COUNCIL COMMITTEES

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 64, 17 March 1933, Page 8

COUNCIL COMMITTEES

REDUCTION OPPOSED

INTEREST IN DUTIES

A motion by Councillor J. N. Wallace, notice of which had been given, to amend the Standing Orders to provide that committees of the council should number not more than five', was defeated at the City Council meeting last night.'

At present, said Councillor Wallace, committees were composed of seven members, but through members being absent the voting strength was much less. The large proportion of councillors at present on committees tended to a lack of interest when reports came up for consideration in the council. With seven members the work. was largely done in committee instead of in open council.

Councillor W. Appleton seconded the motion.

Councillor T. Forsyth thought the matter might be left as a- suggestion to the incoming council. He would support it in that form. He was not sure that it would be wise to reduce tho number' to five.

Councillor W. J. Gaudin opposed the motion. He saw no improvement jn reducing the numbers of committees. Eeports brought dow;n by a smaller quorum might carry little weight with the council.

Councillor J. Burns thought the number should be increased. . If the whole of the council were made the Works Committee they would carry out their work much better. A quorum of three' bringing down a report tq sixteen members of the council would be absurd.

Councillor H. A. Huggins supported the motion, being of the opinion that the smaller the committee the better. The interest of the remaining members of tho council would be aroused rather than suppressed by reports brought down by smaller committees.

Councillor W. H. Bennett opposed the motion. Council meetings were late enough now, he Baid, and questionings would make them later.

* Councillor C. H. Chapman, M.P., considered that the motion would defeat the object of the mover. Councillors would only be on two committees instead of three, and would be much more inquisitive at council meetings.

Councillor W. Duncan opposed the motion.

Councillor F. Meadoweroft disapproved of the proposal. There was one committee at least in which councillors always manifested an interest, judging by their many questions. (Laughtor). The Mayor said he agreed with Councillor Meadoweroft. The old system worked well, and there were plenty of opportunities for councillors to ascertain what was done by committees.Councillor Wallace said that it was quite possible for members of a committee to push through matters of which the rest of the council were ignorant. Ho was' agreeable, however, to the matter being reconsidered by the new council.

The motion was lost,