DEPUTY-MAYOR QUESTION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LI, Issue 16768, 29 June 1925, Page 7

DEPUTY-MAYOR QUESTION.

OPINION OF MR. T. F. MARTIN-

MAYOR MUST RECEIVE MOTION;

The position regarding the vexed question of the appointment of a Deputy-Mayor is now cleared up as the result of a legal opinion received by the Council from Mr. T. F. Martin, counsel to the Municipal Association of New Zealand. The opinion makes it. perfectly clear that the Mayor must receive.the motion with regard to the appointment, but that tlie appointee can act only with his consent, or in the event of the Mayor becoming incapable of acting. The opinion shows that the Mayor was justified in making any remarks he desired. It will now be a matter for the Council to decide whether they will force the appointment of a councillor distasteful to the Mayor or whether they will appoint another councillor in place of the one proposed. The letter to Mr. Martin set forth the position that a councillor had been proposed as Deputy-Mayor who was not acceptable to the Mayor, and that the Mayor had refused to receive the motion for the appointment of the councillor concerned. It was desired to ascertain whether, when the matter was again brought up, the Mayor should refuse to accept the nomination, or allow it lo proceed, giving it to' bo clearly understood that under no conditions would the Mayor giye his consent or recognise the. councillor as Deputy-Mayor whilst the Mayor was capable of acting in his official capacity. The opinion :s as follows; — “Under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, the appointment of a Deputy-Mayor rests with the Council, if it thinks lit to appoint, one. The consent of the Mayor .is not. necessary to the appointment, but except in )he event of the Mayor becoming incapable of acting, the Deputy-Mayor cannot, exercise the authority of the Mayor without his consent. Since therefore the appointment of a Deputy-Mayor, without the approval of the Mayor, is not a nullity, but is operative in the event of the Mayor becoming incapable of acting, I am of thcifopinion that the Mayor, as chairman of the Council meeting, cannot validly refuse to put a motion for the appointment of any councillor as Deputy-Mayor. The Mayor can, however, make any statement he thinks fit as to how he would view the appointment if made.”

The matter will no doubt come up for consideration at the next meeting of the Council.

WHAT THE MAYOR THINKS.

Tho Mayor, Mr G-! Wildish, speaking off the subject, this morning, said that there.was no compulsion on the Council elect a deputy-Mayor. Furthermore the deputy-Mayor could only act with the consent of the Mayor, and it was an unwritten law that the Mayor should be consulted regarding the appointment of his deputy. He did not see how the Council could expect him to give his consent to any gentleman - to act for him unless such a one had his approval. If the Council and himself were to work amicably together, and if there was going to be the happy relations which should exist between the Mayor and tho deputy-Mayor, then the deputy-Mayor should have the confidence of the Mayor. In many cases the Mayors practically selected their own deputies, and the Council was courteous, enough to appoint the gentleman selected by the Mayor himself. It did not seem fair pla.y to impose upon the Mayor a, councillor who was unacceptable to him.