ELECTION COSTS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLI, Issue 20340, 12 February 1936, Page 11

ELECTION COSTS

AUDIT DEPARTMENT’S RULING DISCUSSION BY POWER BOARD Some discussion took place at yesterday’s meeting of the South Canterbury Power Board in regard to election expenses, and the Board decided to again communicate with the Audit Department in the matter. In his report, the secretary (Mr J. H. McAuliffe) said that the Controller and Auditor General’s decision in favour of the Board would settle the question of election expenses as far as the Board was concerned for a number of years. The ruling as laid down, bore out the report he submitted to the Board on July 15, wherein he quoted what he considered to be a fair charge for election expenses, namely:— Tlmaru Borough—Local body charges £95/5/-, secretary’s estimate £24,19/1, Auditor General’s ruling £2B/10/10. Waimate County—£2o/2/10, £l/10/-, £3,7/6... Geraldine County—£24/14/9, £l4'4/9. £l4/4/9. Mackenzie County—£2s/14/-, £3/18/-, £5/3/-. Levels County—lß/-, 18/-, 18/-. Totals—£l66/14/7, £45/9/10, £52/4/1. The above ruling would show a credit to the Board of £ll4/10/6. The Finance Committee reported that a certificate had been received from the Auditor-General allocating the costs payable by the Board to the various local bodies for the Board’s proportion of the election expenses in May last. Simmering Discontent Mr C. J. Talbot said that they had no fault to find with the Auditor’s dictum. The Auditor had gone by the literal interpretation of the Act, but so far as the local bodies were concerned, the position was most unsatisfactory, ahd he (Mr Talbot) took exception to that part of the fee of £lO/10/- which had been disallowed. The matter was causing a good deal of heartburning and dissatisfaction, and before another election took place arrangements should be made as to the charges to be incurred. There had been an agreement previously between the Harbour Board and other local bodies and municipalities, and later between the Power Board and similar bodies. The Mackenzie County Council had put in an account for £25 based on the proportional cost of advertising, printing, poll clerks and so on, ,and the secretary to the Power Board had taken exception to it. and had said that only additional costs were legitimate charges. The Power Board had. had nothing to do with the election beyond . calling on the local bodies to hold elections, and. the local bodies put in separate advertisements arid appointed poll clerks. The preamble part of the advertisements Was common to all, and then there was a small piece inserted for the Power Board, or the Harbour Board as the case might be, and he asked the Board to look at the matter in a fair way. Some exceptions had been taken to the preparation of the rolls, and the suggestion had been made that a makeshift roll would do. The clerk to the Mackenzie County council had objected to this, and had pointed out that errors could easily creep in. and an election might easily be upset on them. In the case of the Mackenzie County, the position was complicated, for there was an inner and an outer area, and a farmer might easily be in both. There had also been some dispute over the printing of nomination papers. The county clerks, as returning . officers were responsible for the conduct of the elections, and if anything went wrong, their reputations would suffer, and the speaker contended that £lO/10/- was not an excessive fee for the services given. There was a simmering discontent throughout the district in regard to the matter, and officials thought that they Had been treated unfairly. Mr Talbot then moved that the fees claimed by the county clerks be paid, and that before another election took place a conference be held between the clerks and the local bodies with a view to coming to a satisfactory arrangement. The motion was seconded by Mr C. E. Kerr. Must Be Guided By Law The chairman (Mr G. Dash) said that he agreed with Mr Talbot that the matter was unsatisfactory, but the Board had to be guided by the law, the translation of which was in the hands of the Audit Department. Some time ago the engineer (Mr G. W. Morrison) had objected to the charges for the carrying on of an election, and had protested to the Department, which had decided against the Board, and the Board had to pay. This election, the secretary to the Board had drawn the attention of the Audit Department to the fact that although the Act under which local bodies worked said that a proportion of the cost should be paid by the local bodies, the Act under which the Power Board worked said that they should pay only reasonable and additional expenses which local bodies should be put to. The Audit Department had looked into the matter and had given a decision. The question now was whether the Board was going to stand by that decision when it was against the local bodies. Mr T. H. Langford: Can we ignore the decision of the Audit Department?

The chairman: You can only pay out of unauthorised expenditure. Dr. P. R. Woodhouse asked if Mr Talbot would split his motion in two parts. The chairman said that the Board could agree to the latter portion unanimously. Mr Talbot said that he would like the question of the payment of the fees out of "unauthorised” to be again referred to the Department, in view of the fact that some of the local bodies had paid. Mr Langford said that he thought that the County Councils had been wrong in paying. They knew that the Board had referred the matter to the Department, and they should have Whited until the decision was known. He thought the secretary was deserving of credit for having had the matter cleaned up, and he had secured an adjustment which was most reasonable. The Board agreed to that portion of the motion suggesting a conference before the next election, and Mr Talbot then moved that, seeing that the fees had been paid by the County Councils, the Audit Department be asked if this altered th: position, and whether the payments could be made. " The motion was carried on the voices,: but Mr Langford asked for a show of hands, and this time the motion was lost by six votes to four, the voting being:— ■'For—Messrs S. I. Fitch, C. E. Kerr, C J. Talbot, J. R. Hart. Against—Messrs G. Saunders. T. H. Langford, A. N. Oakey, F. J. Cook, A. W. Buzan and Dr. P. R. Woodhouse.