City Council absence -differing views

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33478, 8 March 1974, Page 12

City Council absence -differing views

Ihe absence of the Christchurch City Council at the Metropolitan Local Bodies Grants Committee meeting had shown, once again, the unwillingness of the Mayor (Mr N. G. Pickering) to co-operate with other local bodies, Cr H. G. Hay, leader of the Citizens Association councillors, said yesterday.

.Mr Pickering, however. said that the City Council would not he represented at the meeting while it could be “virtually bound” to decisions made by the meeting. The two were commenting on a report in "The Press” which noted the absence of a City Council representative from Wednesday’s meeting of the grants committee, the second year in a row the council has not been represented. The committee comprises representatives of the local bodies whose object is to agree on the total grant warranted by various cultural and welfare organisations The committee’s decisions are only recommendations and are not actually binding, but the councils generally follow them. Grants are paid, under the system, on the basis of rate income and the City Council would meet the largest proportion. OrrhrMra isewe "After all the controversy; which occurred when the City Council considered grants last year, one would have thought that the city would have welcomed an opportunity to become better informed about the work and finances of the organisations which made submissions last Wednesday,” said Cr Hay. The meeting was wellattended. with three county chairmen, the Mayor of Riccarton, and other senior councillors present, and. in his view, it was a needless discourtesy that the City Council, without reference to any standing committee, declined to attend. “It seemed strange that

- the Mayor, in his recently-: .- acquired role as chairman of ' the Christchurch Civic Orcbe estra board of management, - should have taken any action • which might prejudice the case of that body in its ret quest for a substantial grant. “And one would have, thought he would have wel-| corned an opportunity for a 5 full and frank discussion with " other councils on the future i needs and policy of the' 1 s orchestra in which he is now [ J f endeavouring to play such a([ ,' leading part. 5 “The unresolved question [' ' now is, what does the City I Council propose to do this ' J year about grants to these)' I and many other bodies, 1 , especially following Cr D. R. . . Dowell’s warning last year I of possible cuts.” ‘Heavy hand' ' Were organisations going' • to be allowed to make repre-' sentations in a similar fashion to the procedure at Wai-' ‘ mairi this week, or was it ’ simply going to be a matter)’ 1 to be resolved in the Labour! caucus "with the heavy hand of Cr Dowell prevailing?” he[ said. “I trust that not only will! all councillors be given an! 'opportunity of expressing j their views, but also that ' [ adequate opportunity will be [ given to organisations seeking major grants to appear before the council committee. “The pitv is that the City 1 Council had the opportunity this week to receive all the information it needed but,' for reasons known best to I the Mayor and his financial right-hand-man, Cr Dowell.: they preferred to ‘do their; ’own thing’.” said Cr Hay. j Mr Guthrey cited [ Mr Pickering said, how-; ever, that although the grants I committee recommendations were not legally binding, the!

councils were expected to treat them as binding, and comply. “How can any delegate go along there and be bound by a commitment to a certain sum in grants tvhen he hasn’t even consulted his iown council? In those ciricumstances there’s not much 'point going,” he said. Mr Pickering said the previous Mayor (Mr A. R. 'Guthrey) had gone to one meeting of the grants committee, only to find later that 'his council did not agree with the grants he had approved. “That is not our way. We shall treat applications on their merits as they come to us,” he said.