The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1923. THE MAYORAL CHAIR

Southland Times, Issue 19772, 21 February 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1923. THE MAYORAL CHAIR

Wellington, it is stated, is faced with the prospect of a Labour mayor as a result of vote-splitting, and this is advanced as the principal reason why some Wellington people are advocating a change in the system of electing that high municipal officer. At the present- moment the mayor is elected by the direct vote of the citizens, but it is now proposed that he shall be elected by the councillors after they have been installed, the idea being, of course, to insure that the particular party which has a majority at the council table, will appoint the mayor and will increase its majority by one when it selects as the chairman of the council meetings and the director of municipal affairs someone who thinks with the majority. The principal argument against the direct election of a mayor is that there is the possibility of the chief magistrate being asked to conduct the administrative affairs of the city without enjoying the support of a majority of the council, but there are also sufficient potent reasons why the system now being advocated diligently in Wellington should not be adopted. There are two ways of viewing I the selection of a mayor. In some places j the chief idea in the selecting of an oc- I cupant for the mayoral chair is ornamenta- I tion or as a reward for lengthy service, and | in others —this applies to cities which have i a vigorous municipal administration—the i

guiding principle is the election of a man I whose personality is such that he becomes ; the absolute leader of the municipal government. In New Zealand and in Australia it would be possible to quote many cases where the life of a city is consciously quickened as the result of the installation of a mayor of dynamic personality, and those cities, which have secured as the leaders of their municipal life such men as these have clung to them loyally and have benefited as the result. It is only necessary to quote the case of Auckland for proof. The ornamental mayor would not be tolerated by the Aucklanders who have a deep affection for their city. The Auckland example could be copied by municipalities of smaller dimensions, and they should also notice that cities like Auckland do not elevate councillors to the mayoral collar in place of presenting them with long service medals. All these arguments can be arrayed against the system of the election of the mayor by the council, since that officer becomes the creature of the council and naturally the filling of the vacancy becomes a matter of decoration. It is noticeable, too, that Auckland has never handicapped itself with a mayor of indecision, and that other cities of the Dominion when they look back over their roster of chief magistrates invariably select as those who did the finest work in municipal affairs, the men who avoided the fencetops, who were decisive and who had the courage of their convictions. This is the type of mayor that every municipality requires and he can be best obtained by a direct election where the citizens know what they want.