TO SECEDE OR NOT?

Franklin Times, Volume 14, Issue 258, 29 July 1925, Page 5

TO SECEDE OR NOT?

PAPAKURA’S PROBLEM

PIQUANT PROCEEDINGS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY QUESTION

Business centreing round the question whether Papakura should secede from I lie Auckland Power Board’s district to the Franklin Power Board, took up considerable time al the Papakura Town Board meeting on Monday evening.

The clerk of the Franklin body wrote: “I am instructed by the chairman of the Franklin Electric-power Board to bring before the notice of your board the following statement made by the chairman of the ratepayers’ meeting, held on July 20. namely, ‘That be did not take the Franklin board’s statements very seriously. They had broken faith with their own ratepayers in Pukekohe, Waiuku, and Aka Aka.’ The chairman of my board desires to state that he strongly resents such a groundless statement being made publicly, and as the statement is absolutely .untrue would request that the Papakura Town Board dissociate itself from such unfair charges made against a kindred local body.” Town Board’s Position. The chairman (Mr A. D. Nicholson) moved that a reply be sent stating that as the remarks of the chairman were simply the expression of his opinion made in all good faith on the'information contained in the report of the regular meeting of the Franklin Electric-power Board, published in the Franklin Times of July 8, any action such as the Power Board’s letter suggests is uncalled for.” This was seconded.

Mr McEntee moved as an amendment that the attention of the Power Board he drawn to the fact that the chairman was speaking as a private individual and the Town Board was not responsible for views thus expressed. Mr McEntee said he thought the matter did not come within the Town Board’s jurisdiction. In seconding the amendment Rev. W. C. Wood said ho. thought the idea at the back of Mr MoEntee’s amendment was right. He himself did not interpret the paragraph in the Times on July 8 as the chairman had interpreted it. However, the chairman was quite within his rights to interpret it in his own way. The Town Board' should, however, dissociate ilself from the statements made by the chairman. It was an effront by the board’s chairman to another local body. , ... The chairman said the board called Ihe meeting. It was a ratepayers’ meeting, and it was not Cor ihe. boat* | ;0 dissociate itself from any statement made thereat. It was lor the ratepayers to dissociate themselves, from any statements made. Mr Wood contended that the chairman spoke at the ratepayers’ meeting as chairman of the Town Board, and the- board should disassociate itself from the statements. The chairman differed emphatically and the debate between himself and Mr Wood was assuming rather an anhtv lone. . , Mr McEntee (to the chairman; . There is no need for an angry debate You did what you thought best and you were quite within your rights, and we did what wc thought best. All I want to make clear by the amendment is that we were speaking as individual ratepayers. The amendment was then put the meeting and declared carried on the voices. Petition Discountenanced. The Franklin Power Board further wrote that it was prepared to include in the suggested agreement with Papakura a penalty clause guaranteeing that it would supply electricity to Papakura within four months, and, in view of this, it requested the Town Board to state its attitude in regard to the question of the amalgamation of Papakura with the Franklin power district. In reply to this the following motion was carried, as far as could be judged on the voices, two members dissenting: “That in view of the decision arrived at by the meeting oi ratepayers duly held, this board notifies the Franklin Power Board that it is not desirous of proceeding with further negotiations.” . Later, a petition from some eignr, ratepayers of Papakura was read asking the Town Board if it would countenance the circulation of a petition on the question of amalgamation with Franklin, as the only true way of putting the matter to the test. Tim chairman said he thought the Town Board could not give its approThe Rev. Mr Wood said lie thought the board could reply that it had no objection, as any ratepayer was quite at. liberty to circulate a petition. Tim chairman: Yes, but the board would then he countenancing the petition. and I don’t think i 1 should do tha \’proposition that the board should not countenance the circulation of the suggested petition was then put to the meeting and carried by four votes 1,0 three, Messrs Nicholson, Tuely, McCall and Milne voting for it, and Messrs Wood. McEntee, and Weir against it. Questions to Auckland Board. On the motion of Messrs Milne and Weir it. was resolved to ask the Auckland ’Power Board to state definitely when power would be available for Papakura, it having promised it within ::! months, and also, on the motion “of Messrs Wood and Tuely to draw the attention of the Auckland hoard to the fact that its charges for street lighting are much higher than other power boards’, and the Town Board would urge a considerable reduction.

\ STATEMENT RESENTED

POWER BOARD DISCUSSION

•‘The least that could be said an out it, is that very unfair tactics were ew-

ployed,” said the chairman of the Franklin Electric-power Board, Mr J. Dean, at the regular meeting of ihe board yesterday, when referring lo a statement alleged to have been made at a public meeting of ratepayers held al Papakura. Mr Dean asked the secretary (Mr S. P. Day) to read the letter lie had sent to the Papakura Town Board. A letter was also read from (lie Papakura Town Board advising that at a meeting of ratepayers held on July 20. the following motion was defeated by 32 votes to 9: “That this meeting of Papakura ratepayers, having considered the proposal that the town district, of Papakura should become a part of

the Franklin power district, agrees (1) that we recommend the ratepayers to support the proposal; (2) we request the Papakura Town Board to take the necessary steps to enable the transfer from the Auckland power district to (he Franklin power district being effected.” Mr G. T. Farcin said lie understood

the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Papakura Town Board on Monday evening, when it was deckled by four voles to three against a petition

being circulated at Papakura for signature, asking that Papakura be included in the Franklin area. “I also understand,” said Mr Parvin, “that the board carried a resolution disassociating itself from a remark made by the chairman of the board —the subject of the first letter.” Mr Parvin said he was of the opinion that the Power Board should use every constitutional means to have Papakura included in the Franklin area. He pointed out that from what he had learned a majority of the 700 ratepayers of Papakura were in favour of joining Franklin, and they realised that by linking up with Franklin they would get a better deal and better

terms than from the Auckland board. The board, he said, should distribute propaganda outlining the advantages to he gained from Franklin, especially in the matter of street lighting, which was a very big item as far as the ratepayers were concerned. He thought that the matter should not be dropped.

Mr W. McEwen said the chairman and clerk did quite right in repudiating such a false statement. The Franklin board made it perfectly plain that they were putting up a clean business proposition, and Papakura should

have considered the matter from a purely business standpoint.

Mr .T. Patterson said he did not know in the face of what had happened, if the Power Board could go any further with the matter just now, in vie\y of the fact that it had been well thrashed out. He was of the opinion that they should push on with their own work as quickly as possible, and if they did so and proved that they were out for business, Papakura might be sorry it did not join up when it had the opportunity of doing so. Personally, he said he was of the opinion that there was not a possible chance of Papakura getting light from Auckland for some considerable time. He thought the question could be deferred for a time at least, and if Franklin -could not get Papakura to come in to Franklin’s area by consent, he suggested that they ask for a boundary commission.

Mr H. P. Garland said he agreed with the views expressed by Mr Patterson.

The chairman: I took very strong exception to the remarks made by the chairman of the Papakura ratepayers’ meeting. I say here, emphatically, that we have not broken Ruth with any of our ratepayers, because we have not started reticulation work. The idea of such a remark was to create an unfavourable impression among ratepayers of Papakura by a few who were clinging tooth and nail to Auckland, and block the scheme as outlined by Franklin. We wore led to - understand that when the Papakura ratepayers were called together there would be no outside influences at the meeting, but I now understand that the Auckland Power Board was represented at, the meeting. . The lctjst that can be said about it is that very unfair tactics were employed.” The letters were approved and il was resolved to defer consideration ot the matter further until a more convenient time.

In answer to Mr E. G. Guff, the chairman said that the Auckland Power Board had promised to have Papakura supplied with power in three months’ time.

It was also stated that it had been said at one of the meetings at Papakura that Franklin would not be permitted to tap the. main transmission line from Hora Hora at Papakura. The engineer stated that Franklin had given Papakura an undertaking to have the district reticulated inside of four months, but when they were told this full details were not given. _lt was not alwavs wise to give details ot a scheme. If the request to tap the line was refused, one of the small generating plants at Waiuku could have been fitted up at Papakura within a few days and the plant would have given Papakura all the light it needed.