COUNTY COUNCIL AFFAIRS

Northern Advocate, 12 November 1934, Page 4

COUNTY COUNCIL AFFAIRS

Tho .public, bill:, especially ratepayers in the Whaugaroi County, arc wondering why the County Council went into committee, at its last meeting, to discuss the report of a special committee sot up to investigate the administration of county affairs. The chairman, in asking the press to withdraw, said that the staff, him-self-and others were involved, and he therefore thought it Avould be better to hold the discussion in committee so as to allow of more freedom of speech. It is a pity that the chairman did not say cither a little more or a little less; as it was, he said just sufficient to raise suspicion that something of an undesirable nature had occurred and that the council did not wish the light of day to be shed upon it. What did the chairman do which required investigation ? We refuse to think it was of a heinous nature, and can see no reason why the ratepayers should not have been given the fullest information. What did the staff do that it should not have done? We likewise refuse to believe . that the fault, whatever it may have been, was of a heinous nature. Why, then, tho need for secrecy, which is the breeder of suspicion? The statement made by tho chairman after the committee’s import had been discussed was unsatisfactory. Ho said that the matter of ■ reorganisation had been left in the hands of the clerk and himself. In the face of his pronouncement when moving the council into committee, the chairman’s report upon the decision of the council is inadequate. We are firmly of opinion that the council should have authorised the publication of the special committee’s report. That would have given ratepayers information to which they are entitled and have boon fair to the parties concerned. [Since the above was written the report of the special committee has been released for publication. ft is printed in another column, and perusal of it, we think, will hoar out the criticism avo have made. The incident should serve to emphasise the folly of -too frequent use of “in committee’’ by local bodies, who thereby give themselves much unnecessary trouble and sometimes undeserved criticism.]