MOTION OF CENSURE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 60, Issue 4232, 17 January 1940, Page 7

MOTION OF CENSURE

CR J. C. MONTEFIORE’S ACTIONS. BOROUGH COUNCIL DISCUSSION. That Borough Council affairs are not conducted along lines of amity and goodwill has been evident from time to time by reports of Council meetings. At the December meeting Cr L. S. Armstrong gave notice to move the following: —> “'That this Council does not agree with the methods adopted by one of its councillors, and that a vote of censure be recorded against Cr J. C. Montefiore for submitting to the Council and upholding a claim which he must have known would not stand investigation.” The motion came before the Borough Council at the January meeting on Monday evening last, and there was an air of tenseness as the clerk formally read it, though each councillor had previously been supplied with a copy of the resolution. Cr J. A. Mfaxwell seconded the motion. The mover said that at last month’s meeting he felt that the time had when some aspects of borough business should be put on a proper basis. Hence his motion. Cr Montefiore had, he felt, failed in his duty as an old and experienced councillor. That gentleman had suggested on more than one occasion that he knew far more than the younger councillors, and therefore- his judgment should be accepted without question by them. During the period that Cr Montefiore was acting as Mayor he had taken a certain course that was not— At this stage the Mayor (Cr Geo. Spinley) interjected with the remark: You cannot refer to happenings of . several months ago. You mustn’t do that. I must insist that you confine yourself to the motion before the Council. Cr Armstrong: I am leading up to the motion, and I want to remind councillors that— Again the Mayor stopped him, saying “ I won’t allow it.” Cr Armstrong said it must be realised, to understand his attitude, that the borough works foreman had asked for back pay in lieu of alleged accumulated leave. The application was made by Cr Montefiore to the Council, though there was no formal application by the foreman himself. When Cr Montefiore found that he could not have his own way in the matter—that other councillors doubted his statement—he proceeded to achieve his ends in another way. That -was utterly wrong, and such action must be condemned. ■Cr Montefiore said he did not understand the motion, but in any case he would reply later. Cr A. C. Brookes said he was quite in accord with the motion up to a point. He was especially interested in the alleged claim by the foreman for back wages and Cr Montefiore’s attitude in that matter. It would be recalled that at the December meeting he (Cr Brookes) had asked that the claim be investigated fully instead of the Council accepting Cr Montefiore’s statement that ten weeks leave was due. At that stage Cr Montefiore had opposed any investigation; he tried to bluff through as usual, and was unsuccessful. Why did Cr Montefiore take up that attitude ? He had said he was performing his duty to the ratepayers, and had repeated that remark earlier in the present meeting. But the finance committee was set up to investigate, with power to act. It found that the foreman was entitled to only two weeks’ back pay in lieu of holidays, up to the recent Christmas holiday season. Cr had told the Council at the December meeting that the reason why holiday leave had accumulated was because the foreman could not be spared from his duties; but he (the speaker) would like to remind councillors that Cr Montefiore had not been a member of the Borough Council at the time stated. His attitude at the present time proved to the speaker that he was not acting in the interests of the ratepayers, as he claimed, and it was high time the Council expressed its disapproval of his attitude. Cr Montefiore said he wanted to answer the statements made. When he made the request on behalf of the borough foreman he had had all the records as to holiday leave and wages paid or unpaid. The claim made practically coincided with the circular issued by the town clerk after the investigation just before Christmas. As a matter of interest, he (Cr Montefiore) had at the December meeting proposed that the town clerk go through the records and find out the actual amount of time the foreman was entitled to have off. In the circular issued the records twice mentioned the word “ bonus,” but it was not .quite clear whether or not that bonus was paid in lieu of holidays due. It was admitted that there were eight weeks’ leave due, so he (the speaker) w’as not so far out when he said ten weeks’ leave was due. He had tried to impress on the Council that the foreman was to have all that he was entitled to. Continuing, Cr Montefiore said Cr Armstrong was only a young councillor in length of service, whereas he (the speaker) had a record of forty years of public life, and the present was the first time any fellow councillor had had the audacity to question his actions or to censure him. Cr Brookes remarked, with a smile, that perhaps by now such censure was overdue.

Cr Montefiore (heatedly): Not by any means, and I have sat with better men than you ! You in opposition had better read the town clerk’s statement, and then perhaps you will withdraw the imputation. But I don’t think you will !

The Mayor proceeded to read part of the circular, being extracts from the records, and also the foreman’s letter setting out particulars of his claim. He added that the motion of a bonus did not each time make it clear whether that payment was or was not in lieu of holiday leave.

Cr W. J. North: it was another mare’s nest, then ?

To Cr Armstrong, the Mayor said the final payment to the foreman, made just before Christmas, was £26, being four weeks’ pay in lieu of holi-

day leave, up to 31st December. That payment had been authorised and approved by the Council. The Mayor added that at last month’s meeting Cr Montefiore had suggested that the foreman was prepared to take four weeks’ pay in full settlement. Cr Armstrong commented that there was still no proof that the foreman was entitled to anything more than he had been paid. Cr Brookes said that the position, as revealed in the town clerk’s circular to councillors, and during discussion at the Council table, did not justify the amount of abuse that had been levelled at the opposing councillors, who merely had wanted the position nronerly investigated. At this stage the Mayor and several councillors were all speaking at once, and it was impossible to dissociate one’s remarks from another’s. Cr Brookes then said that the foreman’s letter had been compiled in collaboratiort with the town clerk. Then, turning to Cr Montefiore, he said: You were prepared to hand out money without investigation. ■Cr Montefiore: I was not. The Mayor intimated that he proposed to put the motion, but Cr Armstrong cut in with: Wait a bit. I want first to reply to *Cr Montefiore. He said that we younger councillors have a lot to learn. Maybe we have, but we are learning quite a lot of things. I am a representative of the ratepayers, and what I ask for I am entitled to have supplied. Cr Montefiore: Your Worship, it is very nearly time you told him which way to get off! He has not put forward anything constructive at all, and he is pot the only one ! Cr Armstrong was continuing his remarks, but the Mayor insisted that he keep to the point of his motion. “ I won’t allow you to divert from that. Stick to the point. It is about time we had some order at the Council table.” The Mayor added, in explanation, that he might be criticised for allowing free discussion, but he had wanted all councillors to bring forward any matters of interest to the burgesses, and perhaps his laxity had encouraged some to say a little too much. The motion of censure was then put and declared lost, Crs Armstrong, Brookes, and Maxwell voting for it, and the Mayor, with Crs North, Sterritt, and Spiers, recording their votes in opposition. Cr Montefiore, of course, did not vote.