ELECTION OF MAYOR.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8186, 30 July 1912, Page 1

ELECTION OF MAYOR.

TWO YEARS OR ONE? SHOULD COUNCILLORS CHOOSE HIM? One of the matters in which dole* gates to the Conference of the Municipal Association were obviously most interested, and on which they spoko freely, related to tho * tenure of office by mayors and the method of choosing occupants of mayoral offices.

“That if .the present mode of electing tho mayor is continued, his term of office be extended to two years, so as to como into lino with that of councillors.”

Mr Bunny in moving this said that twelve months was too short a period for a mayor to hold office; his term should bo the same as that of councillors.

The remit was seconded by Mr Osborn (Pahiatua), Mr Scandrett (Invercargill) opposed the remit; it was a proper thing that the electors should bo given an opportunity of reviewing their mayor’s qualifications at the end of the year. Mr Davis (Ashburton), although ho had been ten times re-elected Mayor of Ashburton, had always opposed tha suggestion put forward. Mr H. Lowe (Thames) remarked that a bad mayor could make ducks and drakes of finance in twelve months.

“Why should the community bo afflicted wi4ii a man they don’t desire?” asked Mr G. Armstrong (Akaroa). Ho opposed the motion. Mr M. J. Millar (Lyttelton) said that the first two years might bo right enough but the second biennium might be troublesome. The present system was quite satisfactory. Mr J. A. Flesher (New Brighton) suggested that if the present system of election were retained, the mayor’s terms should bo the same as that of councillors.

Hon. J. Barr (Sumner) supported the remit, which was rejected bv 25 to 23.

“That councils elect a mayor from their own number”' was moved by Mr J. A. Coradino (Masterton), who said that a good deal of friction was engendered by the present system. In Victoria and other place the suggested course was in operation. If councillors chosa their own mayor, it would lead to better working conditions and less opposition.

Mr J. McCurdy seconded the remit, and out that harbour boards, charitable aid boards and county councils elected their own chairmen.

Councillor J. Fuller thought it was inadvisable .for local bodies to get too friendly. It was a case of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” They had to consider the people outside, and not become mutual admiration societies.

Mr J., A. Nash (Palmerston) said that county councils did not get tha best men for chairmen. He honed tho remit would be thrown out. The people had a right to 'reject unsuitable mayors. Mr D. P. Loasby (Groytown) said that an alteration would, be needed in the Municipal Act and he doubted whether the Government would pass it. Ho saw no justification for the course suggested. Mr P. Wyllie (Eaiapoi) thought the suggested course would not remove friction ; the matter should be left to the electors to decide.

Councillor R. Fletcher (Wellington) pointed out that it sometimes took six or seven months for a new mayor to get a grip of affairs, and meanwhile the councillors were teaching him. A man who, had served in the council, however, deserved some reward. Mr W. B. Scandrett (Invercargill) said it was proper for mayors to b* elected by the citizens. Mr D. McLaren (chairman) was opposed to the 'remit, it would be retrogressive to take power from the citizens and give it to councillors. Putting aside the fact that he was a mayor, he saw no reason for tho course suggested. The remit was rejected. THREE YEARS’ TENURE.

“That the Municipal Corporations Act be amended with a view to extending the period for which a councillor is elected to three years, and that all other borough councils bo asked to assist in the matter."

This wan moved by Mr H. J. Otley (Christchurch) and seconded by Mr H. Holland (Mayor of Christchurch). ■ Tho chairman thought tho suggestion was going back to the old road board system and he was not in favour of it. Mr J.‘ A. Flesher (New Brighton) thought thero was a good deal to recommend tho course suggested. Mr R. Fletcher (Wellington) support, ed the motion; . the tendency was to bring all local bodies into lino with one another. Recently tha Wellington Harbour Board had been put to £1250 expense through want of conformity in tenure of offices held by members of different bodies, the Harbour Board’s term being two years. •The remit was lost by a substantia) majority. . “That the Municipal Corporations Act be amepded so as to provide that the period for which councillors are elected shall be three years, and that they retire by rotation m the proportion of one-third of the number o i members.” This was moved hy Mr T. A. H. Field (Nelson). In supporting it, Mr H, Davis (Ashburton) said the mayor w at a single individual, but the council was not. The remit was rejected on the voices. ' HALF TO RETIRE. ’ Mr H. X. McLeod (Miramar) then moved “That tho term of office of councillors ho two years, and that one half retire annually." Ho thought that the coarse would enable the work to be carried on more consistently. The remit lapsed for want of a seconder. Notice of the following remit foi supplementary business at the conference.has been given by Councillor Fletcher:—“That tho method of election to the office of mayor ho conducted as at present, on the municipal franchise, but that selection of candidates ho restricted to those who have served in the capacity of mayor or councillor. Till-; GnM no* ci'.-Ur tc