ARE WE RATEPAYERS ONLY ?

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 318, 29 June 1889, Page 2

ARE WE RATEPAYERS ONLY ?

There are a great many ratepayers who consider their duty to themselves and fellow settlers consists in the payment of rates; that so long as they punctually and regularly contribute to the revenue of the various local bodies, their individual responsibility ceases. This, we venture to submit, is a mistaken idea, and one of the chief causes of the dissatisfaction which every local body has to contend within the district, Wa have been peculiarly fortunate in the composition of our Boards so far as the members are concerned. They are all men of integrity, and possess a

fair share of common sense, and, although we have had sometimes to complain of their shortcomings, yet those shortcomings can be attributed to temporary causes, and not, we believe, to any real desire to damage the interests of ratepayers. The members have, however, all been elected, not because they possess any knowledge superior to that of their fellow ratepayers, of the multifarious matters that come under their notice, but because they are men to be trusted, and to whom the ratepayers delegate without dread of evil consequences, the disbursement of their funds for the general good. As a matter of fact, upon a particular subject a ratepayer can often furnish information which would be of the utmost benefit to the members in a discussion. It is not to be expected that members will be infallible. They must, and do, make mistakes, and mistakes which a timely warning from a ratepayer will often avert, or give a chance of rectifying before it is too late. It is, therefore, manifestly the duty of every ratepayer to give such a warning as will prevent the waste of public funds. If a man appoints an agent for a certain purpose, and anticipates he is about to commit some error which may be hurtful to his (the principal’s) pocket, he does not hesitate to inform tha£ agent of the fact. Why, then, should a ratepayer stand by and see his representative do something which must inevitably affect his (the ratepayer's) pocket ? We believe the members themselves would welcome the suggestions of ratepayers, and they often make it their business to obtain such suggestions privately. It would at least be encouraging to members to know that more than passing interest was being taken in the efforts to do their best for the ratepayers. It is of course possible that ratepayers can make suggestions too frequently, or interfere too much with the judgment of their representatives, but we do not think there is much fear of that ever happening, and if it does it will still be in the discretion of the local body to receive or reject the complaints of an obstreperous ratepayer. The case of the Whataupoko Road Board is in point. We are not cognisant of the whole facts of the case, nor do we know, not having inspected the work in dispute, whether Mr Clayton or the contractor is in the right. But if Mr Clayton was dissatisfied, he persued the right course in bringing the matter before the Board, instead of standing idly by, and then when the matter was past remedy blame the Board ; and the example ho has set might well be followed by ratepayers in other Road Board districts. We think it is despicable for a ratepayer to see a contractor appearing to take advantage of a local body without at once informing that body of the fact. We, of course, do not say that, in this instance, the contractor was taking an advantage. The Board very properly arranged to enquire into the matter, and they are the best judges of who is in the right. But we commend Mr Clayton for his broad interpretation of the duties of a ratepayer. We have an excellent example of the advantage of a timely protest in the late endeavor to apply the contract system to the construction of the remainder of the breakwater pier. At first there was certainly a majority of the Harbor Board in its favor, but when it was Seen that the ratepayers were against it, the proposal was abandoned.