BOARD REJECTS CONCEALMENT CHARGE-ATTACK COLLAPSES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22569, 24 February 1948, Page 4

BOARD REJECTS CONCEALMENT CHARGE-ATTACK COLLAPSES

Two hours of discussion on a motion offered by Mr. H. If. Barker at yesterday’s meeting - of the Cook Hospital Board, ended with a majority of the board, including - Mr. Barker, supporting an amendment which confirmed the policy of the board regarding the treatment of complaints concerning the conduct of institutions under control of the board.

Tn the course of the discussion, Mi - . Barker expressed the opinion that, inlluenee had been used to prevent the publication of the views he had expressed at the January meeting, and tlial the chairman of the hoard, Mr. J. B. Williams, had submitted to the press a statement of his own opinion as purporting to he an expression of the policy of the board. ; Notice had previously been given oy | Mr. Barker of the following motion: — j ‘That this board, recognising that its members are merely the ser vants of tiie public and. as such, answerable to the public at ait times and on all matters, affirms that its policy is to take the public as corn plelely as practicable into its con ticlence regarding tire administration of the institutions under its control, and gives to the public an assurance that there will be no unnecessary concealment of the business conducted at meetings of the board." Policy of tiie Board j Moving in these terms, Mr. Barker Mated that after the discussions which had taken place it was imperative that die policy of the board should ne ic.ined. At the previous meeting of the board ’.here had been a lengthy discussion on ’he principle oi secret or open discus'ion of complaints, and lie had been surprised to note that not one word of the discussion had been reported. Be did not think the press would delieerately suppress such a discussion, and he could only come to the conclusion that someone had used influence to have the matter excluded. It was a sorry position when any member would use influence to secure suppression of the views of any other member. At the January meeting he had come up against the chairman's ruling that if ne referred in open board to a matter which had been the subject of a discussion in committee he would be ruled out of order, said Mr. Barker. This ruling he felt to be directly contrary to the board’s own by-laws. The board could go into committee to discuss matters, but decisions taken in committee could not be effective unless confirmed in onen board. When such confirmation was asked for it gave an opportunity for anyone to say in open board what had been said in committee. The chairman’s ruling resumed that a committee discussion could be used to suppress reports of discussions. Consideration of Complaints In respect of the recent complaint, the chairman had published a statement that it was usual for the board to discuss complaints in committee. lie, Mr. Barker, could not subscribe to this view. The chairman had also said that the board was bound to regard all cornolaints as confidential, whereas the board had not so ruled. If matters were regarded as confidential, they could not even be disclosed to staff members affected, or to anyone else. He had reluctantly taken the step of replying to the chairman’s statement, as otherwise he would be assumed to have acquiesced in it. He did not feel that his attitude had warranted the statement of an anonymous correspondent who had declared him to be without reasonableness. At this point the chairman called Mr. Barker to order, but Mr. Barker asserted that the member who wrote that letter did not sign his name. The Chairman: I protest strongly against such a statement. You have no grounds for making it! Mr. Barker: The letter itself supplies the grounds. Continuing his comments, Mr. Barker said he agreed 'that the board had to orotect its staff but it was not possible to do so if the board, by treating comolaints as confidential, removed from the writer the obligation which would otherwise exist to substantiate or withdraw them. The best protection that could be given to the staff was to give complaints the maximum degree of publicity Public reaction to secrecy in the case under discussion had been deplorable, and he had been appalled by the distortions of the case circulated in Gisborne. Had the case been dealt with in open board the staff would have been spared that reaction, and it would have been known that, the nursing staff came out extremely well from the whole incident. The board had nothing to hide, and that was the keynote that should be sounded Seconding Mr. Barker’s motion, Mr. W. C. Kohn said he had not taken part in the earlier discussion, but there was not one thing Mr. Barker had said that he could not support. He agreed with Mr. Barker as to the effect _of treating any document as confidential. Nothing to Hide Replying to the motion, the chairman stated that Mr. Barker had “got it all wrong’’ when he said he was not allowed to mention the matter jn open board after the committee discussion. He had said he would reopen the whole matter when the matter came up for confirmation. His own ruling was that if Mr. Barker tried to bring up in open board a matter which the board had decided should be treated in committee he would be out of order. There was no reason why a member differing from a majority decision in committee should not record his vote against its confirmation, continued Mr. Williams. He recollected, however, that Mr. Barker did not take that course. The board had gone into committee by a majority vote, Mr. Barker being the only one to vote against that course. While in committee a certain decision« was taken, and he had considered it his duty to rule out any disclosure of what had occurred in the committee discussion. In the statement supplied to the press he had not given his own opinion, but had stated the practice of the board — that it had been usual for complaints to be dealt with in committee. He had been empowered by the board to make any statement that seemed necessary, and he was not trying to suppress anything. The matter of the discussion hud been extremely delicate, and while feeling bound to have it dealt with in committee he had maintained that if the persons concerned wished to moke it public they were entitled to do so. Where, he asked, was there any attempt at suppression in that? The Chairman’s Ruling Regarding Mr. Barker’s remarks as to the reaction of many people in town, it was his own opinion that although the board had nothing to hide or to be ashamed of, Mr. Barker himself had given that impression to the public himself. Ho had given a completely wrong impression when he had written to the press referring to meetings behind closed doors and “star-chamber methods." “When you eleeled me as your chairman I told you that 1 expected you to support mo when 1 was right, and tell me when you considered I was wrong,” added Mr. Williams. "I cannot agree with Mr. Barker’s definition of members of the board as inere servants’ of the public. Memberse of the board are elected to run me hospital. I have had 15 years of public body service—some here have It* niuc * l mole —and my impression is that when elected a member runs the business of his local body the best way lie can; if the public does not like his *t can get rid of him!” Ihc chairman charged Mr. Barker, alter only lour years on local body membership, of trying to define a prac:lice. ' or people of much greater experience in dealing with "üblic busil ness.

The board had always done what the motion suggested should be done for the future. It had nothing to hide and did not conduct its meetings behind closed doors. Most of the few complaints received were from people in deep trouble, and nearly all writing under stress. He had felt, and still felt, that it would be a breach of confidence for the board to make public the contents of those letters. The last part of the motion purported to give the public an assurance that there would be no unnecessary concealment of the hoard’s business in the future, concluded Mr. Williams. He repeated rmohnticallv that there never had been any unnecessary concealment. ■ “Most Extraordinary Motion” “I must confess that in 20 years of local body experience this is the most extraordinary motion [ have ever been asked to support." commented Mr. H. H. Dods. who added that support for the motion would be an admission that there had been unnecessary secrecy. The fact was that there never had been. He shared the chairman’s views of j his duties as a board member—as a renresentative of the public charged with conducting the business of the board—and had complete confidence in the press coverage of meetings. The motion was not worthy of support, he felt. In all local bodies the public was entitled to attend meetings, but in the by-laws it stated that tiie board could exclude any person for a sufficient reason. of which reason the board was the sole judge, said Mr. H. J. F. Tnmbleson. It was customary for the press repre- j sontativc to remain during committee discussions, and he had never known I an occasion when the press had abused that confidence. Mr. Tombleson supported the chairman’s right to rule out of order any open discussion of matters dealt with in committee, and quoted the minute which empowered the chairman to make whatever press statement about the discussion at the last meeting might be necessary. Mr. Barker himself was the mover of Ihe motion giving that authority to the chairman. He took exception to certain of Mr. Barker’s remarks, and stated that in 26 years’ membership of local bodies he had always taken the stand that if elected lie would run the business of ihe electors to the best of his ability, doing what he thought was right and proper without any feeling that he was a “mere servant’’ of the public. Amendment Moved He considered that the motion was at fault in that it inferred unnecessary concealment in the past, and moved as an amendment that “This board, recognising that it is answerable to the public at all times, gives an assurance that there has been no unnecessary concealment of the business conducted at meetings of the board.” Mrs. E. R. Scott seconded the motion, reserving the right to speak later. Mr. J. H. Hall could not see any reason for either the motion or the amendment, since it had always beeni the principle and unwritten policy that business was conducted without unnecessary concealment. Mr. Barker’s motion itself implied that on occasion it was necessary to take some work in committee. The only ground for Mr. Barker’s objections that he could see was that the information given to the public was not as wide as Mr. Barker would have liked. Protesting that the time of the board was being wasted on the motion, Mr. G. W. Armstrong stated that it was ouite unnecessary since it merely confirmed the policy on which the board had worked in the past. He thought too much discussion went on with one eye on what would go into the press. “Mr. Barker has moved that the board go into committee on past occasions, and would again if he thought that a claim would arise out of this case. Tire hoard must remain master of its own affairs,” concluded Mr. Armstrong. Treatment of Complaints Supporting the chairman and other Speakers against the motion, Mrs. I. Kurzwell stated that it would undermine the public confidence in the hospital and the efficiency of the staff if all complaints were aired in public. Mr. Barker had no justification for presenting himself as the champion of the public against a conspiracy of silence on the part of the board. He had made a grave accusation against his fellowmembers. “I am proud to serve the public, and never tried harder to do so than at the last meeting,” said Mrs. Scott, who added that she supported the motion to go into committee to spare additional suffering to a former patient. She was proud of the fact that the nursing staff had come so well out of the investigation, and would have liked that acknowledged in the press, but she felt that the interests of the patient were paramount. Speaking as a new member, Mr. AM. Trafford felt that complaints, of which there were remarkably few, should be treated on their merits. Gisborne was lucky, he thought, in the moderate way the press treated public business. Otherwise they might have headings all over New Zealand. At this stage Mr. Kohn asked if Mr. Barker would consider altering his motion to the wording of the amendment. In his reply Mr. Barker said that his motion had been prompted by the chairman’s statement that the board considered itself bound to treat all complaints as confidential. He agreed that complaints should be treated on