OPPOSITE VIEWPOINTS ON HARBOUR BOARD BEING IN COMMITTEE

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 April 1949, Page 6

OPPOSITE VIEWPOINTS ON HARBOUR BOARD BEING IN COMMITTEE

Copies of correspondence between the chairman of the Wanganui Harbour Board, Mr. E. A. Millward, and Mr. F. W. Gould, on the question of th e board going into committee lor discussions on questions concerning Ihe harbour have been forwarded to the “Chronicle’’ by Mr. Gould.

At the April meeting of the board, Mr. Gould protested at the board going into committee at a special meeting previously when questions of finance were discussed. The letter was received and the chairman was authorised to make a suitable reply to Mr. Gould. Mr. Millward’s reply was as follows: CHAIRMAN’S LETTER. “My board has directed me to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 21), 1949, and to reply that in deciding to discuss certain matters in committee, my board was following the practice common to all local bodies in this country. “Having served at one time or another in various official capacities you must surely appreciate tne fact that many occasions arise where .matters must be dealt with and discussed that are not desirabl e in the public interest to have reported in detail in the Press.

“On this particular occasion to which your letter refers, the meeting was not an ordinary general meeting of the board, but one specially convened to discuss certain serious financial questions affecting the board. As these matters were at the time and still are the subject of negotiations between the board and the Government, the subjects under discussion wer e sub judice, so to speak, and it was for this reason that the matter was discussed in committee. “Under the particular circumstances my board feels that it acted wisely within its rights, and in the public interest.” MR. GOULD’S REPLY. Mr. Gould’s reply to this letter is as follows: — “Your letter of the 27th. inst. in which you seek to justify taking the Harbour Board business in committee shows a definite tendency to do this because it is odne by others. This cannot be accepted as a good reason because the practice could so easily be abused. “The fact that some members of the Harboard Board think that the public might panic if told the truth shows a very poor appreciation of the stamina and courage of the people. Financ e is the business of the people because they do all the paying, and they are entitled to know how their various representatives fac e up to the business.

“If the board wants the backing of the people to advance the interests of of harbour developments, then they must not be kept in ignorance of prevailing conditions and all business that can be done in daylight, should be done in daylight. “Your reference to the particular meeting being a special one does not rule out the public interst, and no reason was given why the financial matters to be discussed were of special significance. “I had no desire to raise th e point on the particular meeting, but the newspaper report declared that “the board is also to investigate the possibility of any further economies.” This presupposes that economies were the subject of discussion and decisions in the committee stage are surely if this is so, the public should know how representatives face up to economies.

“I can’t for the life of me see why these things could not be done in the open, as otherwise it leaves an impression that all is not in order.”