REMOVAL OF HOUSE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 153, 1 July 1931, Page 12

REMOVAL OF HOUSE.

MOUNT ALBERT DISPUTE. I I MR. RHODES' EXPLANATION. LETTER FROM AUDITOR-GENERAL. Tho dispute regarding the removal of a house in Commercial Road, Mount Albert, was taken a further step last evening, when tho Borough Council received letters from the Auditor- • ieneral and the ex-Mayor, Mr. L. E. Rhodes. Tho Auditor-General stated that the attitude, of his,office had not changed .since his iirst letter on the subject. At ;'. later date, However; attention was drawn to the fact that the council's employment of workmen of Messrs. Rhodes and Sons ta carry out the work for the council, and including them on the pay roll, had not been, dealt with, and the question-;,of the ex-Mayor's interest in such a was then referred to the Audit Office's legal advisers. They stated that the fact that the council paid tho workmen.direct did no.t operate .to prevent Mr. -Rhbdee having been con-' cerned or interested in the contract: As tho payments to the men, exceeded the limits "of contractual relationship permitted- by law, Mr. Rhodes was disqualified as Mayor. His disqualification was not due to his having received payment from the council in respect of separate contracts for hire or plant and cartage; but was solely due to his being concerned or-interested in the payments mado direct to his workmen. The requirement .that Mr. .Rhodes had to refund to.tlie district fund money paid direct to. him arose through the fact that the sum of all contracts entered into in the year by the council in which the ex-Mayor was interested was required to be taken into account when ascertaining the limit of contractual relationship permitted by law.

Mr. Rhodes wrote stating that he' made no personal, or illicit gain out of the proceedings, but had saved the taxpayers money. In moving- the house it was necessary to employ men skilled at the -work. His firm employed such, men when occasion made it necessary, and tyo were at the time finishing with the firm. The borough engineer asked him to send the men to him, which Mr. R-hodes did. "They left the firm's employ and worked for the council as any other temporary employee. Neither of the meii would have been working for the iifm if the council had not employed th'em. The firm charged the council the. cietual cost of carrying the necessary plant to the job, and the schedule rats of hire for the time it was there. Those amounts, £2 3/6 and £9 10/, were all that the firm received, and the AuditorGeneral had already ruled that no diequalification attached to Mr. Rhodes in consequence of such payments. • It was decided that a copy of Mr. Rhodes'' letter be sent to the AuditorGeneral: ! A letter was also received from Mr. A. A. Buckley to the effect that when the discussion on the matter first took place in the council he was not present. On a subsequent occasion he left the room while the discussion took place. He did not vote on the motion. Members of the council agreed that Mr. Buckley's statement was correct, and it was decided to send a reply to the Auditor-General in terms of Mr. Buckley's letter. No further action is to be taken.