THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 177, 29 July 1939, Page 8

THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

The sub-leader in your issue of the 23th inst. criticising the Hospital Board for its action in dismissing two such distinguished gentlemen as Dr. Burns and Mr. Clarke without even taking the opportunity of testing the efficiency of their services will certainly have the approval of the great body of the citizens of Auckland. In the first place, the board's action is grossly unfair. Both the board and the appointees obviously had in mind service* which should extend over a period of year*. True, a term to meet special circumstances gives the right to terminate the agreements on three month*' notice. The outside world will be sure to take it that the only special circumstances which would justify the board's action would be that these two men, notwithstanding their high qualifications, have fallen down on their job. This is not true, and it is grossly unfair that the board should give occasion for such a suggestion. The people of Auckland will not be pleased that a body purporting to represent them should so act. The interests, the honour, of the other public bodies of Auckland are involved in this decision of the board. If men of such high qualifications are so treated by the Auckland Hospital Board, how will that affect the standard of applicants when Auckland's other public bodies desire to fill their higher positions? The ground for the Hospital Board decision is stated to lie economy. Tt is not possible to accept that. must be something else. It seems to be generally accepted that a marked improvement in the administration of the hospital has taken place during the time it has had the services of these two men—an improvement which has extended to the comfort and happiness of both the staff and the patients. The board is, of course, entitled to the credit for this, but it should be kept in mind that the improvement has taken place since the board has had the benefit of the services of these two men. They are said to have worked hard and well. The work they are doing must be done by someone. The excess of salary paid to them beyond what must be paid to some others to do the same work is a mere flea bite iu the huge expenditure of the board. Most people will be inclined to assume that the real ground is that these two gentlemen a.re too efficient and so are a disturbing element to the present order. The citizens of Auckland are not justified in allowing the services of these two excellent men to be lost to the general body of the people in deference to the views or feelings of a small number of persons who are not looking at the matter from th» citizens' point of view. A VERY PERTURBED t ITTZEX.