OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3212, 6 October 1915, Page 82

OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD.

Mil BELCHER RESIGNS. “ SUBMARINE ” METHODS ALLEGED. The following is a copy of a letter which Mr Belcher is forwarding to the secretary of the Otago Harbour Board: “ Herewith I tender my resignation as a mom her of the Otago Harbour Board, and I do so for various reasons. For some time past it has become apparent to mo that certain officers of the board, and also some of Iho members, have combined to block almost every suggestion or resolution brought forward by myself. This has been done out of pure cussedncss, because I do not belong to the right cult. It has been overheard by one or two that the word lias boon passed around to block Belcher. It is also a well-known fact that secret meetings of a certain faction have boon held elsewhere for the deliberate purpose of thwarting many of my motions. It is equally well known that intrigues are constantly going on to defeat any projects brought forward which are likely to conflict with the interests of certain persons and their friends. Vested interests have boon pulling the strings to have me crushed, and, unfortunately, there arc some people who arc so lost to all sense of decency that they lend themselves to those shady practices, simply because I happen to bo connected with the Labour Party.

“A case in point: Some time ago, on a proposal of mine, the (Standing Coipmittee, which is the full board, resolved that the board should undertake the receiving and delivery of cargoes. Between the tune that the committee decided on that course and the ordinary monthly mooting the strings wore pulled by certain persons and the proposal reversed. This is only one of many instances where that hae boon done. “Then, 'again, there is an undesirable system of autocracy exorcised over the employees of the board, which tends to demoralise the esprit do corps which should exist for harmonious working. “Favouritism is rampant, and discontent, instead of harmony, seems to be the order of the day, owing to certain “Jacks in office” asserting their authority. Any effort on my part to bring about a bettor feeling has cither been laughed at or ruled out of order by the chairman, on the advice of officials who were directly responsible, and the men concerned never got a hearing, except by a star chamber inquiry, where they wore browbeaten and marked off for dismissal on the first opportunity. “The latest sneer comes along when I am deliberately accused of assuming functions which I was not authorised to undertake in approaching Ministers and members of Parliament in regard to the loan Bill. ’Tis true, I was not officially authorised, but it was suggested to me by more than one member that I shoidd do so. and I fulfilled the promise made, with, I think, good results. I am quite satisfied, from close observation, that cliques and factions do exist in the board, and the sooner that element is eliminated the bettor.

“As the oldest member on the board, I desiro to express my thanks to the community who have so loyally and consistently returned mo as a member, and to express my surprise at the cavalier manner in which I have been treated by stabs in the back when I was not hero to make explanations or defend myself. To bo longer associated with men of that description is altogether out of the question.” IS HE STILL A MEMBER? The following correspondence has taken place between Mr Belcher and the secretary of the Otago Harbour Board. It raises the question whether Mr Belcher, having forwarded his resignation to the board, has any right to take a further part in the business of the board. Mr Belcher wrote as follows under date September 28; —“Pending the acceptance of my resignation as a member of the board I desire to give notice of motion as under —namely ■. ‘That all plans, diagrams, and blue print copies of the work being done in the Otago Harbour Board office for the Patca Harbour Board bo laid on the table along with a statement of the fees paid to the engineer or other employees of the board engaged on this work.’ ”

To this letter Mr Barclsley replied as follows, under date September 30: —“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of y,our communication of the 28th inst., containing- a notice of motion in connection with the engineer’s department of this board. Apparently you arc labouring under some misapprehension in forwarding this notice of motion, seeing that on the 27th inst. you tendered your resignation as a member of the board, and under section 17 of the 1910 Harbours Amendment Act, you ceased to bo a member directly your resignation was placed in my hands.” Mr Belcher then replied as follows, under date October I“Yours of yesterday’s date, intimating that my resignation precluded me from moving a notice of motion was duly received. Your reading of section 17 of the 1910 Harbours Amendment Act may bo correct, but I have always understood from every known authority that a person remains a member until the resignation is accepted. This would apply to yourself or any other officer of tho board. It is evident that the blockade for obtaining information has been set up, but tho writer will got that from other sources.”