Mr. Taylor Replies to Mr. Bloodworth

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 407, 16 July 1928, Page 13

Mr. Taylor Replies to Mr. Bloodworth

LOCAL-BODY RULE _ : “NO TOLERANCE FOR CANT” “Mr. Bloodworth seeks to excuse councillors and officials on the one hand, but on the other he admits having criticised many times the administration. This inconsistency is inconceivable.” Mr. H. P. Taylor, of the City West Ratepayers’ Association, has again written about Mr. Blood worth’s statement, made in defence of local body administration. “I have no desire to engage in a paper controversy with Mr. Bloodworth,” he says, “but his long article in reply to my comments on his resentment of the criticism levelled at local bodies calls for a further reply from me. Having had nine years’ experience as a councillor, I have appreciation for the work put in at the Town Hall by members when it is carried out effectively and in a conscientious manner, but I have no tolerance for bombast, cant, humbug, and inefficiency. “Mr. Bloodworth’s assurance that he was not influenced by the desire to make political or municipal capital by drawing a red herring, etc.,’ would readily b© accepted by me if he had not added ‘that he has no need ‘at present.’ I would remind him that our activities are not for present needs, but for April next, for councillors have tieated past criticism and suggestions with disdain. I take it that he will again contest the Mayoralty in April, so it is fair to assume that his article was written with that object in view. His lack of desire to inspect the signed statements, including affidavits, amazes me. He has had a splendid opportunity to test out thoroughly the claims made. He has gathered his knowledge of the Murray complaints from the Press (which could not be expected to report these fully) and trorn conversations, instead of coming to headquarters for accurate data. Had he perused the statements offered him, and attended some of the public meetings we have held, then there would be only one course that he, as a public man with aspirations, could take to inspire public confidence—the coming to our assistance. Ha states that in some essential parts local government is quite unsuitable to present needs, rather than that there is a lack of supervision by officials, etc. This is interesting, but why indulge in generalities? Why does he not particularise? PRESS COMMENTS * I would suggest that Mr. Bloodworth look up and digest the comments of our Press during the past few months. I think any fair-minded person must admit that never in the history of our municipal government has a council been taken so much to task as the present body for its lack ol administrative ability, its policy of d.vift, wastefulness, and inefficiency in tlio management of its various departments. Can the people of Auckland feel at all satisfied with what took place last summer regarding our water supply Can we say that our transport problem has received at the hands of the council even a semblance of good management? Has a reasonable effort been made to keep within the limits of our allocations of loan moneys on street and road construction? Is it a fair thing that the Mayor and town clerk should have the power of deciding what shall come before council, and what shall go to committee with power to act? We have not accused councillors of want of integrity or of indulging in unworthy motives, but failure in their duty is another question. “To indulge in destructive, without offering constructive, criticism, is useless, and in confirmation I would refer Mr. Bloodworth to the declared policy (vide The Sun of June 29) of the ratepayers’ group scheme, in which is set out that constructive criticism; a basis of democracy, and utmost possible efficiencjA So much disdain and ridicule have been exhibited by the present administration that it is useless to offer any constructive criticism. ! favour the democratic franchise of election, but when it fails to ccme up to expectations there are two alternatives: (1) appointment of a city manager (with well defined duties and powers), or (2) appointment of three City Commissioners simila- to Sydney.“Ratepayers are becoming alive to the peril of their pockets, and I can assure Mr. Bloodworth the -in terest by them is very real, as sensed bv the formation of so many associations, and more to follow. Surely he does not think his apology for the present council will convince the majority of ratepayers that there is no need to criticise their actions? The remedy lies in educating the public by meetings, and this will be pursued with an intensity that will achieve substantial results (it is to be hoped) next April, and in the meantime I am fully convinced will change the views of the most sceptical as to the sincerity of our efforts.”