DRAINAGE BOARD AUDITOR'S REPORT.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7359, 11 July 1889, Page 6

DRAINAGE BOARD AUDITOR'S REPORT.

TO THB KDITOR Ot THB PBBB3.

Sir,—l noticed in your issue of sth insta letter in reply to a report presented to the Drainage Board by their auditors, in which they deal with a statement referred to them, containing objections by a member of the Board against certain matters contained in a balance stieet, audited by them and passed as correct. This reply caused mc to look up the report, and I have given the matter a little thought which I now present to you. There seems to be a direct issue between Mr Hopkins and the Board. .. The Board have passed a balance sheet as correct. Mr Hopkins states to the Board and the public that it is very much incorrect and his reasons are very clearly given. On the other hand, the Board appear to mc to try to smother the whole affair. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes works and what does not—whether advertising, inspection, law costs, &c, are works or expenses. Now, if a contract is let say for £100, and the inspection and other charges cost £52 on that, making £152 to the ratepayers, is not that 52 per cent, on cost of works? I You will admit that. Well, Mr Hop kins says that works in Kiccarton district to the value of £435, cost £228 for inspection and other charges, which is clearly 52 per cent, (see issue sth). The Auditors have not disproved Mr Hopkins' statement on this matter. They try to explain how these items have been placed to account and so on. The fact that 23 per cent, is not allocated till end of year does not get over the fact that a still greater amount has been charged during the year, or that it cost £228 to construct £438. I think so far that it is a point to Mr Hopkins. Again, there is no meution of a charge that by omissions on liabilities and over-estimates in rates not collected, there had been made a balance on the wrong side of £500. Point No. 2. Then they try to answer a charge re sinking fund. Mr Hopkins is said (see report) to have charged the Board with having misappropriated the uninvested sinking fund. Is it. or is it not misappropriation to take money appropriated to one fund and apply to general purposes ? The Auditors explain it after a fashion, but what a fashion! In the first place, they say that the appropriation to sinking fund has been perfectly in order, then, a little further down, they say that chiefly on account of outstanding rates they have not been in a position to properly apply the appropriation. The money has not been appropriated and yet the account is perfectly in order. I cannot reconcile two statements like these; can you ? Point No. 3. If in a statement there appears an item "To sinking fund, £1375," and that money has not been so appropriated or invested, the statement is most certainly untrue. If we pay £20,000 for rates, for instance, and out of that the Board say we have appropriated £1775 to sinking fund and the money is not so appropriated, what then ? The statement muse be untrue in that particular. The fact is the Drainage Board business wants overhauling a little more still. The Auditors say that Mr Hopkins, In their opinion, has not in any way weakened the correctness of the accounts. In my opinion the Auditors have not in the least weakened Mr Hopkins , attack. Awaiting further developments—l am, &c, An Observer. P.S.—Mr Hopkins, In his reply, says there are several matters unanswered in his statement which the ratepayers ought to see cleared up. How can they do this when said statement has not been made public?