THE BY-ELECTION.

Hutt News, Volume 1, Issue 26, 30 March 1928, Page 3

THE BY-ELECTION.

MR. BROWN'S NOMINATION

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I shall be glad if you will grant me, as one of Mr. Brown's nominators, a little space in which to comment on certain statements made by the Town Clerk in his reply to the letter of the President of the Waiwetu Progressive Association.

The Town Clerk can hardly hope to improve hia case by attempting to discredit Mr. Brown's statement regarding the tlmu of posting of the nomination paper. The indisputable fact remnins that nominations closed at noon >n the 27th January last, and it is admitted L.y the Town Clerk that the form in its completed state reached his office at 8.30 on the morning of that date.

It will have been noticed that an attempt has been made by the Town Clerk xo discredit also the statement that Mr. Robinson obtained the forms from him on the 2ijth iL«m. In this connection it may be pointed out that several members of the Association are fully aware that forms were not in our possession on the night of the 2*th January, when the Association meeting was held. The Town Clerk has gone to some trouble to establish a fact which has never been in dispute, i.e., that the form was posted on the 26th idem by myself. In these circumstances, on what date, other than the 25th, could the forms possibly have been procured ? Your readers may be interested to know that the Secretary of the Association can produce a receipt bearing the date 26th January, issued to Mr. Robinson by the Town Clerk's office in acknowledgment of a sum paid in respect of two copies of the Municipal Roll which Mr. Robinson obtained at the same time.

I hardly think the Town Clerk can gain anything by attempting to camouflage the real issue by inviting controversy on such irrelevant matters. If it concerns the electors to the slightest extent, Mr. Brown's statement concerning the matter can be substantiated in all respects without any difficulty.

The Town Clerk mentions in his reply that an "inadvertent' 'transcription of Mr. Brown's Christian names occurred. He is under a misapprehension. The names were copied by the nominators precisely as they appeared in the Municipal Roll, and it was clearly not our fault that the names had been entered in the Roll incorrectly. At this stage, this point and the matter of the failure to lodge the deposit before noon is irrelevant to the point at issue. However, in justice to Mr. Robinson, who, as mentioned by the Town Clerk, is a gentleman well versed in local body requirements, I think it only fair to state that he was well seized of the position. Neither he nor I can altogether accept responsibility for the failure to lodge the deposit, since we had received an assurance that it would be lodged. The position in which I found myself on the morning of the 27th- January was that I did not know whether the fee had actually been deposited, and I was also concerned as to whether the above-men-tioned discrepHHcy, in regard to Mr. Brown's Christian names, was one which would require rectification before nominations closed.

I come now to the matter which is the real bone of contention. Repeated attempts were made by me to obtain the desired information from the Town Clerk's office. All I wished to know was whether the nomination was or was not in order in all respects, but all attempts to gain that information failed. "WHY? The Town Clerk's statement that, during the afternoon, when I eventually did get into touch with him, I intimated that arrangements had been made to make the deposit in the afternoon on the assumption that nominations did not close until 5 p.m. ia another misapprehension on the Town Clerk's part. Ha,ving no knowledge of such an arrangement, I certainly made no such remark.

The Waiwetu Progressive Association, surely, has a right to know how it came about that the_ information sought by me was not forthcoming. An enquiry made by telephone should surely receive the sam« prompt attention as one made in person.

In support of his action the Town Clerk quotes Section 19, sub-section (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920. This, however, does not justify him, or his municipal officers, in failing to supply, or in withholding, essential information repeatedly asked for. Is it, or is it not, the Town Clerk's duty to see that some competent person is in attendance during office hours to, amongst other thing's, attend to bona fide enquiries made by telephone or otherwise? It would appear that, when such enquiries repeatedly failed in their object, either there was something radically wrong with the staffing arrangements of the Town Clerk's office, or there was some good reason for withholding the information. I am not easily enticed into participation in newspaper controversies, but, as your correspondent "Searchlight" states, the initial literary «Wrral»b bag tar from cleared the air.

I am open to conviction that I received fair treatment from the Town Clerk's office, but I am not yet ao convinced. Had I been able to obtain the information I sought -within even two hours after I first asked for it, there would still have been ample time for any irregularities to be rectified. The Town Clerk's statement that he was closeted in his office practically all the morning is not satsifying. If no other competent municipal official was in attendance during his retirenrent, a condition of affairs is disclosed which is hardly likely to meet with the approval of the electors of the district. If the Town Clerk will be good enough to explain why the information asked for was not forthcoming, the controversy will reach a speedy conclusion. —I am, etc., W. F, C, WHITBMAN.