DAIRY FACTORY MATTERS

Northland Age, Volume 7, Issue 29, 22 April 1938, Page 3

DAIRY FACTORY MATTERS

Sir.—Mr. Bird’s last letter must be a disappintment to many who would naturally expect something worthy of the occasion and the company from the chairman of the company. Instead he “ supplies very small change.” Indeed had it not been for the words he spends on Mr. Pettit and Supplier 4123, in ways that have little to do with the business on hand, grading, he would have had no letter ; the rest of it conveys the information that he does not intend to write again. Now that he has changed his mind from a fortnight earlier when he rushed into print, he calls the correspondence “a dog fight.” Mr. Bird is not averse to joining :n what he calls dogfights, as past history shows ; but Mr. Bird prefers “hot air” to “black and white,” where his utterances could be brought up against him. ( Mi*. Bird, it is hoped, has not forgotten the famous dogfight of March 16 some years ago when he and his collected the biggest crowd the company has ever had to re-discuss the £16,500 scheme to add to the premises, keeping the crowd waiting to vote down the scheme, then the meeting was told the scheme was postponed. The time was spent in besmirching those who had got up the requisition which defeated the extravagant scheme. Then what of the dogfight which displaced one directorate by another when they had only sat for three months ? There is much more not too nice that could be detailed. It was mostly throwing dirt at estimable members of the company, but it was party politics on one side and Mr. Bird did not raise his head in defence of those who were being blackened; nothing could be said against their actions. Mr. Bird should be one of the last to mention “dogfights.”

Mr. Bird, if he mentions what occui’red in private conversation, where he was told by the writer that a let-

ter had been sent, should be careful to give right impressions of what did occur. He mentions that the writer said he did not attend meetings of the company, but Mr. Bird does not tell your readers he was told why—namely, the amount of “dirt” one had to put up with in the past if one differed from the party in power. Nor does Mr. Bird say he said, on his own initiative, that his letter was vague and shai’eholders wex-e entitled to the “whole truth.” Then Mr. Bird was told that by a coincidence he had used two of the phrases contained in the letter going to the Press, so he need not be offended at the words. As far as correspondence versus meetings goes, correspondence has most advantages in our conditions, as far as interests of shai’eholders go. What is said remains, can be examined and replied to, with both sides on equal footing. What is written has to be definite and a clear, and a sufficient answer, or its want of worth is seen. This is recognised by Mr. Bird and others. They prefer meetings where the man who differs can be replied to ad lib and he has no right of X’eply, and the foi-rns of debate can be used to prevent opinions being brought out. It is an old “gag” 0 f theirs, used often, and an excuse for not giving information, for Mr. Bird to say the company’s affairs must not be mentioned in public. Shareholders know thei’e are very few things that cannot be given the light of full publicity without harming the company ; but it appears the members of the directorate sometimes feel othei-wise —on their account perhaps. Perhaps we have come back to what was said in my earlier letters about the need in the company’s affaii’s, for fuller information, plain-dealing and candour. Mr. Bird’s attitude, if it repi’esents the board, shows they yet do not believe fully in the latter qualities. That would be a pity, but we notice this time Mr. Bird does not write as chairman, so still may hope the majority of directors do not take up the same attitude as Mr. Bird does on this point. Yours, etc., SUPPLIER 4123