Dairy Company Affairs

Northland Age, Volume 2, Issue 44, 4 August 1933, Page 1

Dairy Company Affairs

Sir, —The attention of the Board of Directors of the Kaitaia Co-op. Dairy Company Ltd., having been drawn to the breaches of confidence over the signature of a former Director, this Board considers it desirable to emphasise that in all businesses conducted under a Board of Directors, the democratic principle of deciding all questions on the vote of the majority is invariably followed. Any member who finds himself in a minority on a matter which is in his opinion vital to the wellbeing of the Company, has the option of leaving the Board after canvassing the question and offering himself for re-election.

As regards the reference to the Secretary, this officer, in common with the Manager, has the privilege of offering comment and opinion and while not admitting the authenticity of the actual words attributed to the Secretary, the Board considers this privilege to he in the interests of the Company. By Order of the Board of Directors

Sir,— Judging by the amount of slush which has been appearing in your paper ’(no offence to you) re factory matters recently, certain gentlemen are evidently preparing for a grand muck-a-muck carnival on annual meeting day. Now I, as a small supplier, have attended the annual meetings for several years and on each succeeding occasion I have become more disgusted with the amount of drivel which is allowed to flow unchecked from the small disgruntled section of the suppliers. Most of us are busy folk, who can ill spare a day to sit for hours on hard boards to listen to the blather which is repeated year by year by these so-called shrewdies. Why can they not have a special washing day of their very own say the next fine Monday, to clean things up, instead of just keeping their stale suds stirred sufficiently to raise a stink on the 11th August, to the disgust of all fair minded people. I would suggest, and hope, that in future these expert rag chewers and laundry artists will either stay away or else allow the meeting to deal with legitimate business, instead of bewhiskered grievances. Yours, etc., ARCHIE W. ADAMS.

Sir,—-“Supplier” makes the following statement in your last issue. “Mr. Lewis

went to some length in his criticism of certain men, chiefly Mr. Micliie hut when a few lines of criticism were directed at himself he considered the attack cowardly.” My reply is that had I criticised Mr. Michie under a nom-de-plume, his attack would have been quite legitimate hut as matters stand, it was most cowardly. When “Supplier” publishes his name I will retract that statement hut not before. Yours, etc., DAN LEWIS

Sir, —It is amazing how many men there are, brave and true, who will persist in throwing stones from behind lnick walls. The principle is quite alright when it applies to a debatable subject but when a man criticises another, who first signs his name to his letter, it is a most cowardly act. But it often happens that if they keep going long enough, a brick sometimes becomes dislodged and the outside world can peep through. Now we will take "Supplier’s” letter. Ho states that he delayed replying to Mr. Lewis’ letter for obvious reasons, how considerate of him! And 1 wonder if lie always shows such consideration in every walk of life? He goes on to say that lie wants his friend to deal with the future and leave the past alone. He calls Mr. Lewis liis “friend” and no doubt greets him with a broad grin, on the one hand and stabs him in the hack as soon as his hack is turned, on the other. No doubt “Supplier” may like his past forgotten, as it may he a very enviable record, and one’ to be proud of (?) I may suggest another nom-de-plume for “Supplier” but first we will wait and-see how he takes the bait. Yours etc., 11. M. THOMPSON Sir, —Your correspondent Dan Lewis appears in a new light. I had never realised that friend Dan was a humourist of the first water —Wodehouse and W. W. Jacobs will have to look to their laurels 1 1 Or is he emulating others and starting a series of articles, “What should know?" I am sure he never would intentionally commit such a breach of etiquette or violate the proprieties by divulging the proceedings of a directorate of which he was a trusted member. Yours etc., NOT Multi Nom de Plume Bill.

Sir, —The latest effusion in your last issue penned by Mr. Lewis, reminds me of the Mayoress of New York when listening to the Prince of Wales extolling the grandeurs of that city,—“Sure Prince you’ve slobbered a bibful.” If the immortal Dickens had had a character of Mr. Lewis’s type, then no house would bo complete without a volume. There is an old saying—if 1 may adopt a more serious vein—“there are some truths so misleading they are better buried", also another which reads “Never bring anger into debate”, and a further very plain one “Look before you leap”. If Mr. Lewis had forgone Ins electioneering criticism and waited until the general meeting to attack the Dairy Company staff he would have retrieved his reputation considerably, but, strange to say, since Mr. Lewis took it upon his shoulders to show Kaitaia Dairy Company up, some six years ago. when the payout was second to none in the province, he has never been known to tell a man off to his face, this includes past manager, past chairman, present secretary, present ehaitman, right down to “Nom de plume Bill”, the victim of cream can episode whose fat ticket was taken out of an envelope, and contents presented before the then hoard as far too much and seemed suspicious. No! Mr. Lewis in giving us your opinion of certain gentlemen did it ever strike you what their opinion is of you, this includes not only the present board and office staff but the head of the factory also, who from the time he wrote you “strictly confidential” correspondence from Taupiri, to the passing of your present opinions, could have happily done without your support. Mr. Lewis should understand that a Dairy Company board is put., there to define a policy, and the staff carry it out, if the policy is a rotten one, as has emanated from Mr. Lewis’s ticket, you can’t blame the staff, whether it be losing your local markets at a shilling and sending to London at Bd, or passing £IOOO to £ISOO out to private contractors in place of factory owned trucks. With a gradual calling we are placing better ability on the hoard, reflected by Mr. Lewis’s dwindling supporters, as suppliers are waking up to the fact that the man who stoopß to whisper petty nothings, because the chairman of the Dairy Company gives a lift to his earless

colleague to a Dairy Company meeting, or the man whose chestswells abnormally because he is the recipient of half a dozen cigars from some designing machinery agent, is very little use oil a board. Mr. Lewis some weeks ago made a scurrilous attack on a person who wrote over the name “Supplier", a legal authority is waiting for “Supplier” to place his head over the parapet, hut in case he does not and would sooner wear the stigiiu > Mr. Lewis might do me a favour by telling the public openly who “Nom de Flume Bill” really is, also a further one by withholding the “Glad Dook and substituting with “silent contempt. Yours etc., “Nom de Plume Bill”.