Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page









[No title]








ONE MAN ONE BOARD. What Brecon-road Liberals think. On Tuesday evening a meeting of the Brecon-road Liberal Association was held in the Slission-room. Mr. D. Phillips occupied the chair, and there was a large attendance. 1 he subject for discussion was the one-man-one-board ejuestion. The Chairman, in his opening remarks, spoke in strong terms of the injustice of electing one man to many boards. Such a thing should not be tolerated. The evening's dis- cussion was opened by Sir. J. O. Jones, Merthr/r Times, who advanced several arguments against multiplicity of seats. Slost of the members of our public bodies were men of business, and men of business could not possibly find time to discharge with efficiency the duties of more than one board. A man who sat on several boards was often temped, through lack of time, to scamp his work. Multiplicity of seats, moreover, tended to the formation of cliques. Every board should be thoroughly independent of other boards, and this could not be if the same members sat on all. The strongest argument, how- ever, in favour of the one-man one-board policy was to be found in the great democratic principle of popular government. The root-idea of the Local Government Acts is that as many people as possible should take active part in the administration of local affairs. These Acts had transferred local authority from the few to the many, and it is a breach of their spirit tor one man to grab seats on several boards. The man that sits on, say, four boards shuts out three other men in the cold, and makes it impossible for them to play their part in local affairs amongst those three there may be men of clear intellectual insight, possess ing extensive knowledge of local politics, men of strong minds and firm judgment. In losing the services of these men the community might possibly suffer a gieat deal. The safer and more salutary principle was to try and secure the greatest possible number of local legislators, and limit each member to some one board. — Mr. Rees Price quite agreed with the remarks of the opener, and thought many of the members of our boards were very lax in attending to their duties. They were exceedingly careful in looking after their own money, but squan- dered the money of the ratepayers with a lavish hand. —Mr. David Rees followed in the same strain.—Mr. Evan Price, while in sympathy with the principle, feared it would be difficult to carry it into action at once.—Mr. D. T. Slorgan thought it would be well for the association to invite other Jocal associations to discuss this question, so that public opinion might be brought to bear strongly on those members who monopolised seats on our local boards.—Mr. D. Jones was strongly in favour of the principle advocated that evening—Mr. D. Davies (Dewi Ddu) compared Merthyr with Manchester in respect of local rates. '1 he rates in the latter were about three shillings in the pound lets than in the former. Yet Manchester had magnificent public buildings, grand parks, splendid libuuies, and many other advantages which I we did not possess. He thought that our affairs would he more efficiently looked after if the policy of one man one board were adopted.—Mr. D. C. Thomas denounced the spirit of cliquism that prevailed in our public boards, and thought things would he healthier generally under a regime of one man one board.—Mr. D. S. Thomas adduced instances of mistakes and blunders committed, in his opinion, simply because a number of men sat on all our public bodies.—Mr. Gilleland supported the principle, the adoption of which was highly necessary, in hu opimon.—Mr. Thomas suggested the postponement of the debate. The subject was an interesting one, and deserved to be thrashed out thoroughly in all its aspects. The various public boards required different qualificatiotlf, and it was not often that the same man was possessed of the qualifications necessary for more than one board.—Mr. Rice, the secretary, was in favour of passing a strong resolution on the question that evening.—After further discussion it was resolved to postpone the debate to the evening of March 30, the secretary in the meantime to communicate with the Penydarren Association, inviting them to take the question up, so that co-operation in the whole ward might be secured.