Local Bodies Dispute Hokitika Cemetery Maintenance

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1947, Page 2

Local Bodies Dispute Hokitika Cemetery Maintenance

“That legal enquiries be made regarding the defamatory remarks made about the Town Clerk in public at a County Council meeting,” was the text of a motion moved at the Borough Council meeting by Cr G. A. Armstrong, seconded by Cr. Havill. The Mayor (Mr A. R. .Elcock), read r letter from the County Clerk (Mr E. Sloop) stating, the County Council had discussed cemetery maintenance, and decided that, the" Mayor be asked to attend the next meeting of the Council on April 8, to explain matters to the satisfaction of all concerned. It waJ pointed out to the County Council meeting \hat neither statement show:' the wages of the No, 13 Scheme employee and also that good work is now being done by the new Sexton at the cemetery.

The Mayor then said that he had written a reply to this letter which he proposed tv> send to the County Council with the Borough Councillors’ approval, stating:— ‘‘This Council does not propose to comment on the ivantic statements made by some members at the last meeting of the Westland County Council, other than -to express' its resentment. at the unwarranted derogatory remark made concerning the Town Clerk. This Council has the fullest confidence in the Town Clerk and is of the opinion that his letter to the County Clerk accompanied, as it was', by copies of the audited balance sheet for the last 24 years, would convey clearly to anyone wit a slight knowledge of local body finance and accounts the full facts of the matter. The reported remarks of the bounty Chairman show his knowledge of other factors which some of his councillors chose to ignore or were unable to grasp. Taking figures ,\or the last ten years from the tuble prepared by the County Clerk and submitted by him to his council, (a copy of which is enclosed) the cemetery has cost the ratepayers of this Borough £939 12s lOd less an apparent credit of £213 15s 8d for the years 1945 and 1946, a net payment of £725 17s 2d. For the same period, Hie County Council has contributed £325. Considering that slightly over half of the burials during this period were from the County even on the actual cash position as stated above no great profit has been made from the County. During the period under review, no charge has been made for administration expenses for which £52 per annum would be less than a reasonable charge. Furthermore, no account has been.' taken of the fact that a scheme 13 man has been almost continuously employed at the cemetery for two years. His wages do not appear in the cemetery account as his wages are debited to a separate account. If against the apparent credit of £213 15s 8d in 1945 and 1946 is offset £lO4 admini--tration expenses and £506 0s 2d paid for the services of the scheme 13 man .the apparent credit becomes not so apparent. It may be contended the Borough paid only £ll7 of the wages of the scheme 13 man, still the cemetery had the full use of that man when he could have been profitably employed on necessary work about the town. In view of the defamatory remarks made concerning the Town Clerk this Council cannot allow him to appear before the persons making the same. With a view to removing present and preventing future misunderstandings, I suggest that the Chairman of Reserves Committee and myself discuss the whole position either with the County Chairman or the County Council (as he thinks most desirable) and I am sure an amicable arrangement will be reached.

A motion that this reply be forwarded to the County Council was carried unanimously.