PUKEKURA PARK PEES.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 June 1930, Page 14

PUKEKURA PARK PEES.

(To the Editor). Sir, —The number of citizens who have thanked me personally —others by letter or phone —for exposing the conditions imposed upon the Pukekura Park authorities in connection with the recent British match is conclusive evidence that the people generally recognised the union’s action therein cannot be excused or justified. Furthermore, the studied silence of responsible union officials on the subject is in itself sufficient evidence tliat they themselves consider it dangerous to come out into the open and attempt a defence of their conduct. It is indeed lamentable that any body of public men should, deliberately adopt n policy of silence when thus publicly challenged. What are the facts? The Taranaki Union rents the park for £2l'o per annum, on which are to be played Taranaki Union matches only, and under the agreement the ground cannot be sub-let. Notwithstanding this latter provision, which the T.R.U. treats as a “scrap of pamr,” the ground is sub-let io the New Zealand Rugby Union for the British match, Uie gate receipts for which amounted to over £l7OO. Where did tlr £170” go? The answer to this question will disclose a choice tit-bit of news, w) ch up to the present has not been disclosed; a tit-bit that the public will doubtless appreciate. In my last published letter I stated that* the gate takings for the British match, less £l'o park fee., went into the pocket of the New Zealand Union. This was an error, and I forthwith apologise for same. The Taranaki Union actually received 20 per cent, of gate takings, viz., £340, and the New Zealand Union pocketed the balance of £1360, but the ground did not cost the N.Z.U. a penny piece. What do you think about that, Rastus? Out of the £340 tit-bit the Taranaki Union had to pay for the British team’s entertainment, while the New Zealand Union' paid the visitors' hotel board account. Perhaps the bal-ance-sheet which the T.R.U. secretary ought to publish would specify the various items under the heading of “entertainment and refreshments.” What do you think, Rastus? Watermelons would, of course, be very costly just now, but nevertheless very refreshing. However, allowing £4O for the joyous opportunity to prove right royal entertainers and “jolly good fellows,” the local union will still have landed £3OO, and the park funds nil. How’s that, Rastus? It is times like these tliat ruiion officials scream for “Minties." bow the question is, what is the borough council going to do about it’ The council is the final court of appeal, so to speak. The ratepayers and general pu olio expect the council to grip this question with determination. The people look to the council as their trustee to call upon the Taranaki Union to disgorge a portion of that £3OO which it has so silently and artistically annexed. The changes are clear and definite, and the details are now disclosed. What is the council going to do about it ? The other bodies concerned are performing the “ostrich act,” or are “shivering in their dug-outs.” Therefore the council is now urged to get busy and prove that it is prepared to,.show tliat public duty faithfully performed is more honourable than is the slavish betrayal of public interests. Neither personal friendships nor business considerations should be allowed to overshadow or influence the council’s investigation and treatment of the transactions herein detailed. If my version of > these transactions is wrong, let my errors be discovered, and without delay my apology will follow. > Finally, and in conclusion, may I say it is to me an amazing discovery that officials of any sports organisation who, in the ordinary avenues of business and social life are men of undoubted integrity ■ and irreproachable character, are content to sit in stony silence when their method of carrying out voluntary duties as sports officials are publicly criticised or condemned. Many of these officials have done splendid work in connection with sports generally — work which has been done without any personal gain or profit. to themselves., But, granting all this —which I grant readily and frankly—are these same officials to be allowed to get away with such business as is disclosed in connection with the question under discussion? Is this union to be allowed to ride rough-shod over the owners of the park and annex revenue, some of which is justly the property, of these owners ? What is the council going to do about it? —-I am, etc., W. 11. HAWKINS.