MOUNT EDEN FINANCES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 97, 27 April 1933, Page 23

MOUNT EDEN FINANCES.

I would suggest that it would have been better if Mr. Mulvihill had read my former letter move carefully, for I did not write of "smaller items of fanciful figures," but "smaller items of his fanciful figures," and the context of my letter clearly shows that I referred to the £7759 that he claimed Mount Eden ratepayers had been compelled to find. In this £7759 he included a "budgetary margin'! of £4089, interest payments £1593, and the "stiller items." My previous letter showed that the budgetary margin of £4089 was not correct owing to a ""edit from loan account, and Mr. Mulv'hill now confirms it himself by stating that "on anticipation of its refund (it) must in turn he a definite credit." With regard to the second item he challenges my statement that he refused to listen to Mr. Nagle's explanation, and in the next sentence owns that "the debate closed when I stated I preferred to rely on the borough treasurer's figures." If that is not declining to listen to Mr. Nagle's explanation, then I do not know plain English when I hear it. Having thus proved from Mr. Mulvihill's own letter the two points of my first letter I turn to the smaller items, totalling £2027, not £2097, the latter figure being evidently an error in copying. In the consolidated rate account in Mr. Mulvihill's possession the heavy traffic licenses are shown as being for 14 months, so one-seventh of the total, or £364, must in all fairness be deducted. Then as to the legal expenses, Mr. Mulvihill knows that without egotism I can claim that £150 of the saving was made hy my own personal efforte in visiting, together with our good friend the Mayor of Newmarket, the boroughs that had been associated with Mount Eden in the Provincial Water Board scheme. The other amounts I pass at the present, but as against them I call attention to two contras, the first the Government refund re interest which produced £553 less than the estimate, and secondly the expenditure ! on roads of £314 over the estimate. These amounts reduce the "smaller items" to £646. and as the council was successful in being only that much out on a total budget of £91,961, there is no reasou for • complaint, and when the £7759 is thus i reduced on analysis to a little over [ £1000, including the budgetary margin, . my adjective of "fanciful" does not , appear to me misplaced. With regard to . the last sentence of Mr. Mulvihill's letr ter, I certainly do not know of any time » when there was any "manipulation of f accounts," and the only time I can remember he brought up the question of 1 transfer of loan debits and credits he - was informed by Mr. Nagle that the ! council staff had already taken the ' necessary 6teps. I now repeat my chal- * to Mr. Mulvihill to submit the ' position to any competent disinterested authority to discuss publicly with either t Mr Na"le or myself the financial affairs ;of our borough. P. S. BATTLEY.