ULTIMATUM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 251, 22 October 1937, Page 5

ULTIMATUM

COUNCIL EMPLOYEE “RESIGN OR KEEP QUIET” MAYOR TAKES A STAND Recent dissensions in the administration of the affairs of the Palmerston North City Council had a sequel at last Monday night’s meeting of the council, when it was decided, on a majority vote, that only if he resigns as an employee of the council will Mr V. A. Christensen, selected Labour candidate for the Mayoralty (who last week challenged the sitting Mayor, Mr A. E. Mansford, to resign and contest the chair with him) be permitted to make public criticism of the council over the recent inquiry into the management of the gas department.

Mr Christensen wrote asking for permission to conduct a Saturday afternoon open air meeting in the Square. His subject was given as “The Gas Inquiry—Does the Evidence Justify the Council’s Subsequent Action ? ” Mr Mansfofd said he did not want to prevent Mr Christensen from making his protest but he did object to him, as an employee of the council, endeavouring to belittle it and undermine its authority. It was time, he said, the council took some stand in the matter. Fifty-eight employees had written to the newspapers stating the decision arrived at was absurd, and the council could not allow its action to be endlessly criticised. Motion by Mayor. “I am prepared to let Mr Christensen discuss the matter, but I am not prepared to agree to him discussing it while an employee. I am going to move that the request be granted, but that the head of the department in which is is employed, give him notice under the terms of the award. Then he can discuss the council and its work if he wants to,” said Mr Mansford.

Concurring, Mr W. B. Cameron said that during the inquiry Mr Christensen was before the council giving evidence. He did not think any i local body should have to submit to unfair criticism. It was an impertinence. If anyone wished to take up such an attitude he should resign. Otherwise the employees would get out of hand.

Mr J. Hodgens, M.P. (Labour) protested that what Mr Christensen did for a living should not affect his rights of free speech. No corporation in New Zealand would dare say it controlled the minds and souls of its employees after working hours. There should be no great crime in an employee taking an interest in a matter on which the council itself was divided. Mr W. B. Tennent, while agreeing as to the justice of free speech, said that neither Mr Hodgens nor any other employer of labour would stand for the criticism proposed by Mr Christensen. The motion not to grant Mr Christensen the right to speak in the Square unless he resigned was carried on the voices.