DR. A. D. NELSON’S NEW POST

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26723, 6 May 1952, Page 8

DR. A. D. NELSON’S NEW POST

SUPERINTENDENT AT BURWOOD HOSPITAL

' BOARD CHAIRMAN’S COMMENT

“Board members generally, no doubt, were of the opinion that the appointment would be as a superannuitant. There is no question about that,” said the chairman of the North Canterbury Hospital Board (Mr V. C. Lawn), commenting yesterday on, a leading article in “The Press' dealing with the appointment of the medical superintendent at the Christchurch Hospital (Dr. A- D. Nelson) to the position of medical superintendent at the Burwood Hospital. The appointment was made by the board at its meeting last week.

“This point, however, was never actually decided at the meeting,” Mr Lawn said. “It would have clarified the position entirely had the board taken action to decide on that point, and also what his commencing salary should be. if above the minimum. All medical salaries are subject to regulations, and the place an appointee takes on a salary scale —except those on a minimum—is a matter for the medical officers salaries grading committee. which sits in Wellington.”

Mr Lawn, in reply to a question, said Dr. Nelson’s present salary with cost of living allowance was £2160. The salary scale for the Burwood position with cost of living allowance was £l4lO to £lB6O. If Dr. Nelson started at the minimum, his income with’ superannuation would be less than his present salary; if he started at the maximum it would probably be more. However, the only authority the board had was to appoint him at the minimum salary: anything above that going before the salaries committee in Wellington. Commenting on a suggestion that if Dr. Nelson, at 65, was competent to hold the Burwood position, he should be able to retain his present position, Mr Lawn said that the Burwood appointment was not nearly as onerous a position as that of medical superintendent of the Christchurch Hospital and its various institutions. Mr Lawn said that the appointment was made in committee in fairness to the applicants. Any discussion of their merits or demerits must logically be taken in committee, as had been the general practice.