KUMARA ELECTION

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1935, Page 5

KUMARA ELECTION

COMPLAINT VOICED

RETURNING OFFICER’S ACTION

At the meeting of the Kumara Borough Council on Thursday evening, Ur Peevcr said that he had rather a serious complaint to make about the way the recent election ballot was conducted and would move that the Returning Officer (Mr G. Pammeut) be not again employed in a similar capacity. There were several reasons for the motion. .He considered that the Returning Officer* had not carried out his duties according to the .provisions of the Electoral Act. The most serious a sped was the omission to seal up the butts and ballot papers after being requested to do- so by the scrutineers. The Act had been framed to preserve the secrecy of the ballet and the electors were entitled to the assurance that there was no possible chance of their views becoming known. That assurance could .not !bc given for the Returning Officer could have had access—he did not say that he did —but could have had access to those ballot -papers after the poll.

Then in the matter of the declaration votes, if the Returning Officer had known his job, lie would not ■have taken the declarations at all if lie knew the voters had no qualification. He informed the scrutineers that they would be disregarded, but 24 hours later at the scrutiny, he informed (he scrutineers that he would examine them, but to this the scrutineers rightly objected. He also submitted that the Returning Officer did not understand the provisions governing the scrutiny. The ballot papers should not again be counted. The rolls only were to be examined for duplicate voters, and as in their case they had ionly one booth and therefore only one roll, the scrutiny was not required. Finally, lie considered the Returning -Officer’s attitude towards certain of the candidates, -was not an impartial one. For such reasons Tic moved as indicated.

■ Ci' Gilbert seconded the motion. The Town Clerk asked permission to reply. He said that Cr Peever’s remarks were unreliable and not true. •He had not intended to open the declaration votes and tlie scrutineers ■were lying if they said that he was going to do so. He had by mistake enclosed the declaration papers in the envelopes- and he only 'wished to extract same . He allowed those persons to vote Iby declaration to save • trouble, argument or explanation. He had no intention of allowing them to count. As to sealing up the ballot papers, the Act did not say that it was necessaryAs to not knowing his job he would say that- he had been a returning officer for 35 years, before Mr Pcever was. born, and he should now know something about it. He denied that he was in anv way partial. As to the ballot papers, they had been locked up in the safe.

Cr. Murphy said they may have been locked in the safe, but the fact was they remained unsealed. He objected to the Returning Officer making a,fool of the electors by his action in connection with the declaration votesHe was not consistent for at the last election a candidate secured a 'place by the counting of similar declaration votes. Or Inglis wanted to- know what all the bother was about. He .personally did not care whether people knew how he had voted. 'Cr Keating wished to know what proof Cr. Pcever had for his statement. Cr. Pcever said that he had the word of two scrutineers. Cr. Reedy said that he did not think for a moment that Returning Office would interfere or look at the ballot papers. Cr. McDonald concurred.

C-r Gilbert said the Returning 'Officer had not been accused of so doing, but that he had left the ballot papers unsealed instead of sealing them op, as was required by the Act. He was being accused of neglect of duly and incompetency..

- Cr. Hanna agreed. Cr. Peever sail, in reply to the Returning Officer, that his duties were laid down in the Electoral Act. and for a breach of its provisions the Returning officer was liable to a fine. One of the provisions not observed by the (Returning Officer, was the sealing of the ballot (papers after the poll. This and other previsions wer- framed to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. If he had by mistake enclosed the declaration papers with the ballot papers .what need had he to touch them M; all if he knew that they were not to be counted 0 The Mayor said lie knew of pen,nie who had been influenced, by the feeling that their views'at the ball"t were known. As to the Returning Officer’s partiality for certain candidates there was no doubt in his mind that flic remarks already made were justified. There seemed to be no co-pora-tion between the Town Clerk and himself. For example he bad gone to a. lot. of trouble to prepare a complete, roll in alphabetical order arid had given fa copy to the Town Cleik. Tho cony was re-arranged by the Clerk and was not placed in the (printers 1 hands’ until the 'Friday .'before the election. Tho printers phoned him to say that they could not hope to print a satisfactory roll from tb" copy supplied. He made a special trip to Greymouth, and it wan ojd£ because he geraonally