CITY FINANCES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 26, 30 July 1932, Page 14

CITY FINANCES

MAYOR AND RATEPAYERS

REDUCTION IN VOTES

STREETS AND SALARIES

In commenting to-day'upon a further fetatement made by tho Ratepayers' 'Association regarding city finances', tho Mayor, ,Mr." T. C. A. Hislop, pointed put that the inaccuracies in first statement to whichihe drew'attention "were due to tho fact that the comparisons made were incorrect in that they .were not parallel, particularly so in regard to the vote for street works and the expenditure upon salaries. "The Ratepayers' Association apparently claims," said Mr. Hislop, "that because the figures quoted were copied from various official statements, there no inaccuracies in its statement of 23rd July/ Tho inaccuracies, to which I took exception' were inaccuracies of comparison, figures for,this year being compared with figures of previous years jnade up upon a different basis. . ''In particular, the Ratepayers' Association set out ari 4tem for 'street porks' for 1932 of £104,000, and compared this item with the various votes £or street works in previous years. As a matter" of fact, as I havo 'already ' (pointed out, whereas the figures for previous, years were for street works only, the £104,000 quoted by tho Ratepayers' Association as the 'street wrks' vote for this year was the full vote for the 'Works Committee' and; was so expressled in the advertisement over the signature of tho Town Clerk. ■* 64,000 OUT. "The actual amount of this £104,000 Jrotich was voted for street' works, as apart from the whole "Works Committee .vote, is the sum of £40,000, and* this is the figure which should be compared fjvitfi those' for previous years given by .the Ratepayers-Association.- On this basis the vote this year is less than half the vote of the-year prior to my 'coming into office, and is, in fact, lower than in any of the years referred to J>y the Ratepayers' Association. ~ "The other items making up tho dif-' ■jference}' between the £40,000 and; the full committee vote' of . £104,000, if added to the figures for previous years quoted would in every caseI'increase the figures given-"by approximately 75 per cent. I have already stated what these various .other items are. "I objected strongly to the way in •which the Ratepayers'. Association presented these figures,1' continued Mr. Hislop, "becauso they led,to tho infer-, fence1 that, in a. time of shortage of reBonrces, the present 'council had infcreaseel, instead of, reduced, this vote. Cho position is, of course, that tho Icouncil has reduced tho .vote to a figure not equalled in any year 'quoted by the association "WRONG. OVER SALARIES ITEM. "Another inaccuracy of comparison by the association is in the matter' of salaries. Up to this, year a largo proportion, of all salaries was charged automatical^ to tho waterworks account, and was carried by tho water- ' Iworks rate. There was no justification for .this being done, and the present ' council decided that salaries 'should be properly allocated. This meant that ■under .'salaries.' would appear the full amount actua}ly_ ,paid in salaries, instead of a Considerable proportion being disguised, as had been'"done"in the past, by being automatically charg.ed to waterworks. "The effect of this very proper change is-to increaso nominally', tho amount charged to salaries by £8000. Therefore, the item for .salaries this year apjpears as' £38,000, but for purposes of correct comparison with previous years it should be reduced by £8000. To get at the true position the Ratepayers' •Association figures should be altered, feither by taking £8000 off the £38,000 allocated for salaries this year or by adding £8000 to the amounts allocated in previous years. When this is done, it is clear that the amount paid in salaries this year is considerably less than either last year or tho year prior N ito my coming into office. - COMPARISONS MUST BE^SOTJND. "1 am quite sure that the "Ratepayers' Association does not wish to misrepresent the actions'of the present council or to- depreciate the economies it has made. It is," however, necessary .when making comparisons, as the'association has done, to lave full knowledge of the different methods of accounting which have been adopted and of the difference between a vote for street works and a vote for tKe~Works Committee. "The various matters referred to concerning earlier councils I do not propose to go into again, but I repeat that if the Ratepayers' Association, or iany other body, wishes to disseminate through the Press information with iegard to the financial position of the /city, it is at least fair that it should make every effort to be .certain that its "methods of deduction are accurate, and for this purpose it would be, bettor if 'it .made some reference;to mo before publishing ;figures which may be misleading, a suggestion which 1 made yesterday to Mr. J. D. -Sievwright, the of the article .published under Jthe- auspices of the Ratepayers' Assoiciation." ,