DEPUTY MAYOR DEPOSED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 300, 15 September 1936, Page 10

DEPUTY MAYOR DEPOSED

Cr. J. Hodgens Censured PALMERSTON CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION Removed From Committees Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, September 14. Cr. J. Hodgens, M.P. for Palmerston North, and a member of the Palmerston North City Council, was removed from the positions of deputy- . Mayor of Palmerston North and chairman of the council lighting committee and from membership of the special committee set up by the council to confer with representatives of the Manawatif-Oroua Electric Power Board regarding power supply costs • at a special meeting of the council held to-night. This action was taken following the receipt of a telegram, from Cr. Hodgens which the Mayor of Palmerston North, Mr. A. E. ( Mansford, said contained “a studied insult to every member of the council.” The Mayor presided and others present .were Crs. R. L. C. Aitchison, W. B. Cameron, G. Tremaine, J. T. J. Heatley, J. Stevenson, A. A. Langley, W. Mouldey and W. B. Tennent The meeting opened with the reading of a letter received from Cr. Hodgens in which he advised of the receipt of a communication signed by several councillors, the contents of which he had noted and also the notice of tonight’s meeting. “It is necessary for me to be in Wellington in the evening of Monday. September 14, in my capacity as chairman of the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House,” continued Cr. Hodgens’s letter. “Should the particular business notified for that meeting b e gone on with, the electors of Palmerston North will draw their own conclusions therefrom in view of their knowledge of me. In conclusion, may I say that I regret having used the.words, ‘a packed jury,’’ in my . telegram of the Bth instant, when what I actually meant was ‘selected witnesses.’ Otherwise, the message is a true expression of my opinion on the evidence that you so kindly forwarded (at my request) last week-end.” The letter was addressed to the town clerk, Mr. J. R, Hardie.

Cr. Hodgens was granted leave of absence from to-night's meeting. “I wish that he would have been here to hear what the council and I have to say," said the Mayor, “but seeing that be has been unable to get here, it will be just as well to proceed with the business.” “Most Unpleasant Duty.” “The duty that I have to carry out to-night is the most unpleasant duty I have had to perform during my term of office as Mayor. It is to propose a motion which amounts to censure of a member of this council and, further, one whom I have looked upon as a close friend for nearly 30 years and who has been my deputy since I have occupied the position of Mayor. Members can, therefore, ' appreciate that my position to-night is not an enviable one.” The Mayor gave a brief explanation of what had led up to the calling of the meeting. The position, he said, was that the council was investigating appointments, and disrating of its staff at the electrical and gas works over the past three years, the general cost and management ’of the gasworks, and if political or personal influence had been used at the works in regard to appointments or dismissals. This inquiry had been going on for some weeks and was not yet finished. Councillor Hodgens attended the first meeting, At the second meeting he sent a telegram asking that certain questions be put to witnesses who appeared before the council, and that had been done on every occasion. The inqqiry continued last Monday, particularly to allow Councillor Hodgens to be present, but he did not avail himself of the opportunity. “You can therefore imagine my surprise and that of the council on getting the following wire last Tuesday when the inquiry was resumed,” continued the Mayor, who then read a telegram which it was stated had been received from Councillor Hodgens, and part of which Councillor W. B. Tennent later announced would be the . subject of Supreme Court proceedings. In part the telegram read : "It looks as if Councillor Tennent is insisting on confining his inquiry '■to a select few in the gas department only. His charges levelled against me covered both the gas and electrical departments. I presume he will not be permitted to be accuser and judge with a packed jury. . . .Advise the Mayor I will not tolerate any such pro-cedureJ-Hodgens.” “Studied Insult.” “That wire contains a studied insult to every member of the council,” continued Mr. Mansford. “The insinuation is that we are so corrupted with political or personal bias that we are deliberately withholding certain witnesses and their evidence, that the whole council is so prejudiced that we are letting Cr. Tennent be accuser and judge. The reference to ‘a packed jury’ is that as councillors we have forgotten our duty, our sense of justice and British fair play, and that we are not fitted to make a fair decision. Then the concluding remarks—‘Tell the Mayor I will not tolerate any such procedure’—that I take as a direct insult to myself, for the inference is that I was tolerating unfairness. By that wire Cr. Hodgens forfeits the goodwill of, I should say, every member of the council.” ' ' The Mayor said the inquiry was not finished, and Cr. Hodgens had never made any request to have any witnesses cailed. “He knowg that no reasonable request has ever been refused him.” added Mr. Mansford, "so I fail to see the reason for this outburst. And if instead of sending such a grossly insulting telegram he had sent a communication asking for certain witnesses to be called, he well knows they would have been asked to come before the council, and any questions Or. Hodgens desired would have been asked.” "It is only fair to say that Qr. Tenlient did not know from day io day what witnesses were being called, as the witnesses had been arranged by myself. To say that a select few were being called is quite wrong. Let Cr. Hodgens name the witnesses he wants called and the council will have them here and put any questions to them. “Not the First Outburst.”

“This is not the first outburst we have had in this council chamber from

Councillor 1 Hodgens. The last was levelled at me some 18 months ago. On that occasion the council accepted Councillor Hodgens’s apology, and we all hoped there woujd not be a recurrence. This outburst is more serious, ahd if allowed to go unheeded or unchecked it will undermine all authority, and I for one cannot let it go. While it is unpleasant for me to propose the resolution of which I have given notice, knowing the record of public service Councillor Hodgens has, that can be no excuse for unwarranted ahd gratuitous insults hurled at the whole council in this telegram. As Mayor I have a duty to perform to the members of this council, and a duty to the citizens. All I want to do is what is right, because if I do what is right I will do what is fair. “I am putting my resolution in three parts because some of you might think I am being too severe, and might like to vote on- parts only,”, concluded Mr. Mansford. He then moved :

“That the resolution' carried at th'e meeting of the council held on May 15, 1935, which reads: ’That

Councillor Joseph Hodgens be appointed Deputy Mayor’ be rescinded, and the following resolution substituted therefor: 'That Councillor Geoffrey Tremaine be appointed Deputy Mayor.’ ”

Seconding the motion, Cr. W. B. Tennent said that as he was very much in the telegram he would like to make a statement. This he did at some length, observing that under the circumstances he would have been shirking his duty had he not brought the matter forward. If he was wrong he would have made a public apology. “Now I am subject to personal abuse." continued Cr. Tennent. “I do not wish to refer to matters which concern me personally in this telegram, but they will be answered before a judge of the Supreme Court, as I have commenced legal proceedings against Cr. Hodgens.” Cr. Stevenson moved as an amendment that the matter be held over until Cr. Hodgens could appear, so that lie could have a chance of answering any questions that might arise. Cr. Heatley seconded the amendment.

The Mayor said he also wanted to have Cr. Hodgens present. He was very keen for it. but he did not think the matter should be held up. because of its seriousness.

The amendment was lost, Crs. Stevenson. Heatley and Langley being the only voters for it. The motion was then carried unanimously, i

The motions removing Cr. Hodgens s name from the two committees named above were both subject to amendments that the matter be held over, but in each case the amendment was defeated by seven votes to two and the motion was carried.