DISQUALIFIED.

Grey River Argus, 20 January 1926, Page 3

DISQUALIFIED.

POWER BOARD MEMBERS. CONTRACT WITH THEIR < ttMLA.M DANNEVIItKE, .lan. 19. The last balmu-e sheet of the Ikinnevirke Power Board .-onrained a tag 11,at “in the opinion of the Audit Office, transactions between the Boanl and C. 1.. Neilson mid <’n.. Ltd, ll: ” qualify 11. S- Chadwick and ,T. ')'• 1.1liugham. shareholders nt Hie lattei, from acting as members of the f.-rmer Board.” , n# The Board informed the Audit Otfive that in May last it took steps to satisfy itself that in was on sate grounds bv writing to Mr T. F. Martin counsel to' the Electric Power Boards Association of New Zealand, clearly pointing out to him that Chadwick and Ellingham were only concerned in the business of C. L. Neilsen and Coy. Ltd., milling that by virtue of the tact that (hey, oil the death of a shareholder, became trustees of the estate, they are nut beneficiaries under the will. Mr Martin replied that, in his opinion, a member of the Board was not disqualified bv reason of the fact that there was a ‘contract between the Board and an incorporated company consisting of less than twenty members, in which company he is a shareholder, but as trustee only, assuming that he was not one of the beneficiaries under the trust. This opinion was forwarded to the Auditor-General, who replied that the Audit Office, supported by its legal advisers was unable to concur. The Auditor-General stated that Mr Martin’s opinion, of course, relieved the Audit Department of any obligation to take action in respect of the position up to date, but this condition cannot be maintained if the gentleman in question continue after this intimation to het as members of the Board. The matter was considered at the Board’s meeting to-day, when regret was expressed’at the loss of two valued members. Mr Ransom, M.P., the Chairman, moved that the Board write to the Audit Department asking for its guidance in the matter of a Supreme Court tost ease, but the motion was deferred, by five to three, the members holding that the ratepayers should not be involved a legal action. ' It was finally decided that the Board’s action in the matter bo held over until a further opinion was received from Mr Martin.