Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page



-..-BANGOR í








:-;¡..,:'"....'",' NEVirv


Family Notices

Bangor and Bsaumcr:; Guardians'


Bangor and Bsaumcr:; Guardians' The fortnightly meeting was held on Fri- day, at Bai'gor Workhouse, Mr Hugh Thomas (chairman) uiv-iding. THE BANGOR OVERSEERS AND THEIR OBLIGATIONS. The Chairman read a Letter from the over- seers for the parish of Bangor, who had been supplied by the Board with a copy of the auditor's report concerning the late rate coi- lector for the parish of Bangor. The over- seers. iu their communication, stated that tpyle, had. carefully considered the report of the dl trict auditor and grtatly regretted the irregu- larities refened to, but they f -it that they were in no way responsible for them. The rate collector was engaged by tiio4 Guazdians, and ail employers were litbie and responsible for the work of their servants; therefore, the report in this instance concerned the employ- ers and not the overseers. If the collection oi the rates had been left in their hands as overseen* they would have seen that the work wa. duly performed, but they had no auth- ority over the collector of rates, therefore, tfcfcy declined responsibility for tln-o acts.— I < The Chairman They are quite wrong. They are responsible. Shali we send tiii, com- munication to the Local Government Board? -The Rev W. Edwards (Bangor) What are they responsible for?—The Chairman They lire responsible for the collection of the rates in their parish. It is they the Guardians would sue and not the collector in the event of anything going wrong.—Dr Roberta (Menai Bridge! This is a matter of s-ome importance. They disavow liability.—The Chairman But they can't get aut of it like that.—Mr W. Roberta (Oaklands) though" that, the Guard- ians should know what progress was being made with the collection of the arrears.—-The Chairman: The audit is not yet completed. Yan are filly aware of that, and I. therefore, think that you had better adjourn any obser- rhe W-v W. Morgan (St. Anns) was of opinion that the duties of overseers had been clearly defined.- -The Chairman said that they were clearly defined. The Board had taken ixtion against ove-rseers before that day.—ri*he Rev W. Morgan said that there was some misunderstanding as to the posi- tions of overseers and assistant overseers. When a large- precept was issued was it the duty of the overseers- to see that the rate was collected?—The Chairman: Yes, and if they don't collect their precept, we sire them. The Rev W. Morgan Is it, their duty to Sfje that the rate is collected and accounted for once a month?—The Ch.i]nnan I can- j not answer that.-Tlw Cierk (Mr R. B. Evaxi- informed the Board that the me collectors made two monthly statements,- submitting one to the Board and the other to the overseers of the parish, who were, therefore, well ac quainted with the financial position of the parish.—Mr W. Roberts (Oaklands) &-iked it the precept was made upon the. overseers.— Tha Chairmaa replied in the affirmative, add- ing that they were responsible for its col- lwtion.),fr S. T. Chadwick thought that the statement made that the overseer* obtained monthly statement- from the collectors was very impotart.Tl,.e Chairman It's quite true.—Mr Chadwick was afraid that the col- lectors neglected ro submit such statements. —The Chairman intimated that after the Board had reported the dilatoriness of certain ooilectcrs to the Local Government Board the monthly statements had been sent in with as- tonishing regularity.—Mr Priestley (Hirdre- faig) considered that the communication should be forwarded to the Local Government Board. He thought that the whole matter Wail rotten ftr-m the beginning to the tnd.— It was unanimously agreed to forward a copy of the letter to the Department, and, upon the motion of the Rev W. Morgan, it was agreed to draw up a list of the duties of over- seers. PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEE. In accordance; with notice of motion, Mr 1. Roberts (Abr), vice-chairman, moved: "That the Board elect., a Standing Committee Lo consider and repeat upon all matters reiau. tng to officers (medical and relieving) and rate collectors, and any other officer of the "Board,, as well as any question affecting any member of the Board."—Mr Bernard Robert .a (Llanfairfecha.il) seconded.—Mr Thomas Ed- wards (Bangor) took strong objection to the words "as well as any question affecting- any member of the Board." He would like au explanation upon that. point.—Thtf Vice- Chairman replied that a question might ari.se when the character of a member of the Board might be involved. —Dr Roberts thought that this part was not permissible, and Mr W. 'Roberts also opposed the motion.—Mr Ber- nard Robert pointed out that the proposed oommittec would not possess the power to decide matters. They could only recom- I mend to the Boa.-Pd.-Nir W. R. Jones fBeau- maris) objected to the part of the motion dealing with private members, remarking that the committee would sit like jurymen upon any charge against a. guardian.—Mr W Ro- berts (Oa-l-lapds) Supposing a complaint i. brought, against an official, outside influence oould be brought to bear upon a small com- mittee. Everything should be done in open Board.—Mr David Williams (Bangor) was of opinion that the present was not the time to elect any landing committer. The com- mittees already in existence were appointed in a very irregular manner, and the mem- bers were elected regardless of competence (cries of "No, no") Persons were elected on the Finance Committee who knew absolute- ly nothing abor.t financial matters.—Mr Ro- be (Oakland:") moved that a committee should be appointed when needed. Mr Thomas Edwards seconded. — The Rev W. Morgan thought that- there was a sort of military tonfo about the proposal. It was like threatening the officials with a birchrod.— The Cha irman. A birchrod is a veiy good thing (laughter). — The Rev W. Morgan: Only for children.—Mr W. Griffith (Rachub) supported the proposal: Replying on the discussion, the Vice-Chairman, stated that occasionally grove injustice, was done to officials in disccsring allegations against them in open Boord. He was willing to strike out of the motion the part relating to private members. A vote was then taken, which resulted in the motion being defeated by a large majority.