WARD SYSTEM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 901, 19 February 1930, Page 7

WARD SYSTEM

OBSTACLES IN MOUNT ROSKILL DEFERRED UNTIL MAY Following the recommendation of the commission which recently rejected the petition of South Roskill residents for amalgamation with the City, that the Ward System would afford the best solution to the difficulty, the Mount Roskill Road Board, at its meeting last evening, decided to defer the question until after the election in May next. Under Section 12 of the Road Boards Act of 1908 it is competent for the board to divide its district into subdivisions with such names and boundaries as it tliinks fit. Procedure is by way of “special order,” under which a resolution is to be passed at a special meeting and confirmed at a subsequent meeting, with due public notice in accordance with the Counties Act, 1920.

A strong appeal for subdivision was made to the board in a letter received from the South Roskill Ratepayers’ Association, which urged tlie creation of separate wards and separate representation on Jlie board, each district to be responsible for its own financial arrangements as prescribed by the statute. The board was urged to find some remedy to allay the discontent existing in the district, and the ward system was thought to be a happy solution of the whole trouble. As a result of consideration the board’s finance committee last evening brought down the following recommendations for a plan of subdivision: No. 1 Ward: The district lying to the east of the centre of St. Andrew’s Road from its junction with Mount Albert Road to Landscape Road and generally to the north of Mount Albert Road from its junction with St. Andrew’s Road to Royal Oak corner. No. 2 Ward: The district to the west of No. 1 Ward and generally to the north of the middle line of Mount Albert Road.

No. 3 Ward: The district lying generally to the south of No. 1 Ward and to the east of the middle line of Hillsborough Road from its junction with Mount Albert Road to the junction with Aldersgate Road and to the east of the middle line of Aldersgate Road, thence to the sea. No. 4 Ward: The district lying generally to the west of No. 3 Ward and to the south of No. 2 Ward. The report continued to state that for convenience in maintaining dividing roads, they should tofe separated into two equal parts, but that no contribution to the cost of, construction or maintenance of roads in any one Ward should l>e made from funds derived from rates raised in any other Ward. The representation for the several wards was suggested as follows: No. 1 Ward, three members; No. 2 Ward, two members; No. 3 Ward, two members: and No. 4 Ward, two members. As only live members of the board are due <to retire in May, 1930, the committee recommended that the scheme be adopted to take effect as to members, upon a general election of the board. This would entail separate ratepayers’ rolls for each ward. The finance committee was careful to point out that it’ was not asked to consider the desirability of applying the system to the board’s district and it refrained from making any report on that phase of the question. Mr. S. I. Goodall, chairman of the finance committee, in explaining the requirements of the Act, .enlarged on the advantages and disadvantages of the Ward system. He contended that owing to residential areas encroaching rapidly on the farmers in South Roskill it was only a question of time when the same problem which now confronted the whole district would develop in the South Roskill area.

Mr. E. A. Pearce held that adoption of the system would lead to considerable friction on the sub-committee of the board and suggested that the question be deferred until tlie general election or that the whole board should resign before that event. In a desultory discussion it was disclosed that five members of the board held their seats until May, 1931, and unless they retired voluntarily in May, 1930, the Ward system would be inoperative as those five members were elected to represent the whole district, and could not be forced to resign. Mr. Foote thereupon moved that the question be deferred until after the election of four members in May next, and this was carried by five votes to three. An amendment by Messrs. Scarborough and Sanft that the Ward system be adopted in accordance with the report was lost, Mr. A. J. Simson being its only other supporter.