DRAINAGE BOARD FINANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6518, 10 April 1889, Page 4

DRAINAGE BOARD FINANCE.

<fc MR HOPKINS' OBJECTIONS. THE BOAED'S EEPLY. Yesterday afternoon, at the meeting of the Drainage Board, the Chairman, Mr J. Deans, drew the Board's attention to a letter -which had appeared in the Press of March 8, in -which Mr Hopkins had criticised the balance-sheet presented at the annual meeting of the Board. Mr Deans said he was surprised at a member of the Board, who had every possible opportunity of seeing for himself, and ascertaining the facts, publishing snch a string of mie-statemente, but as. Mr Hopkins had done so, and had also called a public meeting at Linwood, where he had made futther mis-statements, he (Mr Deans) had felt it his duty to have an explanation prepared by Mr Cuthbert, to show where Mr Hopkins was wrong. Mr . Hopkins had said in his letter : — " Under the head ' Works ' in the several districts, the balance-sheet would lead one to believe the amounts set down were for actual work done only, whereao 43 per cent of these amounts are merely official charges, und further the amount of revenue received from each separate district hasbeen omitted. Thus the statement i& worthless." Mr Cuthbert's reply to this wa3 : — " Total district account for 1888 eciuals •£1143 17a 9d. This gives 2305 per" cent on expenditure (not 43 per cent as stated by Mr Hopkins), but if the following items,, which cannot be classed as ' official' expenditure, be deducted, viz., interest on overdraft £286 15s, electioneering expenses .£64 3g, legal expenses (including Parliamentary costs) £47 13s lid, total .£348 11s lid, the percentage of ofliei&l charges on expenditure would equal 16 per cent. If the whole of the Board's disbursements were taken into account, the district account would be at the rate of say 6 per cent, and the official expenditure at say 4 per cent." Mr Hopkins had further stated: — "In 'rata account' under heading 'expenditure,' .£1375 appears a3 ' provision for sinking fund ;' wherea-, in truth, this amount has not been paid at all, either wholly or partly. So that this statement is also incorrect. Sinking fund account shows that '.£182,636' ha 3 to bo raised— it should be .£190,386, this being the. amount still to be provided for.'' To which the reply was:— "lt ia clearly shown what amount of sinking fund- remains unpaid, viz., .£8250 (see sinking fund account, also the balance-sheet)." Another statement made by Mr Hopkins was: — "In balance- sheet, under heading 'liabilities/ there is nob included the 25 per cent of moneys already earned by the several contractors, and withheld by the Board until the completion of the contracts. The wages and open accounts also up to the end of the year are not included. These amounts together are over £400 and are omitted entirely from the statement of liabilities." Which was thus answered : — " The/ amount of retention money held on contracts for clearing rivers and drains is not 25 per cent as stated, being 10 per eenton drains and 5 per cent on river contracts, and on Dec. 31, 1888, amounted in all /to .£45 13s lOd. (It should be atated ths/t it is not a liability until the respective contracts have been satisfactorily completed, a3 the retention money is otherwise Jiftblo to forfeiture.) The aaiount of wages owing on Dec. 31, wa3 £4:7, and open accounts .£lB6 13s 4d, making a total of £215 13s 4d. The expenditure for the #ear,'bowever, included a larger amount of 1887 liabilities outstanding on Jan. 1, 1888." Mr Hopkins had further stated :— " While under the heading 'assets,' the amount of revenue ia over-estimated, as no allowance has been made for ratas which are not collectable, aiid otherwise usually allowed, amounting to about £100. This, together with the £4QO, is a difference on the wrong side for the Board, in tho bauiDtce-sheet, of .£500." Mr Cuthbert's reply was as follows: — "Touching the allowance to be made for rates which, are not collectable, I find that for tho year 188S the total amount of rates written off was £26 10a 3d, biit against this and under the heading ' revenue,' the Government rates amounting to .£llß 15s are not included, so uhivt the assets are in reality somewhat more .than Bhown in the statement." Mr ' Hopkins' last cbarge wa3 as follows : — "The Treasurer's statement — 'Deficit in sewage area had only increased by J8152 notwithstanding the casualty to East belt sewerage, .£695/ is misleading, as it would convey the idea that if the casualty had not occurred the sewage area would have been in credit upon the year's transactions (.£695 1ea5 .£152) £543. No mention ia made of tho extraordinary revenue i'rora sale 3 oi' property, &c, . amounting to near about" tho . same as tho cost of the East belt sev/er casualty. So that had the Board neither had extraordinary expenditure or extraordinary revenue, the deficit for the year's transactions would have been about tho eauiii," fro which the following gave a direct contradiction : — " The Treasurer's statement to the effect that. the ' deficit in the sewage area had only increased by .£152 durmg the year, notwithstanding thes East Belt sewer casualty, £695/ could not/ surely lead anyone to suppose that had it' not been for this expenditure the sewage area would have been in credit, seeing thf/fc the deficit is clearly shown as amounting to -£5664 9s 3d. Mr Hopkins further states that 'no mention is made of the extraordinary revenue from sale 3 of property.' By referring to the rate account (clash account), an amount of .£784 10s 9fl ia clearly shown as having been received feeni ' sales of reserves, cattle, works;, &c. 3 Gf this amount 43370 may be said to be extraordinary revenue, and expenditure are by no means approximated, »3 Mr Hopkins states." The Chairman said he considered it waß duo to the members of the Board and the ratepayers that these gross mis-statements were cleared up. (Hear, hear.) He now left the matter in the hands of the Board. Mr Hopkins, justified himself for the position ho had taken up. Mr H. P. Hill said he had read a report oE a meeting at Linwood at which Mr Hopkins had made come f cither mis-etate-ments repeating the Board's expenditure, and ho Avould ask Mr Hopkins . how he could substantiate the one in which he was reported to have said.that the expen-i dituie for the benefit of ISnwood had only/ been £2500, whereas it had been ahowri from the booka of the .Board that over .£16,000 had been so expended. Mr Hoykins had there stated that the amount of rate levied in Linwood was .£873, wherfjas it had be,en Bhown by- Mr Toomer to /be only .£740, and he hiAd asked tho rnrbepayers to assiat him to fight against /the rate, and said ho would have it reduced to 50 per cent leas. He asked Mr Hopikins how he could substantiate any of these statements ? 'He (Mr Hill) could not understand liow a man ia Mr Hopkins' position-^capable of judging, and he presumed- a fair accountant — could take it upon himself to make such wilfully incorrect statements aa tiiey had been shown to be, not only by the Drainage Board and their officers, but the Chairman and ex-Chairman of the Linwood Town Board. It had been clearly shown that there was not a tittle of truth in them. He considered it was a most unwarrantable liberty — he felt inclined to say more — for any one to nmke auch statements, knowing them to be false. Mr Hopkins said the books might show that the Linwood expenditure was £16,000, but ho still held the opinion that there had not, been more than .£2500 expended for the benefit of Linwood. Some further discussion took place, when Mr Crook 3 moved — "That, in the /opinion of this Board, the charges brought forward by Mr Hopkins ap/to the inaccuracy of the balance-sheet and accounts, reflect so seriously on the .Secretary and Treasurer and Auditora that ho be requested to specify his objections in writing, in' order' that a proper explanation may he forthcoming." He considered that when a man like Mr Hopkins came to talk of a deficiency of. .£SOO or .£6OO in tho boolca, which had baett audited and found 'correct, he should be made to prove his statement, instead of vrhich, in spite of what had been shown him and of what they all knew, Mr Hopkins persisted in

making these statements again and again. He ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and should be compelled to publicly make an ample apology. Several other members spoke in a similar strain, and Mr Hopkins still maintained tbat he was justified in making the statements. The motion was seconded by Mr Stephens and carried, Mr Hopkins alono dissenting. Shortly afterwards Mr Hopkins retired from the meeting.