LOAN CONVERSION

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1935, Page 7

LOAN CONVERSION

PROPOSAL IN EGMONT PETITION FROM RATEPAYERS. ALLEGATION OF INJUSTICE. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Ratepayers of the Eltham riding will no doubt feel disgusted with the manner in which the notice of motion given by Cr. R. J. Knuckey was disposed of at the last meeting of the council, and this in disregard of a numerously signed petition in support. As the matter was held in committee (notwithstanding protests in favour of same being dealt with in open meeting) we are unable to give details of the discussion there. A copy of the petition outlining the injustice of the conversion proposal is set out hereunder, but the council’s action compels us, in the interests of the ratepayers concerned, to seek justice through the Loans Board and the Controller and Auditor-General.—We are, etc., R. J. KNUCKEY. W. B. ROBERTSON. Eltham Riding Representatives. Eltham, October 16. The petition above referred to, signed by 94 out of 129 ratepayers, reads as follows:— (To the Eltham County Council, Eltham.) We, the undersigned ratepayers of the Eltham riding of your county, understand;— (1) That your loan conversion scheme under the provisions of the Local Authorities Interest Reduction and Loans Conversion Act, 1932-33, provides that the whole of the county loans subject to conversion be converted as one county loan with differential rating in the ridings according to the present liabilities of the ridings. (2) That, in addition to the foregoing it is intended to convert the undermentioned special area loans within the Eltham riding, i.e.: (a) Tirimoana Road loan of £4OOO, maturing 1962; (b) Mata Road Loan, No. 1, of £250, maturing 1954; (c) Mata Road loan, No. 2, of £3OO, maturing 1949; (d) Rotokare-Campbell Road loan, of £1445, maturing 1947, and (e) Clifford Road-Templar Street loan of £395 maturing 1943. (3) That as these loans are not a present liability of the Eltham riding they would not come within the resolution as reported in the Taranaki Daily News report of your Council’s meeting of August 10, 1935, or be subject to any differential riding rating, but would continue to remain a liability of the respective special areas. In the event of that report being misleading and your scheme is to embrace special area loans as well as county loans with differential riding gating, we desire to enter a respectful but definite protest against same. In support of our protest we desire to draw your attention to the fact that at a well attended meeting of ratepayers convened by you on February 6 last for the purpose of considering the conversion of loans within the Eltham riding, the following resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority: “That this meeting of the Eltham riding ratepayers protests against conversion of loans in the Eltham riding.” We submit that that resolution should in itself be worthy of your respect.

In further support of oui' protest we contend that having liquidated all special loans for which our properties were originally charged it would be a grave injustice to now saddle same with rates (whether general or special) to assist special area ratepayers to meet their lawful obligations, especially when the roads of these areas are seldom, if ever, used by us. From information supplied by your office the present rates levied on the 32 ratepayers of the special areas referred to amount to £434 13s 3d per annum. The valuation of those areas (as reduced for rating purposes under section 5 of the Valuation of Land Amendment Act, 1933) aggregates £51,102, as against £190,616 for the whole riding with. 129 ratepayers. It would appear, therefore, that although 97 of the 129 ratepayers had no voice in the raising or. rejection of the special area loans, and at present carry no liability therefor they would, under your proposed scheme, be called upon to contribute approximately 14/19ths. of the total annual charges thereon, thereby creating a most iniquitous imposition and one quite foreign to the spirit and underlying principles of . loan conversion legislation. We also desire to draw your attention to the fact that the published reports of your council’s meeting of August 10 last indicate that the proceedings thereat appear to have been somewhat irregular, if not actually unlawful for the following reasons: —(a) Under Section 82 of the Counties Act it is provided that: (1) No councillor or chairman shall vote on or take part in the discussion of any matter before the council in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any interest apart from any interest in common with the public. (2) Ever, councillor or chairman who knowingly offends against this section is liable for every offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and on conviction his seat in the council sh-U become vacant, (b) From the list of hitham riding ratepayers of the special areas concerned obtained from your office your chairman’s contribution towards the foregoing special area loans amounts to £4l 2s 6d per annum, that 'of his son to £2O 13s per annum and that of a close blood relation to £37 3s per annum, (c) That in our opinion' the contributions referred to created sufficient interest to bring your chairman within the section referred to, but he is nevertheless reported as not only having taken part in discussions before the council, but also, to have moved and voted for resolutions, the carrying out of which would appear to materially benefit him financially, (d) That ‘whilst Section 80 of the Counties Act, 1920, says that-“ Every question coming. before the council shall be decided upon by open voting and by the majority present, and in the case of an equality of votes the chairman shall have a second or casting vote” —the council is reported to have carried its resolution by secret ballot (the voting being given as 6 to 3) notwithstanding a strong protest from the two Eltham riding members. We therefore appeal to you to give effect to our protest by excluding the special area loans of the Eltham riding from your general conversion, scheme and dealing with same separately so that the liability therefor will remain that of 'the special areas as provided by Section 106 of “The Local Bodies’ Loans Act, 1926.” By doing so you will obviate the necessity of our appealing to the Local Government Loans Board, the Controller and Auditor-General, and, if necessary, to Parliament for redress. Dated this tenth day of October, 1935.

Signature of ratepayers:—R. J. Knuckey, W. B. Robertson, H. Robinson, John Kirk, J. Campbell, M.P. .O’Connor, W. P. Bootten, Walter C. Clement, W. Hennebry, F. G. Tipler, J. Farrelly, R. J. Wood, H. R. Wood, J. Rye, E. Gernhoefer, W. P. Jenkins, H. C. Belcher, R. Jackson, A. Coppiestone, Philip C. B. Stretton, Wm. Slater, J. Jones, L. John, A. McLaughlin, P. J, McLaughlin, P. Stoffel, T. J. Willy, G. V. Thame, G. Martin, D. May, F. E. Silver, John Walsh, E. R. Knuckey, L. F. Belcher, P. A.- Martin, W. W. Moller, A. Ware, F. Reardon, G. A. Tipler; C, McCool, L. Joyce, I. C. Christiansen, W. Salmon, C. J. Pennington, G. A, Belcher, L. C, Barnard, J. F. Phillips, P.' L. Hickey, T. McQuSen p.p. McQueen and

Dove, A. R. Kemp, E. Magner, H. A. Wood, John Cocker, J. Bootten, J. A. Rankin, G. H. Tarrant, H. M. Phiilpott, W. Savage, E. Curtis, J. Swindlehurst, R. Joyce, C. Joyce, Standish Bros, per J. H. Standish, Mrs. G. Tower, H. Gardiner, W. J. Oldfield, Harrison Bros., J. W. Pratt, Ernest Woodley, T. F. Packard. E. Edwards, H. H. Clough, H. D. Stauners, R. Machray, A. T, Blair, J. Brown, C..

Brooker, M. I. Wilson, A. Pennington, M. Granville, H. S. Turner, H. Osborn p.p. E.. Osborn estate, A. Parkinson, J. H. Bleakley, J. J. Slater. C. Hitchcock, L. K. Laird, Mrs. C. Mannex, T. H. Willy, W. H. Worthington, E. L. Bigham, J. P. Hall', W. Hardwick Smith, W. A. Hewitt.