ILL CHOSEN WORDS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4308, 24 July 1950, Page 4

ILL CHOSEN WORDS

' —I I 1 lII' REPLY TO CRITICISM t TWO BOARDS AT ODDS HAURAKI CATCHMENT BOARD Surprise that so much of the? Hauraki Catchment Board’s time should’ be taken up with “trivalities” was expressed by members of the Thames Valley Drainage’Board wh&n the latter discussed a complaint concerning • statements made by drainage board members and reported in the press, * states the Te Aroha News.

“At the meeting of my board on June 22, attention was dfawn to an article in the ‘Te Aroha News’ of " May 16 in which a member of your -'* board is reported as alleging that my board has overstepped its authority, held up work, and taken up the cudgel on behalf of a settler in connection with the Bancroft’s drain proposal, and further alleging that although your board had asked that a survey be carried out, it had not been done,” said the letter received from the catchment board secretary, Mr C. H. Walsh. 1 *

“In the-first place I draw your attention to section 14'3 of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act,_> 1941, which requires that a catchment board shall (not may) exercise general supervision of drainage and river works in its district by river and 1 drainage boards. Hence your allegation that my board has overstepped its authority is withbut foundation.

•Survey Completed Regarding the allegation that the work had been held up, and that the survey as requested had not" been performed,, Mr Walsh pointed out that the survey had been commenced in January, and would.have been com-, pleted within six wpeks had not peat (fires caused considerable delay, of which the drainage board had been, well aware. The survey, he * had actually been completed in May, eXcept for the design of the culvert, under the Paeroa-Tahuna Road, upon which agreement had not been reached with the county enginefer.' The ver-, bal agreement with Mr W. R. Andrews had been that the survey be done during the past summer and that the reconstruction commence in the coming summer. '

“There has, been, no hold up-in the-. work ahcf lhe allegation that the sur- . vey has not been performed 'is false, said Mr Walsh.

Referring to the allegation that the catchment board hlad “taken up the cudgel” on behalf 6f a ratepayer, Mr Walsh said that Mr ’Strange (the ratepayer referred to) had written to» the board asking that the Bancroft’s drain reconstruction survey be extended. Mr Strange’s letter had beenr referred to the drainage board as the work had beep that board’s undertaking. Discussion had ensued follow* ing the drainage board’s objections to«everal points in Mr Strange’s proposal.

Duty to Investigate Mjr Strange had been quite entitled (under section 11, Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Amernment, Act, / 1948) to take up the matter through the catchment board, and as the latter had hot been satisfied as to the economy nor practicability of’Mr Strange’s scheme the. matter had been referred to the drainage board, and in catchment board had been ing its duty in investigating Mr Strange’s proposal.

In view of all the circumstances th® catchment board considered that are explanation of the “unwarranted and untrue criticisrii” was indicated,, concluded the letter. ,

Mr R. W. Andrews, the member of the drainage board responsible for the remarks to which exception had been taken, said that at the time when/he had made his comments, he had not been aware that the catchment board had such a wide authority over his

board. It was rather unfortunate that the - matter had been" taken up as it had been, for, he said, his words had admittedly been rather ill-chosen and did not convey exactly what he meant. Even if the catchment board had not over-stepped its authority it had exercised it rather unnecessarily. Referring to remarks reported from the last catchment board meeting to the effect that the drainage board ’ should have seen to it that Mr And-

rews’ remarks were not published, Mr G. .R. Reid, clerk to the drainage board, nor did it desire to “muzzle” the press.

I The clerk was instructed to reply to the catchment board’s letter pointing \ out that the views expressed by Mr ‘ Andrews were not the views of the board, and also pointing out that the board had no control over what Was* t TQpqrted by the. press.