The Bay of Plenty Times WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1946. OFFENSIVE CRITICISM

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 14048, 1 May 1946, Page 2

The Bay of Plenty Times WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1946. OFFENSIVE CRITICISM

When men and women elect to make themselves available for duty on our public bodies they generally do so with a full realisation of the trust that is being placed in their hands and of the great responsibilities they are undertaking, and irrespective of their ability to do the job entrusted to them they take up the work with an honesty of purpose and, in most cases, a determination to do what they consider to be the right thing by the people whom they represent. It is only natural that the average local body member should, at some time or other, leave himself open to criticism and when this does occur he generally gets it. He must expect this, for it, is this right of criticism which is probably the greatest safeguard the'ratepayer has, but at the same time he also has a right to expect that criticism to be fair and devoid of anything which might savour of malice. '

It is therefore rather disturbing to note the remarks made by a member of the Tauranga Branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union at the monthly meeting on Friday last, when giving voice to some criticism of local bodies in this district. That type of criticism is neither helpful nor justified and, in the opinion of the Bay of Plenty Times, is nothing but insulting. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people who elect these- local body members to office and it is an insult to the members themselves, who, whether they have the capacity to do the job they are asked to do in the most efficient manner possible or not, are.honest men, and men entitled to that respect which goes with the office they hold. It is with regret that the Times has to publish the criticism made by this ■particular member of the union, but it feels that this is necessary in order that it might draw public attention to a type of comment which, at times, becomes all too frequent and which is preventing some of the ablest men in the district from even considering offering their services for the good of the community as a whole. As it is the Times has printed only the least offeilsive of the remarks made. Mr Moffatt knows, or should know, that if there is any aspect of the County Council’s administration about which he or anyone else is not an fait there is’a right and proper way of finding out. If Hie explanation given should not appear satisfactory and there is reason to think that things are not as they should be, then is the time, to protest. For instance, if Mr Moffatt," the Farmers’ Union or any other organisalion of the kind desires to know how the Tauranga Connly Council' spends the money collected from the ratepayers, the Times feels sure that the County Council would be only too willing to give a statement. However, if it is to be insulted, it could not be Flamed if it refused. Perhaps, the ratepayers might prefer, what Mr Moffatt has referred to as “an" overdose of old men,” to any dose at all of Mr Moffatt.