The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1919. MUNICIPAL INDISCRETION.

Taihape Daily Times, 25 July 1919, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1919. MUNICIPAL INDISCRETION.

With which its incorporated ""T.he Taihape Post. and Waimarino News.”

—-———-s——<r—————~ Sandwiched away in ‘-the report of the last Borough Council meeting, amongst already considered trifles in the Works Commit-,tee’S Report is an innocentlooking little paragraph that is by no means as innocent’ and harmless -as it appears to be. Vitally important as the paragraph may yet become, it, rstrang-.eq gto say, ‘did ‘not call tforth eitfiher comment or criticism from ' Councillors; and, if typed copies of -the report containing that Venomous little tparagraph had not becnflaid before 1' each me'mber'we should, qu'ite natur--3 ally, have concluded that they did not i know of-its presence. ~,By the way, that ‘ paragraph is based upon a letter, which ratepayers are still in igno.rß.nce- of, from a Mr Martin, presumlably from the solicitor to the Municipal Association. When the Council thinks ‘it ,dis—_ erect to publish it.s-vadjudications upon a letter whichvbelongs to, the ratepayers, why do they not publish the Alcttcrialso? flow are ratepayers to understand whetlier the «decision» the Council lnas come torivs -a wise one or not? Ra’t.epayers’are. entitled to something more than such.cryptogam'ie propositions, which not only originate in secrecy, but are developed in secrecy. \Verc they as harmless and simple as they look -and worthy of no more consideration by the_Council than they received no notice need have -been taken, but while they are pregnant with utter waste of Borough time and money they should not he countenanccd. The paragnaph under notice reads: Re Mr Martin ’s letter: Your Committee recommends, that the ‘Council authorises Mr Martin to dna-W up ‘a. clause and endeavour’r'o get. i.t in the “Washillg—up Bill” to give the option of having either concrete slabs -or asphalt on fo«o*tpatlls.” In our discussion of the Council’s method in a previous case, we emphasised ‘the fact thin-t the solicitor’s opinion must do--A pend "entirely upon the nature of the question submitted to him. We have no knowledge whatever of What the opinion of Mr 'Martin was sought. upon, but we cannot. believe that he can encourage any hope that Parli.';lmcnt will consent t.o flout a stcatutory poll of ra.tepayers. and east amon‘g"tli'em a bone of contention. Councillors should understand that loan money can only be used for the purpose for which it is voted. and (‘ten I’a‘l'l’iament will not permit any few ratepayers to interfere with the public will as e:~:pr(-ssod at the poll respecting: the purposes for which money is voted. ' That £17.000 was for £l. Specific purpose. and even if/. in their wildest hopes Councillors were allowed to substitute asphalt for con‘-' Crete, whatever money was saved could not b 0 3lloCafod for szmy work not provided for in the proposals on which fill?‘ P 0“ was itakon. The Council; should realise that apart from anyl l7‘°Sslbllil3’ Of the attainment of powers l lhl'0“.£‘ll Act of Parliament, they have no justifioation for setting aside thel will of the majority, sf.3tufm~i]V ox. ]N'O9SOd, in any such manner. \Vo,' have strong doubts whether -any expenditure t incurred in this connection can be do. bitod to the loan account, and as it has no bearing upon the ordinar . it is question-able whetlierit, 11ltim.atel_v fall upon the Councillors who incur it. We do not think money spent by the Council fii trying to upset I the lawfully expressed will of I‘{LtQ.. payers can legally be taken out oti either loan or ordinary Borough ac—l counts. In any case. why should: there be any pzmdoringz to a few who were opposed to the original proposals, arloptecl and authorised by an over-l wliclming majority‘? These proposals! were laid before ratepayers in publicl meeting. and throu,r;h the public press; ‘ ratepayers in public meeting anmndecl‘ the Council's proposals in certain re.‘ snects. but althougll the question was I‘fl~sS<?fl and discussed of substitutingl

asphalt footpaths for concrete slabs. the meeting wa.s"dist”inc~tl_v in favour of the latfcr. Then)‘ 611 wlmt grounds

arcthe Council going to work in tryirfg éto upset the public will? If the

Council is being misunderstood in any way -on this subject it is entirely attributable to their secrecy; to their persistence in dattecxulnation not to -let taxpayers have that information they are utmostly entitled 150. Finally, We would suggest that finality was, or should have been, reached on the subject. of footpaths when the public meeting, wisely, we think, decided in faVolll' of concrete slab. footpaths. The Council contemplates gettixig a special Act of Parliament througli next session, to give them,‘ not the raltevppryersu, the option of substituting concrete slabs with asphalt, and to spend any money thereby saved in any such way ‘they please. Is there to be any finality in connection With this loan expenditure? Does not the Council realise thatnatev payers had the option submitted to them, and" that -they chose concrete? If another option is given, who is to have the option? the Council or the ratepayers? Surely, Councillors are not claiming to be a ':lem_oclla.tic boldy. However, the expenditure of special loans is very carefully guarded by statu't.ory provisions, and there is not much likelihood that Parliamcnrl; .w'ill toss back anything of -a contentious nature upon which the taxpayers have already given t*ll—e'ir' -ultimatum a.t the ballot box.