Editor’s dismissal advised in 1967

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33032, 27 September 1972, Page 3

Editor’s dismissal advised in 1967

f.Veic Zealand Press Association

WELLINGTON, September 26.

The N.Z.B.C. board on July 25 heard an excerpt from a confidential written statement saying that the former editor of the “Listener,” Mr Alexander MacLeod, feared the presence of his predecessor, Mr M. H. Holcroft, with “pathological intensity.”

The statement, written by Mr Holcroft, also said he had recommended in 1967 that Mr MacLeod’s appointment as the new “Listener” editor be terminated.

Mr Holcroft wrote the statement to the Public Service Association to substantiate a letter the association prepared which contained complaints about Mr MacLeod’s relationship with “Listener” staff members. An excerpt from the statement was read to the board by the Director-General of the N.Z.B.C. (Mr L. R. Sceats) before the board voted to dismiss Mr MacLeod on July 25. The allegations in the P.S.A. letter have not been investigated. Mr P. J. Downey, counsel for Mr MacLeod, asked why the whole P.S.A. letter was appended to the corporation’s report to the Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Walker) about the dismissal of Mr MacLeod, yet none of Mi Holcroft’s statement was included. Govt directive “The Government has issued a written directive which required the corporation to supply all relevant factors in reaching its decision,” Mr Sceats said. “While it may have been minor, there may have been reference to the letter. It seemed to be the obvious thing to include the letter from which extracts were taken.

“As for Mr Holcroft’s statement, it was one short paragraph from a two-page letter. It was considered that none of the statements should go forward in complying with the direction from the Government.” Mr Holcroft’s statement was entered as evidence today at the inquiry into the. dismissal of Mr MacLeod. The inquiry is being conducted by a retired Magistrate, Mr E. A. Lee, of Christchurch. Letter read Mr Sceats was cross-exam-ined by Mr Downey about the sequence of events during a meeting of the N.Z.B.C. board on July 25. Mr Sceats said he told the board about the P.S.A. letter and read headings from it. There were also five statements made by former and present staff members of the “Listener” that substantiated claims in the letter. He also read extracts from the statement made by Mr Holcroft.

The board never “sighted” the statement or the letter, Mr Sceats said. It was not his intention that it should. “But Mr Holcroft’s statement was before the board on July 25?” Mr Downey asked. “An extract was read,” Mr Sceats said.

Mr Downey: It was a factor in the board’s decision? Mr Sceats: If it was, it was a very minor factor. It confirmed to some extent what already was reasonably known.

Mr Downey asked whether the whole statement was condemnatory of Mr MacLeod. Mr Sceats said he had not analysed it. At this stage the statement was produced as evidence,

land Mr Sceats read the excerpt that he had read to the board. Mr Holcroft wrote: “He (Mr MacLeod) was unwilling to accept any direction from me. He seemed to fear-— with pathological intensity—that my mere presence in the office would undermine his authority with the staff.” Mr Holcroft was referring to the period in 1967, immediately before his retirement, when he had just returned from a trip to Europe, and Mr MacLeod was in the process of taking over as editor of the “Listener.”

In this statement, Mr Holcroft said that at the time, he thought Mr MacLeod was “temperamentally unfitted” for the editorship, which involved control of the staff. He said he told the N.Z.B.C. director of administration (Mr F. W. Dawson) that in the best interests of the “Listener” Mr MacLeod’s appointment should be terminated while he was still a probationer. “No action”

“Mr Dawson said I was free to make a recommendation to this effect but that I would be destroying a man’s career,” Mr Holcroft said. “At that time, I was prepared to concede that the trouble could have stemmed from an incompatibility between Mr MacLeod and myself. It was still possible that he would be able to establish workable relations with the staff when I was no longer there. I therefore took no further action.”

Mr Holcroft said his position in the “Listener” had by then become intolerable.

From what he had learned since, he was convinced that his appraisal of Mr MacLeod was “correct and just.” When cross-examined by Mr C. G. Powles, counsel for the P.S.A., Mr Sceats said he

was not surprised at the board’s “Listener” committee recommendation that Mr MacLeod be informed that the “place of the editorials is under review with a view toward dropping it.” There was nothing unusual about the board’s reviewing a policy that had been in effect for many years, he said. Toleration

Mr Powles asked if Mr Sceats had ever talked to Mr MacLeod about editorials in general. “No, I considered that while I had some personal concerns, the matter of editorial policy was one which had to be treated with toleration,” he said. Mr Sceats said he had a “healthy” respect for editorial freedom, and for established policy. He believed in working within policy without having to breathe down people’s necks. Earlier, Mr Sceats said he had a high opinion of Mr MacLeod’s abilities with words.