THE CONTROL OF THE BUILDING SOCIETY.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XIII, Issue 1695, 7 June 1884, Page 3

THE CONTROL OF THE BUILDING SOCIETY.

TO THE EDITOR,

Sis, — The mode of manipulating the elections of the officers of the local Building Society by the Secretary, Mr Louch, and the Vice-Presiflent, Mr EL. S. Brabant, should be publicly known. The Secretary fearing an adverse vote at the general meeting, relative to an amount claimed by him and disallowed by the Directors, obtained no less than 48 proxies, of which 34 were used by himself and the balance by the Vice -President. There being nabbing objectionable to the Sec. and Vice-; President on the nominations of directors and treasurer, they were allowed withoitt demur' When it cams to the election of Auditors, who are appointed to exercise a wholesome control on the Secretary's accounts, there were 15 shareholders present who voted. Of there 11 voted in favour of myself, 9 for Mr Sheppard, and only 5 for Mr McCaw. The Vice -President and Secretary (who, by-the-bye, is qualified to vote as a "borrowing" member of the Society), then exersised the 48 proxies in favour of their nominees, Messrs Sheppard and McCaw, and to the utter surprise of those present, they found they were ','• practically disfranchised ; tla election totally : . at the mercy' of their paid servant. The l Secretary even refused to state how the „. proxies were obtained, or whose they were, * orto allow ' them to «be examined, showing clearly his action would not bear the light of day. The occurrence is of so flagrant a nature that it is right the shareholders absent, who entrusted their proxies to the Secretary, 'should know how they were used in the 'election of officers specially appointed as a / check on him. The result of the election is / 'that the Secretary appoints his own auditors, ; - and the shareholders can put their own construction on the Secretary's unique vie>w of the nature and duties of auditors. The insult to the assembled shareholders it is unnecessary to dwell upon, especially as one of the elected auditors is not a shareholder of the Society, or, at- all events, was not at the time .of the last audit on 21st April. There can be rib doubt if the previous nominations had been obnoxious to the Secretary, the same power of veto, on the shareholders expression, of opinion, would have taken place. One mistake the Secretary made was not to have 'a vote taken to increase his salary at the ■ general meeting, where he could coi.trol the result instead of leaving it to the Directors, who subsequently refused it. The report of this meeting, unfortunately, did not appeal in your paper. We may be sure he will take .better care "to use them in the interests oJ Society " the next time he applies for an increase of salary. One more act of humiliation, for the Directors when they pass th{ account for printing the proxy forms for the Secretary's benefit, and the farce is complete In a future issue I shall take an opportunity of showing some of the lights and shades the balance-sheet throws on his conduct of th< business of the Society. The Vice-Presiden * lamented the fact that the general publi< failed ta appreciate the " advantages " of thi Society, and this lament is not likely to bi mitigated by the late proceedings, or to secure increased public confidence in the concern .- I am, &c, - John A.- Geabk.