WAITAKI ELECTRIC POWER BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22398, 20 October 1934, Page 25

WAITAKI ELECTRIC POWER BOARD

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —In my letter of October 3 I gave some figures from the audited balance sheet of the Waitaki Power Board on street lighting and depreciation. _ These figures, which have not been disputed, pertained to the year ended March 31, 1933. Here are figures for the year ended March 31, 1934. The amount showing for public lighting depreciation is still 42 per cent., not 7J per cent, pins 1 per cent, sinking fund, or 8J per cent, in all, as given to the public by the board. Yet again this year, the sinking fund is taken from the depreciation fund account. Also, a further £715 is tucked away here and was not specially mentioned in the annual statement of profits or “ trading losses.” The entry in the accounts referring to this £715 says “ less depreciation ascertained on motor vehicles sold.” Interesting entry, is it not, in view of the fact that the motor vehicles were got rid of ’ in the name of “economy,” and yet new motors were recently purchased for the Duntroon experiment? On the statement furnished to the council for the year ended March 31, 1934, the amount given for depreciation and sinking fund is £220 15s 2d, or 8J per cent, on a capital of £2595 16s 6d, whereas the audited balance sheet shows £ll9 9s 4d on a capital of £2515 2s 7d. Have the auditors repeated the same error? Surely the discrepancy disclosed here can be explained. The total depreciation shown for the year is £4271 os lid less £1748 11s 6d sinking fund, less again £715 (loss on motor vehicles), giving depreciation of only £IBO7 14s 5d paid over to the Public Trustee on a total of depreciable assets of £157.052 19s 7d, or approximately 1.15 per cent. — which is a long way from 8i per cent. I am not a public accountant and, as I have staled before, I prepare these statements myself and would like to see some accountant disprove them in any material point. Your correspondent "Justice” has been 'harping’ a long time about my being q. disgruntled ex-employee and has asserted that I am ashamed to state why I am an ex-employee. _ These reiterated statements of "Justice”—to his sorrow I am sure—have apparently had a detrimental effect on the advancement of one who in the past was an employee of the board. I have received information of this in a letter addressed to me, care of the editor, and I hasten to reaffirm my statement that my identity will be made known later to the public and it will definitely be shown that I am not an exsecretary of the board. I also state that " Ex-employee ” hag received no assistance from the said person in these letters. Anyone can by a study of the proper documents I have previously enumerated

arrive at the same conclusions. At this stage I may repeat that in previous letters I have definitely cleared any exemployee who has left the service of the board since last election of the credit of writing these letters. I note, however, that none of them, nor any of the present employees, have attempted to disprove my figures and conclusions. I make this suggestion: that the Mayoresss Relief Committee organise a concert in the Opera House on the evening of Monday, April 1, when “ Ex-employee ” is px-epared to walk on the stage at the interval if “Justice” is prepared also to do so. The public will then see if “ Justice ” is entitled to use a nom-de-plume any more than I. Should it eventuate, as it possibly might, that " Exemployee ” has never been an employee of the Power Board, then of what weight are “Justice’s” oft-repeated terms “disgruntled” and “ ashamed ” and “vindictive.” I reassert that all my letters are' compiled from information available to all alike. By the way, “ Justice ” should read his dictionary for the meaning, of the word “vendetta.” I shall be kind and not press the point, but he will surely kick himself. Others will find the definition “ amusing.”—l am. etc.. Ex-Employee. Oamaru, detober 18.