PAYMENT OF COUNCILLORS

Waipa Post, Volume 37, Issue 2219, 9 October 1928, Page 5

PAYMENT OF COUNCILLORS

SMALL AMOUNT AN “ INSULT.” The matter of more adequate payment of county councillors for attending th(i| monthly meetings was again discussed at yesterday’s meeting of the Wlaipa County Council. Cr Saulbrey introdeed the subject by stating that under the old basis councillors Aviere paid 5s for attending a meeting, plus lOd per mile actually travelled frjorn their homes. That was not considered fair, so the Government amendedi the basis to that of lOd per hour and 8d per mile. There was a difference betAveen the tAVO' systems of about lOd p<Jr meeting. If poAver bbard members Avere paid £1 _ls per meeting - they were paid something like a fair recompense, and thus county councillors were very badly paid. Probably the poAvers that be thought that Avas amp)ls for a class of people composing county councils. He valued his services more highly, and reminded councillors that a great deal of time AArns given betAveen meetings to riding affairs. Cr Cllarke said it would be wrong to value their services at 5s per month, or meeting, or day, asi the case might be. He looked upon the position as an honour, and so long as one was hot out of pocket members should give service. If there was distinction between the members of poAver boards and those of county councils they should move to reduce the payments to power board members ! (Laughter.) Cr Saulbrey said power board chairmen cbuld be paid £3OO annually while county Chairmen were limited to- £l5O. Why the difference ? He considered a county chairman's responsibilities Avere quite as important as those of poAver board chairmen. Cr Livingstone said the 5s Avas an in suit. He Avould far sooner fake nothing at all. He moved that the Government be telegraphed to asking it to comply with its promise to introduce legislation planing bounty councillors on a fairer basis.—Agreed to.