COUNCILLORS RESIGN.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17080, 1 February 1916, Page 6

COUNCILLORS RESIGN.

INADVERTENT BREACH OP THE

At a recent meeting of the Lyttelton Borough Council Councillor W. T. Foster asked that a return should he laid on the table showing the sums paid to members of the counoil, and aStha outcome of the request the town Alar furnished the necessary information last night. The return showed that Councillors F. J. Page and J. T. Nftrton had during the present year exceeded the £lO limit allowed by the Municipal Corporations Act, by £7 19s 3d ana £6 17s 2d respectively, and in consequence had forfeited their seats on the coum The matter was discussed in. committee, the two councillors absenting themselves during the discussion. As an outcome of the deliberation the councillors in due. course resigned, both gentlemen remarking that they were prepared to refund the money received. Subsequently the council _ resumed, and Councillors Page and Norton entered the chamber and asked to make a statement of their position. Councillor Page stated that as the outcome of what had cropped up he desired the council to accept Ins reHe regretted, that had exceeded the £lO Emit.' On examining his firm’s books he observed that including goods supplied in March last and paid for in April he had overstepped the Aot to the extent of £ i 19s 3d. The position was unfortunate, ana under the circumstances he had no option but to leave the table. thanked members for the courtesy extended to him in the past. ' , Councillor Norton stated that until Saturday last he was unaware of the fact that he had come within, the scope of the Act. He had inadvertently done so. Some four years ago his bread business had become incorporated m the Lyttelton Co-operative Bread Company, which was formed for tjie express purpose of supplying the public of the port with cheap bread. At the time o the formation of the company he had sought legal opinion as to how the Act then in force affected him or any other member of the company who might seek municipal honours. He had been informed that he did not come within the scope of the Act, .and ■ consequently on his obtaining a. seat on the council he Fad not taken-any further steps. On Saturday, however, he had been informed that an amendment had overridden the previous Act, and as a consequence he was compelled to resign, although lie did so rather reluctantly. He desired to extend to councillors jus thanks for the courteous way in which they had treated him. ‘‘l will not say at present,” concluded Councillot* .Norton, “that I will stand again for municipal honours, but you can rejy on me to assist you whether I am in or out of the council. The unfortunate matter will, no doubt, act as a warning to others who may transgress the , Act inadvertently. The Legislature, m amending the Act, practically _ defeated its own object, and I say it is most unfair to a man in a small company of less than twenty shareholders. If there are more than twenty shareholders, any councillor, other than a director or the manager, _ can participate in the municipal business. Then, again. I wish to point out that in the case of a large company, there is nothing, as far as I can ascertain from the Act, to debar shareholders _ from stuffing the. council seats to their own benefit. It is not reasonable, and I think it is time legislation was brought in to place matters on a. more equitable basis. It is not tile fault of the council that I resign my seat, and I sincerely hope that our past friendship • will not lapse.” (Hear, hear.) Councillors Norton and Page thenleft the chamber and the council went on to the usual business. At a later stage of the meeting a motion was passed, expressing appreciation of the work done hy Councillor* Norton and Page.