TRANSPORT BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 300, 19 December 1929, Page 8

TRANSPORT BOARD.

CENSURE ON" A MEMBER. **»

ME. POTTER IN REPLY.

We have received the following letter from Mr. E. H. Potter:—

"The Transport Board, following its usual custom of taking business in committee, made a personal attack on me in connection with a letter which appeared in the local Press. The letter was in reply to a leader in this particular paper, which referred to a conference on flatrate of fares at which I presided. At that conference different speakers argued from figures obtained from the board and from published returns. Mr. Ford says it 'is perhaps unfortunate that the distinctions between the different sets of figures have not always been appreciated. I would suggest that it is unfortunate that the distinctions were not pointed out. The board's circular to local authorities gives a total of 53 millions odd. TJie annual statistics show 59 millions odd; but the circular does not point out that the difference consists of school children, workers' tickets, race tickets, etc. Mr. Ford says the figures of the, annual statement accord exactly with those of the circular of October 1, which may be true when the explanation is given, but then no explanation was given. Mr. Ford says the chairman pointed out to me that the inclusion of sundry passengers would cause confusion, but that would not help the other local authorities to whom the circular was sent. Mr. Ford makes no reference to the report to the boaid dated August 26, 1929, which shows for the first 145 days of the current year a decrease in the number of passengers carried of nearly ten per cent, but you will realise that this was a disturbing factor to the local bodies, as it shows that there is every probability of a loss on the year's working.

"Mr. Ford's report refers to the findings of the Transport Commission on the allocation of revenue between trams and buses. He says the allocation of cash fares was admitted to be correct. The commission may have thought so, but certainly did not say so in dealing with the charges relating to the working of the system. What they did say was: 'The evidence tendered to us satisfies us that the apportionment of revenue from concession and commutation tickets between trams and buses up to date cannot be accepted as approximately accurate. The correct apportionment is not an easy one, but the methods disclosed in the cross-examination of the department's staff's witnesses show that improvements can and should be effected. As long as the controlling authority may be called upon to refuse services because they are non-paying, or to refuse increases of other services on the same ground, they must tako every care to see that the apportionment of the revenue is as fair and accurate as it can be made, for that is the basis of the whole argument.'

"A committee of the Transport Board lias seen fit to make an attack upon me at a time when no reporters were present and anything which I had to say was unreported. It then solemnly passed a vote of censure upon me and sent it to the Press for publication. Under the circumstances, the board will not be surprised to be told that I regard its vote of censure rather as a compliment than otherwise."