FARMERS’ UNION DELEGATES.

Southland Times, Issue 22052, 27 June 1933, Page 9

FARMERS’ UNION DELEGATES.

To the Editor. Sir—Would you kindly give me permission. to express my opinion of the decision of the Executive of the Southland Branch of the Farmers’ Union reached at a special meeting held a fortnight ago, removing the voting privilege of branch delegates. I quite agree with Mr Macdonald, when he said that any alterations to be made should have been made at the annual meeting. If this had been done the delegates at that conference would have had the rules of the union so amended that only branch delegates ■would be eligible for election to the executive. This would have given us a representative executive and the personnel would be much different from what it is to-day. I will now set out to prove that some branches which appear to have representatives on the executive are really not represented at all. To do this, I give you the case of two branches in the Western District. For the present we shall call them A and B. Branch A last year had two delegates, both on the executive. _ This branch, having lost confidence in these two members, at its annual meeting elected two new delegates in their places. Neither of these new delegates at the provincial conference was elected to the executive, but the two members who were turned down by the branch were re-elected. Branch B’s case is exactly similar, except that it has only one delegate. . I may state that the aforementioned branches are live branches and sent in what were considered some of the ablest remits that came before last year’s executive. So little was their confidence in their official representatives that they sent in special delegates to support their remits. I think, Sir, that this should show to the public that these two branches are disfranchised, and have no alternative but to resign from the union.—l am, etc., ONE OF THE DISFRANCHISED.