CHAIRMANSHIP OF HARBOUR BOARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 20 June 1931, Page 7

CHAIRMANSHIP OF HARBOUR BOARD

(To the Editor; Sir.—The patriotic correspondent in. your issue of 17th inst. over the .title of “Disgusted” is evidently very ignorant of the amount of business knowledge, time, and work required of the ■ , chairman of the Harbour Board. He •* appears to be actuated more by animus against Mr Gould than the interests of * y the ratepayers and takes the anonymous way of making it public. It reminds y ono of the story of the man who was' boasting of having told another what ho 0 thought of him and was asked whether ‘the other man had knocked him down. The reply was: “No, I told him through the telephone.” Mr Gould’s public record is too well known to need any comment on anything said by such a correspondent. To a business hum who has his living to » earn and who has “made considerable 7, sacrifices in the public service” there may come a time when he cannot afford to go beyond that. If your correspondent had signed his name ratepayers l would have been able to judge what sac- / rifices he had made. Was it modesty or wisdom prevented him doing so? “Disgusted” seems to think that all the . chairman has to do is to attend Board meetings once a month for a few hours. After being a member of the Board under Mr Duncan’s chairmanship for 14 years I know, and Mr Gould knows the '1 amount of time and work that Mr Duncan had to give and do. For tile last 18 years the time and work of the • chairman has steadily increased and the time is not far distant when it will bo necessary to pay for a chairman’s whole time. The chairman lias to take eonsid- y crable responsibility and practically run J, the business during the month between . the Board, meetings as lie cannot call a ‘ 7 meeting for the many questions that crop up during the intervals between T meetings. Unless the Board can find a man of good business capacity who lias not his living to earn and can and will give his time to the work of the ratepayers, I think that reducing the very small honorarium would be a very “penny wise and pound foolish” action and will be very costly to the ratepayers. | w' As a ratepayer and knowing what is required of the chairman I think the honorarium should be raised not i lowcreel. —I am, etc., 11. P. WASHBOURN.

19th June, 1931.