NORTH TARANAKI DAIRY COMPANY

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1930, Page 12

NORTH TARANAKI DAIRY COMPANY

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l think I am entitled to reply to the chairman’s closing remarks at the extraordinary general meeting of the above company, held at Urenui on November 26, as there was no opportunity to do so at the time. The chairman deprecated the splitting of straws as only causing discontent among the suppliers. By straw-splitting I take it he referred to riiy contention that it was impossible to pay z a premium by inflicting a penalty. If so, I plead guilty. I only .marvel that anyone could get up and tell a body of shareholders that a premium and a penalty .amounted to the same thing. As to tlie (discontent, that is another matter, and I say that it was the chairman ahd secretary together who were responsible for 'the discontent. When. I quoted the Act on the subject the chairman fell back on the excuse that he was no lawyer and he preferred to keep as far away from the law; as possible. It took him four years to reach that frame of mind, and he only reached it at that meeting when the law' was turned against him. He did not like his own medicine. This thing had been going on for four years, and every time the suppliers brought the matter up the only satisfaction- they could get was/ “the law said this money had to be taken from them, therefore the .law would not allow it to be paid back to tli?m.” That is what we were told on every occasion. The chairman himself introduced the law into the matter, and his persistent misquoting of the law gave rise to the discontent. None of the directors were conversant with the Act, but simply accepted the secretary’s opinion on the matter. Most, if not all, of them admitted they had never seen the Act. Further. they did not see until it was pointed out to them at the meeting that by paying this money back pro rata among the eream suppliers the ratio of payment was not affected. Now, the secretary, at.all-events, must have seen this, and it was his duty to have pointed it out to'the directors, /

i Now, I may be accused' of trying to . stir up further discontent, but I have a strong objection to being “sold a/pup” when under the impression it was a dog, and I venture to say there will be further discontent when the suppliers become aware of the colour, of the said “pup.” One director moved “that the milk be graded With penalties.” An amendment was moved “that the cream grading monies that had accumulated , be paid back to-the suppliers.” Amendment lost. Now a number voted against the amendment being prepared, to let the money go provided the milk was graded, but as soon as the amendment was put and lost we were told we could not vote on the milk grading as the ’meeting had not been called for that purpose. The original motion was altered to an entirely different meaning after the amendment had been put and lost, and we were given no opportunity of discussing or moving any amendment, to what in reality was a different motion. One man,- at least, went away under the impression that “milk grading ’ had been carried. The whole thing was a R°" gether irregular.-It did not matter what the suppliers got, so long as the chairman and secretary saved their faces. And the suppliers—l wonder if they fully realise what they actually did get out of it. They were consistently told that the law did not allow the money to be paid back to them, and if it did, then the hrtinles of association stepped in and said the milk suppliers were entitled to a share, though the secretary proposed to overcome that difficulty by placing the amount to special rtes&rve, and theii, when they started making clieeSe, transferring'the money back and paying it out to. cream suppliers. How the milk men forfeit their right to a, share because the factory elects to make cheese is best'■ known, to the secretary himself. After - being told all this, we are allowed to pass a resolution directing that this money be paid back to ■ the cream suppliers. If we are entitled to , the money, why the resolution? If we are not entitled to it, then no resolution we could pass would give us a right to it. As I said, “saving face” was the chief concern. Now, we were, not allowed .to vote ou the milk grading, and yet the milk .suppliers voted on the motion regarding the repayment of the cream suppliers’ money. And how they must have, chuckled up their sleeves knowing, that the company was going to turn to cheese, leaving us to pay for a £2OO separator; that will now stand idle! Perhaps they will hand us back'.our £137 to help pay for it. Summed up, we did not get. our money, we didn’t get milk grading, and we will have to >wait until the factory starts making cheese before the resolution which was carried can be acted upon, unless the secretary has a way of his own . of getting past the articles of association. It will pay the shareholders to put on' their thinking caps between nqw and next annual meeting.—l am, etc ” /’ ■ , a. e: DENNE. Okoke Road, Urenui, December 1, 1930.