SECESSION FROM MOTOR UNION

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27924, 22 March 1956, Page 12

SECESSION FROM MOTOR UNION

Suggestion By A.A.

Member REDUCED VOTING POWER Secession from the South Island Motor Union because of reduced voting power of the Automobile Association (Canterbury) was mentioned at last evening’s meeting of the association’s council. The president (Mr E C. Champion) suggested that members should peruse the new rules of the union and discuss the question at the next meeting. His suggestion was adopted. J ReDortirg on the half-yearlv meeting of the union at Invercargill. Mr A R. Earnsdale said that the alteration to rules meant that Canterbury would have only one representative on the union with other associations. Canterbury was dominant in motoring matters in the South Island, said Mr F. W. Freeman. The association had 36.000 members, or 40 per cent, of the union’s membership, and it was wrong that it should have only one vote. Canterbury should consider seceding from the union, as the Pioneer Snorts Club, with 1000 members had the same voting power.

Secession raised difficulties, said Mr Champion. One was whether, if the association seceded, individual members could remain members of the Soutn Island Motor Union. The council should not embark on anv discussion that night. He viewed the position very seriously at the time of the alt.eiation and was perturbed over what happened: but the receipt of a report from delegates to the union meeting was not an appropriate time for a discussion on whether the association should stay in or get out of the union. A good deal of thought was needed about the consequences. “Readied Up”

“No other association would listen to any statement we had to make.” said Mr E. R. Casbolt. “You could not come to any other conclusion than that they had been ‘readied uo.’ They had made up their minds they were ‘going’ for Canterbury.” Mr Freeman: “Gunning” for Canterbury.

Mr Barnsdale said that when the question of the Canterbury Car Club was being discussed two young delegates had informed him that they had been told bv their associations to say nothing. "There was an undercurrent against Canterbury and an ulterior motive behind the move,” said Mr C. H. Brown

“Every delegate there had his mind set on what was doing and everybody was there prepared to vote against Canterbury on the car club matter They were quite open about it.’’ Mr R. Twyneham said organised opposition to Canterbury had been mentioned, but until he entered the conference room he had no idea of what was going to happen. He did not have the faintest idea as to whether there had been prior arrangement among other associations on the attitude to Canterbury. Mr W. R. Carey and he should be dissociated from any ide;, that there was opposition from Canterbury. “It appears that all the associations cot together against Canterbury,” said Mr L. W. Broadhead. “It must have been organised opposition. I say that quite advisedly.” “Is there another day?” asked Mr Freeman. “Can we have another ‘go’ up here.” A member: There is the annua: meeting. Canterbury had obviously been victimised. said Mr B. F. Bicknell. Perhaps Mr Twyneham could assist the council? Mr Twyneham: Why associate me with it? Mr Barnsdale said that what he took a dim view of was that discussions by Canterbury on the car club question reached Invercargill before the delegates. That possibly did some harm to Canterbury’s cause. How did the information get to Invercargill? A member: Judas' Iscariot.