DARGAVILLE COUNCIL

Kaikoura Star, Volume LVI, Issue 96, 7 December 1936, Page 4

DARGAVILLE COUNCIL

MR R. GIBSON’S REPLY. The following letter appears in the North Auckland Tinies, and as we published the message dealing with the reason for Mr Gibson tendering his resignation, we publish Mr Gibson’s reply. Sir, —May I be permitted through your valuable paper to make a statement so that ratepayers may become possessed of the real situation regardI ing the questions that arose at the recent meeting of the Borough Council In the first place, 1 would mention that I received no intimation whatevei of the matter until Monday night, when the letter referred to in your report was read at the council table. 1 have reason to believe that the plot took shape some days before, and that the Mayor, to a large, extent, was apprised of what was afoot. Why did ho refrain from mentioning it to mo? Why did the

signatories to the letter so zealously guard their secret’ This is not the sort of conduct one would expect from gentlemen trained as these have been. I

have since paid a visit to each legal firm, and in no instance have I been able to obtain a reasonable explanation for the secrecy. Cr. Berry, also. 1 understand, was made aware of the allegation during Monday afternoon. It is a question for your readers to decide whether or not the action in leaving me in the dark was designed to assist in embarrassing me when the indictment was levelled against me. Now the charge to be dealt with is one of “partiality,” the letter stating “we arc greatly concerned as to the partiality shown . . in two cases. From the council’s point of view in both cases, not only were good clearances of long- outstanding rates made, but everyone was satisfied. In both cases judgment had been obtained, but they had been fruitless, and in one case rates were being written off each year as it was considered waste of money to obtain judgments. To show vou that the Ratine- Committee acted

according to piecedent, let me quote an instance in which one of the legal firms now making the complaint was concerned. Rates were owing to the extent of £46 19/11. Although rhe vendor in question received, I understand, a net sum running into three figures, he was allowed a rebate of £2l 19/11. The question of my fee is a matter between my client and myself and is no business of anyone else. What L said at the council meeting was the truth. It is important to notice that the depuation. neither in the letter nor orally, made the complaints on behalf of anyone concerned. They themselves, on their own initative, had suddenly but painfully become possessed of an overpowering duty towards the ratepayers generally. It mattered not to them that I ’• ■* charges were without foundation. I ask, Mr Editor, that the public generally enquire within themselves for the real motive of the letter and the deputation. I come now to the action of the Mayor. He charged me with misleading the Rating Committee. My answer to that, is a complete denial. As a solicitor. I communicated to the committee the facts as my client placed them before me, and 1 had no reason to doubt them. The other members of the committee were at liberty to find out what they could, whever and whenever they could. If they were misled, they had themselves to blame. It is also wrong and contrary to truth for the Mayor to say that I urged the committee to grant the reduction, and I can bring evidence to support this

ii required. I did not vote at the committee meeting and the decision was arrived at by the remainder of the committee without even any comment from me. When the Mayor asserted that “he had me on the mat,” he rathei let his imagination run awav with him. However, his conduct that evening and previous ’ thereto was ha i dly that of a gentleman or* his versatility and experience, and we must excuse him perhaps, for any extravagance of language he* on that occasion may have chosen to express his thoughts. I was invited to act on the Rating Committee, ami councillors, when electing me, should have known what my duties as a solicitor would involve. I shall now refer to the conduct of the meeting so far as the business in hand is concerned. After all the correspondence, including the late letters on Ihe agenda paper, had been dealt with, the Mayor suggested that the council go into committee. The lettei confining the complaints was then read, and the Mayor intimated that he had asked the writers to appear in support, of the letter. This was a most unusual procedure. The letter, in the ordinary course, snould have been read and then referred to the Rating Committee for it to report to the council.; Realising that this was not a matter to be dealt with behind closed doors. ' r. McLean moved that the deputation' b- received in open council, a. motion which I had no hesitation in seconding. I am convinced that the Mayor, and certainly the deputation, would have preferred a private enquiry, but such a course to my mind was improper. But as a smilitor and as a ■ho glh-T of the Rating Committee, I had an easy con.-• i.-ricr and nothing to b; ashamed of. It was \ ery fortunate that this open course was adopted ami tin' wicked accusation, in all its weakness, brought before the public. Now, Mi Editor, if it is considered that the a< cusations made have not been proved, it should be the privilege and pleasure of the members of the deputation to withdraw their statements. The Mayor al.-o may feel similarly inclined. What a pity it is that we cannot have ever present in our minds the words of Thomas Bracken: “Oh God that men could see moiej dearly Or judge Jess hasrhly where they can- ! not sue.” If the electors are satisfic’d that 1. ii; guilty of the accusations brought •. against me then they will no doubt ; condemn me. If on the other hand I 'hey feel that I am innocent, T trust I

that they will freely forgive those responsible for the trouble. 1 have had numerous requests to offer myself again as a candidate for the council and I intend to accept nomination. I trust that those who consider T am in the wrong will put forward a nominee to oppose me. I would ask that any elector who may feel that my re.pl,y is unsatisfactory will apply to me for further explanations, cither through the. Press or by calling on mo. Anonymous correspondence will, of course, be disi'eIn conclusion, on behalf of Mrs Gibson and myself, T wish, to thank those who have been good enough Io express their confidence in me and their friendliness towards us during the last few da vs. RAYMOND GIBSON. MAYOR’S LETTER TO CANDIDATE DARGAVILLE, December 3. Two nominations have been received for the vacancy on the Dargaville Borough Council. They are James Brady, a former councillor from .19.18 to 1924, and Raymond Gibson, a solicij\n extraordinary vacancy was caused through the resignation of Mr Gibson on November 17. Since handing in his nomination to the returning officer, Mr Gibson has received from the Mayor (Mr F. A. Jones) a letter which states: “From certain statements appearing over t v(»ur signature in the columns of the North Auckland 'rimes of recent date, I con ■ hide it is your intention to again offer yourself as a candidate for the vacant -eat on the Daiguville Borough Council. It is only fair on my part to warn you that, should such a position eventuate, it will bo my unpleasant duty, as Mayoi ami leader of the council. to take the earliest opportunity of placing before the electors of Dargaville a full ami complete statement, supported by facts and documents, relating to the unfortunate incident which led up to your resignation at the last meeting of the council. “Further, it is m ( v intention to advise the council at its next meeting to refer the whole matter to the borough solicitors for investigation ami, if found necessary, to submit the facts to the Auditor-General.” Mr Gibson handed the letter to the newspapers with the comment: “I welcome any public disclosure.”