The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1950 CITY ADMINISTRATION

Wanganui Chronicle, 2 November 1950, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1950 CITY ADMINISTRATION

qpHE City of Wanganui has heard the speeches of the two candidates for the office of Mayor. When Mr. Rogers first submitted himself for the office of Mayor he had not any long period of administrative work to commend him. His challenger today, Mr. Seivewright, is in a similar position to that held by Mr. Rogers when he defeated Mr. Hope Gibbons. Is this a good policy from the city’s standpoint to have inexperienced men standing for the Mayoralty” Obviously, it is not. It would be better if the whole setup for the Mayoralty were changed. The election of the Mayor by the City Councillors from among their own members would give greater cohesion to city life. It would induce men to move forward, step by step, in civic administration, for a Mayor, of all men, should have experience of the actual administration of the city over which he is called upon to be the first citizen. When an outsider to civic life and work is importeed to contest the office of Mayor an element of unreality cannot be avoided. How can any man who has not served his city in a public capacity lead men who have, or draw around him men and women in a civic effort? They may accept him who attains to that office but a measure of cohesion must be lost. Is that what is and has been wrong with Wanganui for so long? If so, it is not going to be rectified no matter which of the Mayoral candidates wins the present contest.

The conditions of the contest, however, are not to be met by discussing what would be a better method of electing candidates for the Mayoral office. The conditions have to be accepted as they are. Mr. Rogers has been Mayor of Wanganui for a long til e and it is in the nature of things that there should be a growing demand for a change. Without discussing the constituents of this demand it is desirable that this demand should be tested to discover its strength and the next question which arises is whom, is there to engage in that task. Mr. Rogers looks upon the position as an employment, while Mr. Seivewright looks upon it as a civic office. The approach of each man to the Mayoralty is essentially different and that again merits being submitted to the people to allow them to decide which view more nearly approaches to the general conception of the nature of the Mayoralty. The fact has to be admitted that very few men are in a position to offer themselves for public office. There is a dearth of men and women who are both able and willing to eome forward and assist in the conduct of civic business The Labour Party has difficulty in securing candidates, it having to arrange for one candidate to run for several offices. There is, however, an advantage for the candidate who is willing to do this, for the tendency of the public is to refrain from voting for a man for one office, but to salve their conscience by giving him a vote in another direction. The better course is for the electors to select one candidate for gne office only, because if a man gives proper attention to any one public office he will find that office sufficient to occupy his time with his other obligations. The man who runs from one meeting to another seldom makes a worthwhile contribution at any one of them. , . It is to be regretted that the political party element is imported into the present contest first because it is out of place and second the chances are that had there been no political alignment there would have been no contest in respect to a number of bodies. There are good men on both sides, men like, for instance, Councillors Andrews and Maefarland on the Labour side and Councillors Jack and Rennie on the Citizens’, each of whom makes a valuable contribution to the work of the city. Such men do not seek office for office sake nor are they given to seeking several public offices, but stick to one and make a good job of it. Further, there is no important issue which divides the council and the intei-patty skirmishing comes more from the conduct of the Labour. 1 arty meeting in caucus and deciding how they will act, thereby impeding Labour councillors in the free exercise of their judgment. Those Labour councillors who refuse to be dominated by party majority decision are the freer in the exercise of their own judgment and have, in consequence, the greatest claim upon the support of the people. The City Councillor should be bound by one obligation and by one obligation alone and that is to fulfil his promise to exercise his unfettered judgment in the service of the city as a whole It is now in the hands of the public to show its preference for those men who have conformed to the real requirements of public office. If, however, more attention is given to party allegiance than to administrative fitness then the business of the city must be expected to show the result of being placed in second place to party interest. Such bodies as the Harbour Board, the Hospital Board and the Power Board are not amenable to political division. The work to be done is purely administrative, and there again, as in the ( ity Council, no real division separates the two camps. Take the Labour Party out of the election and allow the members to stand as individuals and it is fairly certain that the best men on each of the two sides would find a place in the councils of local administrative bodies.