HOSPITAL BOARD

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 21, 25 January 1940, Page 12

HOSPITAL BOARD

VACANCY FILLED

MR. FURKERT SELECTED

PARTY QUESTION

The City Council last night appointed Mr. F. W. Furkert to the vacancy on the Hospital Board caused by the resignation of Mr. W. J.\ Mason on November 30 last. Labour members supported the appointment of Mr. Roy Holland, the next on the list at the last local bodies election, and when defeated in that, the appointment of Councillor T. Brindle, again to be defeated by the same margin of voting, 6 to 10. Apparently the voting strength at the board table, on the Citizen and Labour platforms on which last election was fought, will remain unchanged. During the party discussions, a good deal of ancient history was exhumed, but it had no effect on the result. \

It was necessary again for the City Council to fill a vacancy on the board, said the Mayor (Mr. T. C. A. Hislop). The council's powers allowed it to make any appointment it liked. At present a great deal of development was going on in the hospital, and there must be a very heavy resulting increase in the amount that ratepayers would have to find for hospital purposes. The council should be careful in the appointment, and endeavour to appoint somebody who was experienced in dealing with big matters, with the disposal of large sums, and with a knowledge of building and engineering, so that his counsel on such matters would be of value. In such circumstances they would do well to appoint Mr. F. W. Furkert, for many years Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department, who had now retired, but had an appointment with the Government. Mr: furkert's qualifications. "During his term in the Public Works Department, he gained an outstanding reputation for ability," said the Mayor. "He had to supervise the expenditure of some £5,000,000 annually. He is a man of well-known and proved ability, great sense of responsibility, experienced in the engineering side of construction, and extremely well experienced in the checking up of costs in heavy construction. He would be a very suitable man for the board, and to look after the interests of Wellington. It is true he has not sat on the Hospital Board before, and that only once, in 1933, was a candidate, when Mr. Helliwell was ahead of him."

He moved Mr. Furkert's . appointment. -

Councillor M. F. Luckie seconded the nomination. Mr. Furkert had vthe widest experience in the wise expenditure of public money. He had no particular political affiliations. Wise advice was necessary in view of the large sums the board would be* spending in the next few years. Mr. Furkert was one whom they would welcome at the council table for his many excellent qualifications. "NEXT ON THE LIST." Councillor Adam .Black moved as an amendment that Mr. Roy. Holland should receive the appointment.' A point had been made of Mr. Furkert's outstanding engineering qualities, but they did not really -weigh at all. It was the wrong procedure to take a man, from outside. The next man on the list at the'last election should be appointed. He opposed Mr. Furkert's appointment on the grounds that it was a definitely political one. Seconding the amendment, Councillor R. McKeen said he did not wish to discuss Mr. Furkert's ability, but he pointed out that Mr. Holland was the highest of the defeated candidates, had been a member of the board before, and had proved his capabilities. There was *io valid reason why he should not be given the opportunity.

Councillor R. A. Wright said that Councillor Black would admit that Mr. Furkert was an outstanding civil engineer, as well as a capable administrator. He would not be valuable on the board because he was a civil engineer —he would not be asked to do any of that work —but he had a thorough knowledge of business. He defied anyone to say that Mr. Furkert had ever displayed any political opinion or feeling. He had nothing against Mr. Holland, who might have done very good work on the .Hospital Board, but he thought that Mr. Furkert was an abler man, in every way. If the next man on the list were opposed to the politics of the Labour Party would the Labour members of the council accept him? While Mr. Furkert was not parsimonious, he would steady some of those who wanted to spend money like water.

Councillor P. M. Butler raised the point of how foolish any councillor would be to offer advice to an executive officer; it would be the same on the board, and so certain qualifications did not count. Mr. Holland had offered his services for the position, he was next on the list, and the voice of the people indicated that he should go on the board. The principles of democracy were at stake. Why put on somebody who had not offered his services? Mr. Holland was a business man of wellknown standing In the community. Councillor C. H. Chapman, gave notice of a further amendment, to appoint somebody from the council. A SATIRISED SYSTEM? Councillor T. Brindle considered that an unfair advantage was being taken of a majority on the council to make an unfair decision. The "board was an elected body, and. other things being equal, the next on the list should be appointed, which would be democratic. To talk about democracy and then run away from it would be satirising the elective system. All knew Mr. Furkert's record, but what difference would it make on the board if he were there? No councillor would tell an executive officer how to do his business. What it was proposed to do was flouting the will of the people. All the talk showed the r rottenness of party government, said Councillor L. McKenzie. Why should all that be brought in? He wished to make it clear that of the two men he considered Mr. Furkert outstanding. LOST AMENDMENTS. The amendment was put and lost by 6 votes to 10. The ayes were Councillors Butler, McKeen, Margaret Semple, Chapman, Black, and Brindle. and the noes, Councillors Wright, Gaudin, McKenzie, Duncan, Fojsyth, Appleton, Macalister, Luckie, Fraser, and the Mayor.

Councillor Chapman moved as a further amendment that Councillor Brindle be appointed to the board. If Mr. Furkert were appointed they would have two members on the board representing ten voters only. There was nothing democratic in- that. It would be a fair thing to appoint one of the Labour members, and Councillor Brindle would prove an excellent member on the board.

Councillor Margaret Semple second-

Ed the amendment, which was lost by the same voting. The motion was put and carried by the same margin.