“VACANT SEATS”

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 170, 19 June 1936, Page 6

“VACANT SEATS”

ON 80T3&4/GH COUNCIL. DISQUALIFICATIONS INVALID. RAETIHI, June 15. A curious position lias arisen at Raetilii, where there are 10 councillors filling nine seats on the borough council. Some time ago Mr A. Webb, of Raetilii, received notice of his disqualification as a councillor owing to his having committed a breach of the Municipal Corporations Act by accepting work from the council, which together with his deposit exceeded £l.O. Another councillor, Mr Sandford, also received notification of his disqualification owing to a similar alleged breach of the Act Just prior to the council’s monthly meeting Mr Fretchling, the town clerk, who received his instructions from the Audit Department, obtained advice from the Crown Law Office, which ruled that both councillors were at fault.

Not satisfied with this ruling one of the disqualified councillors, Mr Sandford, proceeded to Wellington where he obtained an interview with Mr J. O’Shea, Solicitor-General, when the full facts were placed before him. Mr O’Shea said the disqualifications were wrong and could not he upheld. When Mr Samlford was making his representations an election was being held at Raetilii to fill the “vacancy’’ on the council in respect of Mr Webb’s disqualification. Immediate steps were taken to obtain interviews with the responsible Minister, and Hon. W. E. Parry (Minister, of Internal Affairs) and Hon. F. Langstone (Minister of Lands and member for the district) together with Hon. H. G. R. Mason (AttorneyGeneral) conferred on the matter, Mr Mason considered it ridiculous to interpret the Act as it had been interpreted, and Mr Sandford received an assurance of the Ministers that he was justified in taking his seat as a councillor, and that arrangements would be made to have the clause in the Act clarified, also that it would he pushed through in the “Washing Up” Bill. He was told that it was perfectly clear that as the Act stood, the disqualified councillors had been wrongfully penalised. Any alteration to the Act would be made retrospective to the 1934 Act. At the usual monthly meeting of the Raetilii Borough Council, Mr Sandford’s right to sit on the council was challenged by the town clerk, who advised him that he was liable to - penalty of £SO. Mr Sandford then rose and told the council that he intended to act on the council even in lace ol the town clerk’s warning.