COUNCILLOR IN FIX

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 531, 7 December 1928, Page 13

COUNCILLOR IN FIX

DISQUALIFIED THROUGH LAND PURCHASE MAYOR SAYS “IT’S ABSURD” (From Ovr Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Thursday. Reference to the ruling of the Audit Department that M.r. C. Rafferty, a member of the Hamilton Borough Council, was disqualified as a councillor was made at a meeting of .the council this evening. The Audit Department recently forwarded the council’s balance-sheet tagged with a memo which advised that, as the council had purchased a piece of land from Mr. Charles Laffer ty, a member of the council, for the widening of Massey Street, Frankton, far the sum of £3SQ, Mr. Lafferty was disqualified to sit as a member of the council. The Audit Office expressed tho opinion, and the Grown Law Office concurred, that the purchase of land from Mr. Lafferty without recourse to the machinery of the Compensation Court disqualified him as a member of the council. The matter had been to the borough solicitors, who advised that in view of the valuation previously obtained by the council with respect to the land in question the solicitors were of the opinion that the claim would not be reduced by referring the matter to the Compensation Court. Tho solicitors’ opinion continued: “Accordingly the claim was paid in full. The section referred to by the Audit Office provided for the disqualification of a member of a local body if he entered into any contract involving a payment of a sum exceeding £ 5 wifh the local body. TRAP FOR COUNCILLORS “No agreement or contract had been entered into with vßlr. Lafferty. Tho latter simply made a claim and tho council, without discussing the matter with him, paid it. There could have been no contract up to the time of payment and we failed to see how there could have been one afterwards. “Looking only at the spirit of the Act, tho question of reasonableness and the intention of the Legislature," said the solicitors, “it seems to us absurd that the farce of going before the Compensation Court and offering no evidence should have been necessary. It seems to us that unless the bona tides are questioned it is a case in which the Audit Office might well put a liberal construction on the transaction. The Public Works Act is a trap for every member of a local authority. “If it becomes necessary for a local authority to acquire lands belonging to one of its members, it is clear that the ordinary method of purchase cannot be adopted. If, however, the land is taken under the Public Works Act. the member of the local authority must either make no claim under the Act, and thereby lose the land without compensation, or he must make a claim. If lie makes a claim he is immediately in danger of the council accepting his claim, tliereby disqualifying himself as a member. SHOULD TEST DECISION “We are of opinion that at no stage of the proceedings was there a contract between Mr. Lafferty and the council, and that he is therefore not disqualified. We therefore think that, even if the Audit Department does not agree witli this opinion, this is not a case which should be pressed, in view of the difficult position in which Mr. Lafferty has been placed, entirely without his own wish. We advise that the council approach the department to reconsider its decision and that if. it will not do so it be invited to test the matter by bringing a prosecution.” The Mayor, Mr. J. R. Row, said he was sure the whole council would feel exceedingly sorry for the position in which Mr. Lafferty found himself. The position was absurd. The Audit Department had shown a lack of courtesy. It might have asked the council for the authority on which it had acted. It was decided to write and express sympathy with Mr. Lafferty, and also to write to the Audit Department on the lines of the solicitors’ advice.