Ashley-Kowai Amalgamation

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31588, 27 January 1968, Page 12

Ashley-Kowai Amalgamation

Sir, —We appreciate Mr W. A. Grenfell’s right to make public statements but we think that before he rushes into print he should know his facts. He sneaks on his own behalf and ignores the insult that he has thrown at the democratically elected representatives of the ratepayers who, through our chairman (Mr J. S. Bowker), have offered publicly to attend any meeting properly convened As democratically-elected sec-

' retary of the South Riding Ratepayers Association, he has failed in his duty to ensure that meetings have been regularly called to inform the ratepayers of any matter pertaining to council policy. When Mr Grenfell puts the Ratepayers Association in its proper perspective then he will be sufficiently informed to criticise the Councillors.— Yours, etc., J. J. ALLISON. T. F. MAY. Leithfield. January 26, 1968.

Sir, —In reply to R. W. | Waters, may I say that I was not concerned with the wording of the petition but rather with the statements made by the collector. I would like an answer from him on points (2), (3) and (4) of my letter. Moreover, it appears from the statement in “The Press” this morning that a secret society must be organising this poll as Messrs H. H. H. Hurley, R W. Waters, P. Croft and M. C Mathers have refused to name their leader.—Yours, etc., HONESTY. January 25, 1968.

Sir, —In reply to R. W. Waters may I suggest that he would be well advised to get legal advice on the validity of the heading of the petition which he quotes. The relevant section is 37 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1961. I am personally disturbed at having signed this petition as thereby I have done our local councillor a disservice. Under the circumstances is it possible to have my signature removed from the petition?—Yours, etc., ASHLEY BANK RATEPAYER. January 26, 1968.

Sir,—ln reply to R. W. Waters, in view of the fact that both councils are in favour of amalgamation, it is pretty obvious why the petition is being drawn up—to oppose amalgamation. Also why are some residents being misled as to the purpose of the petition by some collectors? Would Mr Waters also like to answer the remaining questions in “Honesty’s” letter? Mr Grenfell might like to state why the objection to the Commission was sent on behalf of all the ratepayers in the south riding whereas it was decided upon at a meeting at which only 18 or 19 were present.—Yours, etc., HONESTY PAYS. January 26, 1968.