THE HOSPITAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 50, 27 August 1937, Page 10

THE HOSPITAL

DR. THORNE'S POSITION

" APPOINTMENT RENEWED

AMENDMENT LOST

In terms of a recommendation by the executive and finance committee, the Wellington Hospital Board decided last night to renew Dr. A. R. Thome's appointment as medical superintendent for another three years at the expiration of his present term in November. The question of salary is to be considered'by the committee and a report is to be submitted to the September meeting of the board. An amendment to refer the whole matter, of the reappointment back 'to i:he committee — which g^ave rise to a good deal of discussion—was defeated. : The recommendation relating to Dr. Thome's position was taken in conjunction with another advocating that the board define its policy with regard to accommodation for the assistant medical superintendent, Dr. Cairney— whether he should be required to live on or off the premises. Mr. A. W. Croskery moved that in view of- all the circumstances and the importance'of the matter the two clauses be referred back and.that each member of the board be supplied with a copy of the actual terms of the appointment; and that the committee go into the whole.question of the appointment .and its terms, together with the remuneration, and that each. member of the board be supplied with a copy of the committee's finding and the matter be dealt with at the next meeting of "the board. , He- moved in this direction, continued Mr. Croskery, because only, four members of the committee, were present at the meeting at which the recommendations were made. "CART BEFORE THE HORSE." "This is probably the most important position in the Wellington Hospital," Mr. Croskery proceeded, "and I think it is really putting the cart before the horse to make an appoint-1' ment for a term of three years without first deciding what the conditions of the appointment are to be, whether there is to be any variation in the conditions or not, and also what the reimmeratipn to be paid to the appointee is. as well. I have no feelings in the matter at all, but I know that ( there are quite a number of members of the board here who do not know the first thing about the terms of Dr. Thome's appointment at all. I have never seen them and I suppose all the new members, of the board are in the same position as I am myself." Mr. F. Castle: The terms are very, simple. "That may be so," replied Mr. Croskery. He added that he thought, however, that the better. course to adopt was that which he had suggested. Mrs. S. E. Blake seconded Mr. Croskery's amendment. NO REASON FOR DELAY. Mr. R. Holland opposed the amendment. The fact that only. four members of the committee were "present at the, meeting was the fault of those who were absent. It was quite wrong to say that the board members generally knew nothing of Dr. Thome's appointment. If there were members who had not this knowledge, it was their own fault. There was no reason why the matter should be delayed and there was no reason at all to vary the terms of the employment. ' To Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, Mr. Holland; said that Dr. iThome's term of office expired in November. A resolu-tion-had been passed twelve months ago expressing' satisfaction with the staff and he should say that there was no opposition to Dr. Thome's appoints ment on the score of his qualifications or ability. There was something else behind it that was not apparent. He would oppose any suggestion that Dr. Thome's • services be terminated. Mr. A. H. Carman: There is no suggestion of that. Dr. Thome, continued Mr. Holland, had at all times carried out his duties and no one had expressed dissatisfaction with his work. Mr. Carman said he took exception •to Mr. Holland's suggestion that there was opposition to Dr. Thome's reappointment. The position as he saw it was that the matter had come before trte executive committee at a meeting which a number of the members were unable to attend owing to the fact that the night of the meeting was changed. Then, too, the matter had not been referred to specifically in the.notice calling the meeting. He knew of no suggestion that the board should dispense with Dr. Thome's services as superintendent. Mr. Holland: I do. If Mr. Holland had heard rumours, said Mr. Carman, everything could be thrashed out by the committee. He had not heard any rumours. The view he took, said Mr. Treadwell, was that the board had now had over two years of Dr. Thome's services and those of the board who had had the advantage of further experience of him ought by now to have come to the conclusion whether the board should ask him to continue with his services. His view was that the committee's recommendations should be adopted. The chairman (Mr. J. Glover) said that while it was true that only four members were present at the meeting of the executive committee, these four were unanimous on the matter, so that had the "other three members been present it would have made no difference to the findings of the committee. If the matter were held up it would be just burking the issue. The question of salary and duties could be discussed later. j DUTIES \VELL DEFINED. Mr. Castle said he was in agreement with the committee's recommendation. It had been suggested that Dr. Thome's reappointment should be reviewed together with the question of his duties, but his duties were well defined in the bylaws, so he thought that disposed of this point. Mr. G. ,V, Berry said he saw no reason why the, committee's recommendation should not b; passed. From what members of local bodies had told him he felt they had every confidence in Dr. Thome, whose ability and earnestness had impressed them. Mr. G. J. Peth,e?ick said that as one of the four at the executive committee meeting he had supported the resolution first, because the board was in the midst of a building scheme that Dr. Thome had- at his finge/ tips, and also because he knew of no reason why Dr. Thorne should not be reappointed. Mr. Croskery's amendment was defeated by 12 votes to 4. Dr T. L. Parr said ho agreed with the'general intention of the committee's recommendation, but h'-. felt in doubt about the advisability of a long-term appointment both from the point of view of the board and the superintendent. He moved, as a further amendment that the recommendation be amended to read that Dr. Thome's apTDointmentibe continued, subject to six months'.notice on either side. Such an arrangement would leave the superintendent free to apply for other appointments should he desire to do so. Mr Treadwell said ho hoped this

amendment would not b j carried. The holder of an office of this kind was entitled to some better tenure than six months. Alter Mr. Holland had also spoken against the amendment, it was withdrawn by Dr. Pan;, and the recommendation to reappoint Dr. Thorne was adopted. The other recommendation concerning house accommodation for Dr. Cairney was referred back to the committee.