SHARP EXCHANGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 56, Issue 32898, 20 August 1947, Page 7

SHARP EXCHANGE

VALLEY DRAINAGE BOARD MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The customary calm in which the business of the Thames Valley Drainage Board is conducted at its monthly meetings was broken at the July meeting when a sharp exchange occurred between the chairman, Mr F. E. Hughes, and the deputy-chairman, Mr W. W. Dunn.

Recording his vote against the minutes being confirmed, Mr Dunn referred to a letter he had written to the chairman prior to the meeting. Dealing with the minutes of a special meeting of the board held in committee on June 17, Mr Dunn objected in his letter to hi £ vote being recorded in favour of a motion of the board thanking the chairman and Mr R. W. Andrews for their work in clearing out the office safe following the dismissal of the former clerk. In his letter Mr Dunn asked that his vote should be recorded against the motion in the minutes of that meeting, stating that at the time it was put he had been thinking of another subject. Mr Dunn further alleged that the chairman and Mr Andrews had undertaken the work without the authority of the board, contending that this work should have been done by the special committee of the board set up to deal with the emergency situation, consisting of the chairman, Mr A. J. Luxton and himself. Considered An Insult “In my long experience of local body work this is the first time I have ever been asked to alter the minutes before they have come before the meeting of the board,” declared Mr Hughes after reading Mr Dunn’s letter. “ I consider that sending such a letter amounts to an insult to myself, and if Mr Dunn thinks I would consent to alter the minutes, then he is mistaken.” , , Mr Dunn: I thought it was possible that the minutes were not made up. In any case, the report on the board s affairs requested some time ago by Mr Brown has not been given yet.

Mr Hughes: I have already told the board that this position will be cleared up at the proper time, and have'made a public statement to that effect. Regarding the authority under which Mr Andrews and I cleared out the office safe, I would like to ask Mr Dunn what difference there is between that and Mr Dunn coming into the office to see the auditor?

Mr Dunn replied that he had come into the office not to see the auditor but to see another member on personal business, whereupon Mr Andrews stated that he , was the member referred to, and he had been in the office at the request of the auditor, Mr Kane.

“I do not think it is generally known that but for Mr Andrews, unravelling the board’s affairs might have taken a great deal longer,” said Mr Hughes. “Mr Andrews wrote to the auditor actually before I did.” . Mr Dunn remarked that the ratepayers were wanting to know what the emergency committee of the board had been doing, and Mr A. Wratt said that the committee had had power to co-opt other members. Mr Dunn complained that the committee had never been called together beyond doing a few things “ which any schoolboy could have done.” Chairman Within Rights “ I consider that as chairman of the board I have certain rights,” declared Mr Hughes, “ and I was quite within them in taking the action J did. The safe was in a terrible mess and it was at the suggestion of the auditor that it was cleaned out.”

Mr Dunn then said that he had gone to the chairman in the previous November with information that the clerk had been appropriating board property, and asked why no action had been taken then, and why he had been bound to secrecy.

Mr Hughes: There was a very good reason—had the clerk heard anything of our suspicions there might have been an unfortunate fire in the office and valuable information would have been lost.

The statement was made by Mr Dunn that he and Mr Andrews had gone to Hamilton to see the auditor, but had been unable to meet him. Following that they had gone to a solicitor’s office and after a letter had been drafted Mr Andrews had signed it and sent it to the auditor. Should Follow Business Mr Luxton: The motion to which Mr Dunn is objecting was passed at the meeting without dissent. If a member is following the business as he

should be, he should vote against a motion if he is not in favour of it.

“ I have no regrets over anything I have done,” said Mr Hughes. “ All my actions have been in the best interests of the board; this affair has given me a great deal of work and it has been no joke. I can see no action of mine that has done any harm, apart from hurting Mr Dunn’s feelings, nor any point on which the board’s interests have been damaged.”

Mr Dunn then brought forward the matter of the bank authority .which had been made out following the former clerk’s dismissal. According to the form in which it was made, only the chairman and the acting-treasurer, Miss D. Crompton, had authority to sign cheques. There was a brief discussion, in the course of which Mr Hughes said he had been under the impression that the authority implied the same conditions as previously, that any member of the board and the treasurer cpuld sign cheques. After perusing a copy of the authority Mr Hughes agreed that apparently an error had been made and undertook to rectify it. The whole discussion then lapsed with Mr Dunn recording his vote against confirmation of the minutes.