CITY TRANSPORT CRISIS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 676, 30 May 1929, Page 11

CITY TRANSPORT CRISIS

Tricky Problem for Council \ INVOLVED LEGAL POSITION little more than 124 hours to decide who is to repre- , sent Auckland City on the Transport Board, the City Council will this evening consider the appointment of six persons to replace those removed by it from the board earlv this week.

Tuesday eevning the six members appointed to the board by the old council were recalled on the motion of Cr. T. Bloodworth, and the meeting was adjourned until 8 o’clock this evening.

Cr. Bloodworth had studiously avoided reference in his motion to the immediate selection of others, believing thereby to precipitate a poll of ratepayers, so taking the privilege of selection out of the hands of the council. The city solicitor, Mr. J, Stanton, however, negatived the plan by giving the opinion that the Transport Board Act permitted no such course, and that the council must make its six appointments before May 31, 1929, or the members removed would continue in office. Accordingly the meeting was adjourned until this evening. Cr. W. H. Murray, notwithstanding the solicitor's dictum, will move tonight:— “That steps be taken to elect by a poll of the municipal electors six persons to represent the City of Auckland on the Auckland Transport Board until the first Wednesday In May, 1931.” Mr. Stanton, however, has given his opinion that the only way in which a poll Is possible is in the event of an extraordinary vacancy. The mere removal of representatives did not con-

stitute such vacancy. To enable a poll to be held a member must resign later than May 31, after having been appointed or reappointed before that date. Such is considered to be the position of Mr. F. S. Morton, one of two repreesntatives of No. 3 transport area. This member also desired to bring about an election, and has apparently succeeded. He was reappointed on Monday evening by the local bodies, which originally sent him to the board. He intends to resign immediately after May 31, and thereby create an extraordinary vacancy. On the face of present events there does not seem to be any real possibility of an election in the city. If Mr. Stanton's opinion (which was diametrically opposed to the interpretation of most laymen) stands unchallengable, then it would seem that whether an election can be held is entirely for the new city representatives who are to be chosen this evening. If, after appointment, any or all decide to resign, a poll of the people will, in accordance with Mr. Stanton’s opinion, then become imperative. MR. ALLUM'S POSITION The position of Mr. .7. A. C. Allum, one of the six removed members and chairman of the Transport Board, is to be further argued this evening by Cr. .7. R. Lundon. Mr. Allum was defeated at the recent municipal election and shortly afterwards handed in his resignation as one of the council’s representatives to the Mayor, Mr. G. Baildon. Cr. Lundon will move this evening:— “That in the opinion of this council the resignation, received by it, and dated May 3, 1929, signed in writing by Mr. Jobn Andrew Charles Allum as a member of the Auckland Transport Board when he was chairman of that board, operated on that date, and that his office as a member of that hoard became vacant on that date under and by virtue of sub-section (b) of section II of the Auckland Transport Board Aet, 1928.” It is understood Cr. Lundon bases his argument on a contention that. Mr. Allum, oin fact, handed his resignation to the deputy-chairman of the Transport Board, Mr. Baildon, and not to the Mayor of Auckland. The Aet requires that a resignation must be handed to the chairman of the Transport Board. Mr. Allum, holding that office himself, Cr. Lundon argues, had, perforce, to resign to the deputychairman. i