SERVICE FOR NOTHING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 40, 17 February 1911, Page 2

SERVICE FOR NOTHING.

MEMBERS OF LOCAL BODIE9. QUERIES ABOUT REMUNERATION. Auckland's Harbour Board has , promptly taken advantage o£ section 23 of the amended Harbours Act. This section states :—: — _1. Notwithstanding anything in section 40 of the principal Act, the chairman (of a harbour board) may be paid, such annual allowance, at a rat© not exceeding £200, as the board from time to time determines. 2. No alteration in the amount of such allowance shall take effect during the term of office of any chairman. 3. For the purposes of this section a person re-elected as chairman *hall be considered a new chairman. A telegram yesterday mentioned that the Auckland Board had decided to go as far as the section would permit — 5200 a year for the chairman. The opinion of the board's solicitor was that the payment would be quite legal from Ist January. This opinion is identical with the one given by the Wellington Harbour Board's solicitors, to whom this matter was referred somo time ago. At the next meeting of th© board, on. 21st February, Mr. Wilford will move— "That, in accordance with the powers given to the board under sectior 23 of tho Harbours Amendment Act, 1910, the chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board be granted an allowance at therate of £200 per annum as from ist January, 1911." \ Th© chairman (Mr. Fletcher) was asked to-day whether he would care to discuss the proposition. He replied that his position natural!) precluded him , from discussing the subject. ' i Two or three citizens, to whom a Post! representative submitted this payment,' question this morning, gave an opinion. that the day was coming when men who gave their time and energy to the public by service on public bodies would receive some remuneration, whether theyj were chairman or not. "Take the Cityj Council's Tramway Committee." said> one. "This committee is practically aj board of directors over an enterprise in which over £600,000 is invested. It is worrying work. Why should it not carry some payment ?*' These advocates of payment argued that it would be ! cheaper and better for the public in the long run to have a system of reasonable rewarding of membeis of important local bodies. Such a system would tend to make the public take a, keener interest in the working of their own public affoivs. Various member^ of tho Labour Party have long pleaded for the monetary system.