HOSPITAL STAFF.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 84, 10 April 1937, Page 12

HOSPITAL STAFF.

HONORARY POSITIONS.

THE METHOD OF % VOTING.

DR. MACKY'S CRITICISM. The opinion that the recent election of honorary surgeons to the Auckland Hospital was unfairly conducted, and that the board showed an absolute disregard of its expert advisers, haa. been expressed by Dr. Frank Macky, chairman of the honorary staff. The reported statements, he eays, have been misleading in material points, and the staff consider that the true position should be indicated.

"Some features of the elections two years ago could not meet with the approval of the staff," said Dr. Macky, "and consequently representations were made to the board by the staff with a view to improving matters, and a meeting with the board was arranged. The proposals of the staff were cordially received by the board, and resulted in the unanimous acceptance of a suggestion for the appointment of an advisory committee on honorary appointments. This committee consisted of three members of the board and three of the staff, each body electing its own representatives. This committee was duly appointed, and when recent applications were received they were referred to this appointments joint committee.

Carefully Reviewed. The committee sat, carefully reviewed the applications and made a specific report to the board, nominating clearly the applicants considered most suitable for the positions, having due regard to qualifications, experience and past services. This report was unanimously agreed upon by the whole committee, lay and medical, and was presented to the board at the first of the meetings held in connection with the appointments. At this meeting a ballot was held on all appointments, except the surgical positions, and these ballots agreed with the recommendations of the appointments committee, and the results were published. r

Every individual selected was included in the recommended list. .. " In , Qo ot the surgeons," continued Dr. Macky, "the board postponed decision and appealed for advice to its own medical advisory committee, consisting, under by-law 16, of the chairman of the honorary staff, a senior physician a senior surgeon, the director of the laboratory, ' and the medical superintendent. All these men were appointees of the board itself, and were a bodv charged, under the by-laws, with the clinical administration of the hospital.

Plump Voting. "This committee was asked to make » selection from the list of applicants '" d ™ by the honorary con sultant surgeon and the chairman of the board, the Rev. W. C. Wood. The finding of this commitee was unanir/ >U \? I " i *« identical with that of /? int committee on appointments, communicated to the board prior to its second meeting called to ca™staff "PP° intme nt of the surgi"A ba "®| *t this meeting rewhM? oint ment* bein « ™<*de which differed . iwkedly from the recommendations committees reMrt** t0 " . ? here,or ® the statement made by Mr. Wood that the special committee which had given thf. applications the most thorough consideration made ita recomniendatiowrto the board and these were adopted, does not agree with the

"Further exception is taken by tho board to the suggestion that its memIters, are actuated by personal bias," f referring further to 1 Btatement - "It is, however, admitted that plump voting was pracfr' *l h,ch that ballot papers voting for less than the required number were not deemed invalid. That a member should vote for leas than the required number is surely clear evidence of bias.

i "Jw result of these elections is Mat three members of the senior surgical staff have been dismissed without any reason and replaced by men with shorter service to the hospital. Subsequently this selection was unanimously approved by a fuller meeting of the board, to the surprise and disquiet of the medical men engaged in the work of the hospital and of those engaged in general practice in the city. "It is patent," said Dr. Macky, "that the individual members of the board never considered seriously the recommendations of the two expert committees,. both of whom had brought forward reports at the request of the boards And let it be noted that these two reports were ; identical. The action of the board clearly shows an absolute disregard of jts expert advisers and of its own committees." "