HOSPITAL BOARD PLEASANTRIES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 112, 13 May 1902, Page 3

HOSPITAL BOARD PLEASANTRIES.

Jr circala/ Sl?g d ye not ice oi lotion as/ol^; v February 15, infaded the P^^inff the dinner hour, S^'tfthev must, cither accept *»* °n + Vout consulting- the Board, =ken intcrf.renne with the rights of a Fl^ r e S olution. who fc^iceo,He order paper to Had'^Shis board regrets that *§«2wX»M huve taken upon *ech,l fdctate on a matter which tfa^^ffonrarfl for discussion, flSffeSSi with ordinary *«**£ gSter came up at the en tJ e ,terdav afternoon the joeetmff Je:■ g t - o hhury, explained chairman, spnt !n a no t JC e ftit'Jfr^Sch ho had ruled out of ofmoti°ncl Srsed to that effect. <^cr \ Jeai'se the notice bore no H^"l^ ml was directed to date or place, at ifs i ast "•rr e lord deckled that a prineetiDg ff D 0" riß ht to send vate meraDe lad no g-^ d; ciHS? seen his notice endoDe', Trf order, Mr Friend wrote *&jthchwas identically the aDOtheieept for the alteration of the jaoe,«cPP l tQ ordlnary . He Sil&e potion with the .c,- - StS tended his first letter sa^ ieretarv of the board, and t0 fh! envelope addressed to SS; The chairman had detflTwas wrbn* to circularise emCld hut kv Stichbury forgot he K'^a precedent by attending Home and speaking on at +t/r when he (Mr Friend) had *LS on border paper. If the \ L could act without consultl alS member, of the board they Ma well leave affairs in his $ I thought that as they had SSavote of censure upon himself n c capacity as a private citizen c cmud not exonerate the chair-

"^Bruce. in seconding the motion, sa i he Sid not very much condemn JSviffioan should act as Mr Sburv had done. He seconded the 23 on account of the principle

fflJfr Brflai-a considered' both Mr Friend and Mr Bruce were taking a wop, vie* of the matter, JjJ t*J* had no evidence to prove that the chairman used the language as stated in the notice of motion. The chairman was the chief executive officer of the board, and he (Mr BollaTfl) believed he hat! acted simply to maintain peace in the Home. Though Mr Friend had sent a letter as a private citizen, he could not divest Imnsel r of his responsibility as a member of the board

Jlr Garland was sorry that any member should feel it his < duty to second the motion on principle.- He considered the principle involved was a little cheap popularity and a free advertisement. He was entirely in sympathy with the chairman, and believed his action should be sustained. He had hoped that no one would second the motion, and that Mr Friend would be "sat" upon. It was notorious to propose such a motion which was, he considered, only an attempt on Mr Friend's part to turn the tables upon the chairman.

Mr McLeo'd opposed the motion, and said in his opinion there should beacertain amount of give and take.

Mr Friend, in replying, said that though the chairman was appointed to preside at the meetings, he had not been vested with power to dictate what the members should do. He was fighting- for a principle, and if was wrong- for a chairman to rule out of order what a member had on the order paper before it came up for discussion.

The motion was negatived on the voices.

Mr Friend called for a division, but before it was taken Mr Bruce said he noticed the chairman was charged with an act. and as he was not in sympathy with that charge he could not vote for the motion." When the division was taken Mr Friend only T»ted for. and Messrs Bollard. Mckocl. Walters. Garland, and Court against the motion, which was accordingly lost, Mr Bruce declined to vote, though the chairman said ]Mt hiMtiust either vote or be sulrjeot to a fine.