FREE PASSES FOR COUNCIL TO BATHS OBJECTED TO.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18151, 10 May 1927, Page 14

FREE PASSES FOR COUNCIL TO BATHS OBJECTED TO.

AUDIT OFFICE DOUBLE “ TAGS ” BALANCE-SHEET

Bearing a double "tag” affixed by the Controller and Auditor, General, the balance-sheet o{ the City of Christ church for the year ended March 01. 1926, was received and finally approv ed at last night's meeting o£ the City CU The' exceptions taken by the Audit Department were endorsed on the bal-ance-sheet, as follows:

(1) The issue to the Mas'or and Councillors of free passes for the municipal baths is without authont> of (2) W The limit of unauthorised expenditure allowed by the Revenues Act has been exceeded and the matter accordingly' requires actjustment.

A copy of the correspondence be- i ; tween the Town Clerk and the Controller and Auditor-General was supplied , to each councillor. , , On April 21 the Controller and Audi-tor-General wrote advising that the council’s unauthorised expenditure during the year totalling £l2/6 Ss lOd, exceeded bv the sum of £27 2s the limit imposed by the Public Revenues Act. He asked what action the council proposed to take in order to effect an adjustment of the matter. On April 22, the Town Clerk replied as follows: — . . r “I have to acknowledge receipt ot the city’s balance-sheet certified with exceptions. With regard to exception No. 2 ‘The limit of unauthorised expenditure allowed by the Public Revenues Act has been exceeded and the matter accordingly requires adjustment,’ the payments under the Public Revenues Act amount to £llO7 6s lOd and the allowance of 1 per cent, £1249 7s 9d, so that the payments are less than the allowance. The item shown as a liability of £306 7s is for a sum promised to the City Council Employees’ Sick Benefit Society for payment during the. year 1926-27 and has been paid during that j'ear as against the 1 per cent allowance. Would you please advise me how you arrive at the oyerexpenditure as stated in Clause 2? ” The Town Clerk also wrote on April 26, stating that it was contended that the payments during the year did not exceed the amount allowed by law. The amount shown as owing to the Sick Benefit Society as at March 31, 1926, was paid during the last financial year and the matter had now been adjusted. In view of this explanation he would be obliged if the Controller and Audi-tor-General would be good enough to •delete the exception from the balancesheet.

In reply to the Town Clerk’s letters the Controller and Auditor-General stated the excess of unauthorised expenditure was arrived at by deducting 1 per cent of the general rate struck, £1249 7s lOd from the total unauthorised expenditure during the year. £1276 9s lOd, i.e., payments as stated £llO7 6s lOd less owing on March 31, 1925, £137 4s plus owing on March 31, 1926, £306 7s. Section 121 of the Public Revenues Act 1910 (now section 129 of the 1926 Act) limited the annual expenditure under that section to 1 per cent of the general rate struck and therefore any payment and or liability incurred in any one financial year in ■ excess __ of this statutory limit was in the opinion of the Audit Office unlawfully incurred.

In reply to a telegram sent by the Town Clerk yesterday in which deletion of exception No. 2 was asked for the Controller arid Auditor-General stated that the Audit Office regretted in view of Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1921, its inability to authorise deletion of the exception.

The Mayor suggested that the council should pass the balance-sheet and leave the Audit Office to take the next step.

Councillor D. G. Sullivan, M.P., chairman of the Finance Committee, said that during the term of the previous council the committee realised that if it paid the whole of the amount due to the Sick Benefit Society, it would be exceeding its unauthorised expenditure under the Municipal Corporations Act. The position was that the money was not paid until the following year, but because 'it accepted the liability the Audit Office interpreted it as having been expended. Actually the council did not exceed its unauthorised expenditure. Although no final word had been received from the Audit Office he believed that the exception would be removed. Regarding the issue of free passes for the baths Councillor Sullivan said he did not see how the Audit Office was going to recover anything. He moved the formal resolution that the Mayor be. authorised to sign and finally settle the matter. The Mayor: Perhaps the £27 may be just a sort of farewell gift from the excouncillors who are not here. (Laughter). Councillor E. 11. Andrews: How about taking it from the Mayor’s honorarium? (Renewed laughter.) Councillor Sullivan’s motion was carried. .