o’clock last evening to appoint new members, or reappoint the old ones. Cr. B. L. Bagnall moved at once: l the Mayor and Crs. <3. o. Ashp ’ T *{• Coyle, A. J. Entrican and X* J - Chelan be appointed to the vacancies and that nominations be called for the remaining vacancy” (that of Mr. J. A. C. Allum). “If I move this I think it will simplify matters,” said Cr. Bagnall. “These members are familiar with the board s work and should be returned.” Cr. M. J. Bennett, who seconded, “quite endorsed” the mover’s opinions. To Cr. J. B. Paterson the city solicitor, Mr J. Stanton, gave the opinion that nominees might vote for anybody tout themselves. QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY Cr. T. Bloodworth said that since the discussion last Tuesday his attention had been drawn to the clause of the Transport Act regarding the removal of members and their replacement. It had been suggested to him that the members withdrawn were not eligible for re-election. Mr. Stanton: They are not disqualified. I have already explained that the withdrawal and reappointment are one and the same operation within the meaning of the Act. No one is withdrawn until someone is appointed in his place. If the motion is carried the effect will be that the six will have been confirmed in their original appointment. “X am opposed to the renomination of the removed members,” Cr. Bloodworth stated. “I think it would he far better and in the interests of the transport undertaking if the appointment were made by a poll of electors. That will have to follow if extraordinary vacancies are created.” Cr. Bloodworth felt he could not accept the interpretation made by Mr. Stanton, being still of the opinion that the best course was to hold a poll. THE FIRST SKIRMISH The debate had proceeded barely 10 minutes before Cr. Lundon came into conflict with the Mayor. Cr. Lundon endeavoured to show that .the meeting was not in order. He suggested that Cr. Paterson, who" on Tuesday had moved the adjournment, had no right to because he had taken part in the general discussion beforehand. Cr. Paterson: I was particularly careful not to speak. Cr. Bennett: I can vouch for that because I j3at next to him. (Laughter.) The Mayor: I rule you out of order, Cr. Lundon. Cr. Lundon: Why do you do that? The Mayor: I take Cr. Paterson’s word for it. Cr. Lundon maintained that Cr. Paterson certainly had spoken in general discussion, and that the adjournment was not in order. “Why do you rule against me?” the new councillor demanded. The Mayor: On the advice of the city solicitor. Cr. Lundon rose, was ordered to sit down, got up again, was reseated, but still challenged the chair. The Mayor: I cannot allow you to keep on jumping up and down like that. , . "Well, then, your Worship. I move an amendment that every other councillor sitting in this room, excluding those nominated in the motion, he nominated as candidates.” Cr. J. Dempsey: I decline! Cr. Lundon: He has no power to decline. . . , The Mayor: Cr. Lundon-s amendment has not been seconded. “I SECOND” A long pause ... Cr. W. H. Murray: I second. (Laughter.) . .. Cr. H. B. Burton: It is high time we got on with the business. I The Mayor: You are not in order. You are nominated. Cr Lundon: I now move that all except Crs. Lundon, Murray and the five already named be nominated. The Mayor: You are out of order. Sit down! Cr. Lundon: Why am I? . The Mayor: Because you nominated 11 and only six are required. Cr. Lundon: Will you quote me the standing order ruling me out. There were 67 nominatious for the City Council. Cr. A. J. Entrican: I move the question be now put. Mr. Baildon: You cannot speak. After another passage of arms with Mr. Baildon, Cr. Lundon moved a further amendment by proposing the names of six other councillors. Cr. Ellen Melville then wanted to know how many amendments were before the meeting, and the Mayor asked for silence while he dissected the position. . . .. Cr. Bloodworth offered to point the way out of the maze by suggesting that the motion should read “reappointed,” not “appointed. Cr. Grey Campbell raised anotaer obstacle by inquiring what was the

position in regard to the sixth vacancy (Mr. Allum's). Invited by the Mayor to answer, Mr. Stanton explained that if Cr. Bagnall’s motion were carried the original appointment of the five members would be confirmed. The sixth would still be for determination. “SOMEBODY GROANED” Cr. Murray took exception to Mr. Stanton’s interpretation of the muchdiscussed clause D. As a layman he “could not for the life of him” understand how the solicitor held that the removed representatives were eligible for reappointment. Cr. Phelan: Aw? Cr. Murray: I heard somebody groan. Cr. Paterson: You are always groaning. The Mayor: Order! Cr. Bloodworth attacked Cr. Lundon’s amendment, which he claimed was not in order in that the mover proposed to “nominate” an alternative “ticket,” whereas Cr. Bagnall’s motion specified a “reappointment.” After some argument Mr. Baildon quashed the amendment, stating it a direct negative. “AN INSPIRED MOTION” Cr. Murray thereupon put up the amendment that Crs. Alice Basten, Ellen Melville, B. M. Irvine, G. W. Hutchison, H. B. Burton and G. Brownlee he “appointed.” “This is an inspired amendment to get everybody muzzled,” angrily declared Cr. Burton. “This is reducing this council to a farce,” Cr. Melville said with warmth. “It does not reflect credit on the council.” WARY OF A TRAP All five of Cr. Murray’s nominees without hesitation declined nomination. Cr. Murray: There are only three left in the room not nominated. Mr. Baildon: They would not be led into the trap. Cr. Bloodworth sailed off on a new tack by moving that all Cr. Bagnall’s ticket be deleted with the exception of Cr. Phelan. “I have varying degrees of confidence and I am not going to vote for the five en bloc,” he remarked. i When Cr. Bagnall attempted to speak Cr. Lundon appealed that his colleague was out of order, hut was told by the Mayor to sit down. Cr. Lundon: Sir, I am in order. The Mayor: Sit down, Cr. Lundon. Cr. Lundon: I protest I am in order. The Mayor: Resume your seat. The councillor, however, continued to claim privilege, and Mr. Baildon asked sharply what the point was. MAYOR ASKED TO SIT DOWN Cr. Lundon: Please sit down, sir, and I’ll state it. The Mayor sat down, and Cr. Lundon protested that Cr. Bagnall could not speak again. On a show of hands Cr. Bloodworth’s proposal that all Cr. Bagnall’s “ticket” excepting Cr. Phelan, be deleted, was thrown out by nine votes to seven. A further fusilade of amendments provoked Cr. Bloodworth to complain disparingly that “this farce has gone on long enough.” The haggling had then continued for a round of the clock. With a view to giving effect to the sentiments of the last speaker, Cr. Paterson moved, and the council carried, the amendment, “That nominations be received and if in excess of six a ballot he taken, and on a jnajority vote members be reappointed.” TWELVE NOMINATIONS Tile following nominations were proposed: Mr. Baildon, Crs, Phelan, Entrican, Ashley, Campbell, Coyle, Bartram, Donald, Dempsey, Paterson and Murray, and Mr. J. A. C. Allum. Crs. Hutchison, Lundon, Bloodworth, Bagnall, Basten and Melville declined nomination. Cr. Bloodworth said it was the opinion of the city solicitor that if he became a member of the Transport Board his City Council seat would become vacant. Cr. Lundon “had no desire to join the happy band, because I am proposing to move in another place.” The voting resulted:—Phelan . . 21 Dempsey . . S Raildon . . 17 Campbell . . 6 Ashley ... 16 Bartrum ... 5 Entrican . . 15 Donald -. . . 3 Coyle ... 13 Paterson . . 3 Allum ... 10 Murray . . 2 Councillors who voted for Mr. Allum were: Crs. Entrican, Irvine, Ashley, Melville, Brownlee, Bagnall, Bennett, Casey, Coyle, and the Mayor. When the ballot was under way Cr. Lundon asked that his protest be recorded against the nomination of councillors removed on Tuesday evening. His reason was found in clause (d) of sub-section 6 of the Transport Act, on which he differed with Mr. Stanton. BALLOT CHALLENGED “As 10 is not a majority vote, I move that a further ballot he held in connection with the name which received only 10 votes,” declared Cr. Paterson. The Mayor: What is your intention? Cr. Paterson: X want no minority member on the Transport Board. The Mayor: It was never understood by me that a person had to get more than half the votes of the council. The ballot is regular. Appealed to, Mr. Stanton gave his opinion that the motion meant the six names having the highest number of votes were successful. “On the advice of the solicitor I declare the six persons at the head of the poll duly elected.” said the Mayor, with a gesture of finality, which closed as turbulent an hour and a-half as has ever disturbed the decorum of the corporation of Auckland city.