THE WAITAKI ELECTRIC POWER BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22354, 30 August 1934, Page 12

THE WAITAKI ELECTRIC POWER BOARD

TO THE EDITOB. Sib, —Your correspondent “Ex-Sup-porter ” in to-day’s paper says “ that he is disappointed with his choice of members at the last election.” He certainly is entitled to his own opinion, and I claim the-same privilege, but it will take something more convincing than “ Ex-Em-ployee’s” letters to riiake me change my opinion, as I think that we have got the right men in the right place. Does ‘ ExSupporter” really think that any member of the board would be so foolish as to answer an anonymous correspondent through the press, especially a disgruntled ex-employee? “Ex-Supporter” infers that I am the official correspondent of the dominant party. Let me assure him that his guess is altogether wrong, and, to prevent any misunderstanding, I might say that, as a ratepayer, I have taken an interest in the electricity scheme ever since its inception under the Borough Council, and I am only concerned about its success in the future for the benefit of the many, not just a few. I have only entered this controversy to protest against this attack which is being conducted by “Ex-Employee,” who sent out his war cry of “ eight letters and no replies.” I replied to “ Ex-Employee ” and pointed out that his statements were misleading and unreliable, and asked him why he was an ex-employee, for the ratepayers to be able to judge whether his motives were genuine or not. Is that a stupid question? “Ex-Employee” replied by saying that he had “purposely made erroneous statements” in order to get “a bite,” and in a later letter admitted that his letters were “tremendously unimportant and ridiculous.” For reasons best known to himself, be refrains from saying why he is an ex-employee. Is not that enough to convince any fair-minded person that this attack is not worthy of any consideration? “Ex-Supporter” is hardly fair to me when he says that 1 criticise “ Ex-Employee ” for not signing his name, whilst I myself use a nom do plume. T only asked “ Ex-Employee ” to say why he is an ex-employee. I am in no way concerned about who he is, and remember that “Ex-Employee,” in one of his early epistles, said he would reveal who he was before even 1 had entered this controversy. He wasted a great deal of space in bis letters in trying to weave a web of mystery around himself by saving who be was not, but it would be more to the point if he answered my question. I am not. a privileged person, who is allowed to peruse private documents of the board, so bow can I check "ExEmployee’s” figures? The board pay a secretary to keep accounts and checkfigures. Does “ Ex-Employea ” ■ suggest;

that the secretary’s figures are not accurate? "Ex-Supporter” criticises the amount of money spent on the new store. When the new store was being discussed by the board members, I believe it was passed practically unanimously that it should be built, thus proving that it was certainly required to protect the valuable stores ,which were being allowed to rot and depreciate through want of proper covering and safe custody. "ExSupporter ” asks “ how many business men have offices for themselves that are nearly as good” as the Power, Board offices. I, would suggest that any- live business, tnan would have had better offices for the amount of money that, has' .been spent on them already. " Ex-Sup-porter” charges me with making a, threat, I was not aware of the fact, but if he thinks that any servant of the board is justified in giving inside and private information to an ' anonymous correspondent, which enables him to carry on an attack, against the policy .of the board I rather beg to differ 1 with. him in his opinion. The position is that the electricity scheme belongs to the ratepayers of North Otago, and they elect men to represent them on the board and to look after the business part. The servants of the board are' hot elected by the ratepayers, but are engaged by the board to carry out their respective duties, for which they are no doubt well paid for so doing, and, besides doing the work which is allotted to them, they are expected to be loyal to, the board and carry out its policy to the best of their abilities, but it seems that some of the .board’s servants * would like to be its master. So much for Hitlerism which “ Ex-Supporter ” mentions. It seems to me more like despotic monarchy that is desired by some.instead of the ratepayers being allowed to use the franchise, which is their privilege, as “he who pays the piper should certainly call the tune.”—l am, etc., Justice. Oamaru. August 27. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In "Justice’s” letter of the 27th Inst, he has written Ex-Employee ’is again wrong in inferring that Mr Milligan is responsible for all this wasted money on the Power Board’s office buildings. This statement of "Justice” should have been signed “ Injustice,” as the reference to Mr Milligan in ray letter of the 20th inst., regarding the cost of the office building to date is as follows: —“ I notice that the board (on the. shrewd motion of Mr MTnnes) left the planning of the. office to the chairman to interview the architect. So there will be no question who is planning the office alterations. Tins does not , state that Mr Milligan was responsible for all the wasted money. ExEmployee ” was strictly impartial and has commented on the policy of the board, irrespective of w'ho is chairman. I am looking forward, as all my readers are. with interest to the time when “Justice will justly tackle my statements about the “Trading Loss” that occurred last financial year, also any other of my figures. No one will be more pleased it they are proved wrong. —I am etc., Ex-Employee. Oamaru, August 28.