PASSAGE-AT-ARMS

Evening Star, Issue 21627, 24 January 1934, Page 9

PASSAGE-AT-ARMS

MAYOR AND RELIEF COMMITTEE PROPOSAL TO APPOINT SALARIED OFFICER PRESS EXCLUDED FROM MEETING A notice of motion containing the contentious proposal that an officer, receiving a salary not exceeding £150! a year, should be appointed to investigate necessitous cases which are helped from the mayor’s relief fund has roused the determined opposition of the mayor (the Rev. E. T. Cox), and it was with the object of placing all the facts of the position before the public that His Worship - invited tl Press to bo present at the meeting of the Relief Committee held yesterday afternoon in the Town Hall. Hitherto the majority of these routine meetings have not been reported by newspaper representatives, and, apparently in the realisation that the conversational barometer was “ set stormy ” for this particular gathering, most of the members present were looking askance at the reporters’ table before the discussion opened. It was not surprising, therefore, that prior to the salient topic being embarked upon a resolution to the effect that the business be transacted in committee was carried unanimously. The mayor presided over the following attendance : Mesdames T. C. Ross and A. A. Fairhairn, Messrs C. Rawlinson, J. L. M'lndoe, A. Williamson, J. Farquharson, A. ' t eel, J. Moir, and Adjutant Thomson (of the Salvation Army).

The notice of motion presented by Mr J, Farquharson read as follows: (a) That ns from January, 1934, grocery orders be issued only by the Necessitous Cases Committee from the central office, the officers of the district depots to notify the central office from time to time of any persons whose claims for relief they consider should be investigated. (b) That the Necessitous Cases Committee be empowered to appoint, subject to the approval of the Advisory Finance Committee, an investigating officer at a salary not exceeding £l5O per annum.

(c) That the Necessitous Cases Committee consist of Mrs Ross, Mrs Fairhairn. Messrs Moir. MMndoe, Farquharson, Robertson, and Adjutant Thomson.

A minor report having been dealt with, the Secretary read a letter from the Mornington district protesting against the notice of motion.

The Mayor: That is a matter which can be dealt with when the notice of motion comes up. At this stage a member drew attention to the presence of a reporter, and the opinion was expressed that the mooting should he held privately, as in the past. “ This is a public committee,” said His Worship. “It is dealing with public funds, and there is no reason why its business should not be reported to the public.” He went on to say that the Press was there at his invitation, and that it should really have been asked six months ago. Mr Moir said he thought the issue should bo loft to the decision of the committee.

The Mayor: It has been left to my decision Mr Rawlinson moved that the meeting should go into committee. The motion was seconded by Mr Moir.

Mr Cox said that if the motion were carried it would make no difference to him as regards publicity. His remarks would be published in any case. “ The Press is here so that you may be given a chance to make your views public,” he went on. “ If you exclude the Press you won’t get a hearing.” To Mr M'lndoe, who came in at this juncture, and who asked for some light on the question that was being discussed, His Worship explained that they were dealing with a policy matter; he went on to summarise the position, concluding with the statement that, in the event of the meeting being taken in committee he would hand his notes over to the Press as soon as the meeting was over. Mr Moir: 1 raised the question simply because having the Press here is a new

departure. Nothing we have experienced in the past should make us want to change the system: we have got along happily together. The Mayor; No, we haven’t. Mrs Ross: We (the committee members) have. Mr Cox: You may have been happy. I haven’t. Mr Moir said he thought the whole matter should have been considered by the committee in the first place. He felt that no serious evil had resulted from keeping the reports out of the papers in the past, and that they should continue in the same way. The motion that the meeting should go into committee was then put bnd carried without a dissentient voice.

MEETING BREAKS DOWN THE MAYOR EXPLAINS HIS ATTITUDE When approached by the * Evening Star ’ reporter after the meeting, His Worship stated that the committee members had broken up in disorder after he had refused to accept a notice of motion for the withdrawal of food orders. The meeting had declined to hear his reasons for so doing, and these reasons he now wished to put before the public. The mayor’s statement is as follows : “ Clause 1 of the notice of motion is against the constitution of the fund, as it takes from the district depots the right of deciding who is eligible for relief. These depots were not established merely as a method of convenience, but that the people in personal touch with the distress should make the decision. “ Clause 2 contravenes the policy outlined in the constitution of the fund, for it was expressly stated that the fund would be distributed by volunteer workers, and that no part of it should go to the salaries of paid officers. “ Clause 3 would hand over the distribution of the fund to a coterie, most of whom are not in direct touch with the applicants, and one of whom has publicly stated that there is no distress in Dunedin.

“ In the interests of public decency 1 was compelled to call for a 1 show down.’ The motion is the culmination of a series of brutal attempts to rob innocent children and defenceless women of that small measure of assistance arranged for them through the generosity of the citizens. The committee is simply sitting on the fund instead of distributing it. The fact that after six months’ operations we have wellstocked depots and more than £7,000 in cash is surely proof of this. The fund was raised to meet the emergency which arose last winter, when the social organisations 'waited on me to take over the relief of distress generally. They reported that, being overwhelmed by applications for relief from people in genuine distress, their organisations had broken down. They appealed to me to raise a fund and administer it so ns to relieve them of all calls outside their own religions connections.

“ This purpose was emphasised at the public meeting called in the Council Chambers, when a resolution was carried in the attempt to raise the sum of £IO,OOO for this purpose. The decision of that meeting was that food was the urgent need of the distressed people, and that the application of relief should cover all distress brought on by the economic depression; that is, that it should relieve those in need who were participants in the Government relief scheme No. 5, and also that it should extend to any other sufferers outside of that scheme who, upon investigation, might be found needy. “ The Campaign Committee set up at that meeting made this objective very definite in its publicity, and appealed to the citizens for help. The campaign' was successful beyond our hopes. With the assistance of the Carnival Committee, over £IO,OOO was raised. Many of the larger gifts wore contributed on the understanding that this was to be the only appeal for the

year. Firms and individuals approached were given this assurance: Firstly, that I would be the only appeal, that is, that by contributing to this fund they would be free from the constant and repeated appeals coming from the numerous social and religious organisations operating. Secondly, that the immediate needs of the distressed people with regard to food should be met, not in the old (bring a sugar bag and we will fill it) method, but by the issue of a food order by means of which the recipient could obtain essential supplies through his grocer, the distribution to be made through the district depots, as established under the mayor’s relief scheme. “When it was ascertained that the objective. (£10,000) was likely to be reached it was decided to operate the fund to meet the needs of the people to the extent of £I,OOO monthly during the six months when the weather conditions were more severe, and £6OO monthly for the other six months. This, with a special order for Christmas, would exhaust the fund in twelve months. “ For some months the scheme worked well; at least as well as could be expected, but latterly there has been a determination on the part of some members of the committee to reduce the amount. This has already been done.

“ This resolution has for its purpose the defeat of the object for which the fund was raised. If carried into effect it would mean that we should not only deprive the donors to the _ fund of the privilege of helping to relievo the distress which was so acute as to call forth help, but deprive also those entitled by their poverty to receive help that is their right. That is, we have to keep faith with the public who contributed on these conditions, and we have to keep faith with the people who, by right of their distress, can claim help. 1 “ I thought Charles Dickens had most effectively killed and buried the Bumbles 100 years ago. It seems to mo that they are raising their heads again to-day. It is only to be expected, as history repeats itself. It is difficult to understand the mentality of people who have it in their power to relieve distress and refuse to do it; as for the morality of sitting on a fund like this when people are hungry and ill-clothed, 1 can only characterise them with the Bumbles of literature and the Defarges of history. “ I intend, as mayor of the city, to insist on three things:— “ 1. The continuance of food orders to people certified to bv the responsible social workers—viz., the clergymen of all denominations and members of the medical profession. 2. That no part of the fund shall be used to pay salaried officials. 3. That as this is a public fund, the meetings be open to the Press. CASE FDR COMMITTEE The following statement has been prepared on behalf of a majority of the committee—as many as could be got together this morning:— There had been no evidence of any serious difference of opinion between the mayor and the other members of the committee until last month (December) , when notice of motion was given regarding the issue of grocery orders by the central office under the direction of an enlarged Necessitous Cases Committee, which would appoint an investigating officer. Up to the present these grocery orders have been issued at the seven district depots, while the Necessitous Cases Committee has dealt chiefly with distress of any special nature. Most of the district committee desire to be relieved of the duty of issuing grocery orders, as they consider it difficult to discriminate between genuine applications and those which are not worthy, and it is wellknown that in many cases imposition has occurred. There are some sixty volunteer, men and women, helpers at the seven district depots who attend twice a week, and their main work is to extend relief by supplying fuel,

clothing, and footwear at prices about 40 to 50 per cent, under retail values—the subsidy being a charge on the relief funds. This service has been very greatly appreciated by those who purchase the goods, and a large turnover takes place weekly. At Christmas the district depots issued grocery orders aggregating about £SOO, and this work is in keeping with the main work of the depots as above indicated, but what was desired to be changed by most of the depots was the issue of the weekly grocery orders to applicants for relief, so that such could be handled in a manner to ensure that those who required help could obtain it. The new system suggested would provide a sympathetic investigating officer* who would report in terms of the actual circumstances, and the Necessitous Cases Committee would respond to any genuine needs. It is unquestionable that the work would be done more systematically and more thoroughly. At the meeting held yesterday the notices of motion above referred to were to be discussed. At the outset the mayor, in reply to a question, said he had invited a reporter to be present, as he intended to have a “ show, down ” and had prepared a statement for publication. This attitude was incomprehensible to the meeting, and members took exception to it, and on a vote being taken it was decided that the meeting be held in the usual manner, and the reporter retired.

The members of committee are at a loss to explain the action of-the mayor. The committee consists of delegates appointed by the various districts, together with several members who were on the previous Relief Committee and who have been engaged as volunteers m the work for three years. The utmost harmony has prevailed, and the members of the committee, as well as the large membership of the district committees, have endeavoured to carry out the responsible duties with due regard to the relieving of distress as trustees of the public in dispensing the moneys from time to time collected for the purpose. There was no notice of motion for the withdrawal of food orders, as stated by the mayor, but it was a notice of motion with regard to the better, distribution of food orders. This is the motion the mayor refused to accept for discussion, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The committee declined to hear the mayor’s statements, because they seemed to them to be ridiculous. For example, he stated that the members of the Necessitous Committee (Mrs Ross, Mrs Fairbairn, Messrs Moir, MTndoe, Farquharson, Robertson, and Adjutant Thomson» were not in touch with distress. It was in August and September, 1933, that most of the money came in from collections and the queen carnival, and the amounts expended on relief since that date have been as follow:—August £697, September £B9O, October £676, November £565, December £975, being an average of £760 per month. In addition to this there is £6OO outstanding for credit given to certain of the relief workers, and a portion of this will not be recoverable.

It is a question whether the committee, as such, can expect the public to subscribe more than £9,000 a year for relief purposes, which is twelve months’ expenditure on the basis of £760 per month of an average. The amount at present in baud will all be required before another appeal to the public is due.