A MISSING LETTER

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 58, Issue 4194, 9 June 1939, Page 4

A MISSING LETTER

BOROUGH COUNCIL DISCLAIMS KNOWLEDGE. RATING PROTEST MISCARRIES. The non-delivery of a letter in time for its consideration by the Te Awamutu Borough Council at its special meeting last night had prospect of serious consequences. The inference was, of course, that there had been some irregularity by the Postal Department, but inquiry this morning shows that the department had fulfilled its responsibility and that other factors arose. The letter was the outcome of a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce last Tuesday evening and was posted at Te Awamutu about 5 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. It concerned the striking of the current year’s rates and was in the nature of a protest against one item in the Estimates. To have any effect it required delivery into the Council’s hands before the advertised confirming meeting last night. Having learned from the press reports that the Chamber of Commerce had decided to enter a protest, Councillors naturally expected, and asked for some communication, but they were advised that no information other than the press report was available. The missing letter reads as follows and we are asked to publish it for general information: — Te Awamutu, June 7th, 1939. .The Deputy Mayor, RE SLOANE STREET WIDENING. In connection with the amount of £750 placed upon the estimates for the current year, and for which provision is made in the amount of the rate about to be levied, my Chamber would respectfully ask that the striking of this portion of the rate be deferred until next financial year for the following reasons: 1. His Worship the Mayor, Mr Spinley, on the eve of his departure advised the Borough Council and others that arrangements had been made for the payment of this item by the Main Highways Board, and that the work would not cost the ratepayers anything. 2. The application for subsidy to cover the work of widening Sloane Street which was placed before the Board by the Mayor on the eve of his departure has never been declined. 3. The striking of a rate must have a bearing on the Board’s treatment of this application for subsidy. 4. The Council has not apparently, as it should have done as the guardian of the interests of the ratepayers, considered the question of betterment and the responsibility of other landowners who have received a direct benefit by this work before it contemplates a rate on the whole Borough. 5. The sum of £4OO was voted on last year’s estimate and rated for this work, and even if this amount was not expended it was collected from the whqle Borough. This brings the total charge on ratepayers as collected and proposed to be collected up to £ll5O. On 10th March, 1938, Mr Spinley waited on the Main Highways Board on the occasion of its visit to Te Awamutu. The Board was not unsympathetic and asked that application be submitted. It is known that the application forms were handed by the district engineer to the town clerk at that time but it now transpires that application was only made a few weeks ago. This application is still under consideration by the Board. Until such time as the Board declines the application the Council is unjust to the ratepayers by its -action in proposing to levy this portion of the rate. Moreover the Chamber cannot understand the attitude of the Council in imposing this rate in the Mayor’s absence and contrary to the definite assurance that he gave to the Council and the ratepayers. In view of all the circumstances this Chamber feels compelled to make this definite protest and asks that the striking of the portion of the rate referred to be deferred.

Commenting on the situation the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce (Mr Alan R. Hill) says that the letter was posted with others on Wednesday afternoon. “In consequence of information I received on Thursday evening,” he said, “I at once rang the town clerk. The Council meeting was then in progress and Mr Bockett assured' me that the letter had not come to hand. I then rang the post office and in consequence of what I then learned I again phoned the town clerk and asked him, and the Deputy-Mayor, to be sure to let me have the envelope when the letter did turn up so that I could produce it with a complaint to the post office. I am already in communication with the postmaster, but the tell-tale envelope has yet of course, to be presented. “The remarkable thing,” he added, “is that the Chamber posted two letters to the Borough Council at the same time. One of them, addressed to the town clerk, was delivered and the mystery of the other more one, addressed to the Deputy-Mayor, has yet to be explained.” Further inquiry at the post office this morning reveals that the letter was duly delivered to the DeputyMayor’s private box and placed there with his coiu’esnondence yesterday morning. Its failure to reach the Borough Council is therefore apparently the responsibility of the Deputy-Mayor and in no way the responsibility of the postal service.