“COLOSSAL CHEEK”

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12902, 1 July 1936, Page 5

“COLOSSAL CHEEK”

REMARK AT J/ HOSPITAL. .HOARD. RESENTED BY CR. N. H. BULL. SEQUEL TO DISCUSSION ON LEVIES. breezy MEETING AT COUNCIL. A remark by the Mayor (Mr D. W. Coleman, MB.) at thei last Hospital Bffard meeting that it was “colossal civeek” on the part of Borough Councillors to criticise the expenditure n the Hospital Board resulted in a lengthy discussion at the meeting of the Borough Council last evening, in which strong’ comments, were made by (several; speaker’s. After much talk, the general idea appeared to he that the cause of he Alay-or’s. remarks, . a proposed local- body conference to discuss levies, was due to &i misconception of. the position. Cr. N. H. Bull, in opening the discussion, said he wished to draw attention to the fact that at the last meeting of the Hospital Board members had. taken offence at a resolution passed by the 'council to the effect that contributing bodies to hospital levies should confer on th,e question of hospital expenditure and its effect on local body rates, and evoke a constructive scheme to lessen the bur den on ratepayers. One or two members took the view that councillors had no right to discuss the levy. He had m!ado it perfectly clear that he .was not criticising the board. They had simply asked l that the man who paid tlie piper should call the tune, and wanted other local bodies to confer on the matter. No o(Fence was meant.to the board ot to its members. Personally, he had the same faith in the efficiency of. the board,as he’had mother elective bodies'. . Hethought, it was quite right, however., that the council which had to contribute over £SOOO in levies had a right to know- how the money was . expended. He felt sure that,if the position bad,-been explained to the: WaiIcohn arid -tjawttu County ; Councils their decision not to participate in the-.conference would never have been agreed to.. He had noticed that in the report of the -meeting the Mayor took the opportunity of criticising Iks colleagues in the Borough Council and characterised their action as “colossal impudence.”

MAYOR’S DIFFERENT POSITIONS

The-. Mayor said he could.not allow Cr. .Bull ti» criticise a member of another Ibcal body. He wished to make it clear that he was not on the Hospital Board as Mayor, but as a member of the board elected by the people He was elected on an entirely different body from the-Borough, Council. Cr. Bull: I lam not critis-icing .you personally,, but. you criticised your colleagues on ,thc Borongh T Council. : Tjib Mayor : ,I did not criticise my colleagues, t referred to councillors. “WHERE DO WE STAND WITH YOU?” Or, Bull contended that that was all the same. If the Mayor termed the action of the council “colossal impudence” he criticised the whole of the councillors. He /sympathised with the Mayor in the difficulties- which ho must face in his numerous political ’Activities. He began to,-, wonder -if those nuiltitudnpus duties did not at time.sv,unavoidably .conflict, f as this was the second instance: to. the speaker’s knowledge, where such a. co-nilict appeared,.to have ■arisen. “Personally”, he--said,- “I wo(ild like to know where we stall'd with you.”

‘'S ÜBTERR ANEA N INFLU ENOS' ’ ON FIRE BOARD LOAN

The other instance to which he referred, continued Cr. Bull, was in con nection with the Fire Board lean. Ehrly in the year the astounding news- came to the council that • the Fire Board loan, which had : been turned down, r .had been sanctioned by the Loans Board. He (the speaker') remarked la.t the time that some subterranean influence-had been at work. Tlie Mayor objected to tlie term “■subterranean” and requested liim to withdraw it. and he did so. Since then, however, he had ascertained that the Mayor had accompanied a member of, the Fire, Board t,o interview the Loans Board in January last, and subsequently tlie board i>assed a resolution to a rant tlie loan. It was difficult to serve two masters, and sometimes the Mayor must bo placed in an invidious position. If the Mayor had anything to say about “colossal impudence” surely the place to say it was at the Bo'.ough Council. He personally as the mover of the motion was prepared tq flake the whole blame.. MAYOR REITERATES “COLOSSAL OHEEK” The Mayor said that so far as the Hospital Board was concerned, the Borough Couifcil had no say on its expenditure. The hoard was elected Ly' the peqple and miade a call for moneys to carry on its work. Would tlie Borough Council criticise the Harbor Board for its expenditure ? No, for the simple reason that it Was, entirely separate elective body. The Harbour Board struck a fete for its expenses. If the Hospital Boiard was to attempt to criticise, the expenditure of the Borough Council it would be colossal Cheek) and it was just as much colossal cheek for.the Borough Council to ■attempt to, criticise the expenditure ■of the Hospital Board. FIRE BOARD:LOAN EXPLA NA - - ' TION ■ Jls lor the; F.ire r Board matter,4continued the. Mayor, - he would explain •that. As member for the d:strict; he gentleman to. the.heiad of jthe department, He had .done so ' before l and , he wouldd'a so again.. Tf Cr. Bull cam©;to Wellington and d-e----siijed to see. fhe-head" for the d,epnrtmeptihs would introduce him. It was p'aad cf his'. duty as member for the v dfistrict and lie li/id excuses to make, oit Iliat score. Tlie Borough: Council

might have some claims on the speaker as. one of its representatives oil the Fire Board. In fact he claimed that the Borough Council could instruct him* ' sis their - ’ representative which, way, to rote. Or-, D.- ..Sr Thompson : The council did so, and we (ferried out their" iri■structiojis. The. Mayor said that lie definitely refused, to take .any instructions from" the Borough Council as- a,, meinher. of the. Hospital Board, for he was elected % the people., , .... ’ ;l •, Cr, H. H. DeCosta said he,quite agreed with the .Mayor’s , attitudy. ff'lio Borough . Council had- nothing.to do with the-Hospital Board and he liadi personally . told Cr. Bull so. He had been a member of lie Hospital Board lor ten years and he., could a, sure councilors. thatr. no one de-S-ired to pay more rates than was necessary. ’,/- ! ; .. . -, . -;

The Mayor r-said that so,far ,a.s the Hospital, Board was mneerned patients came first and rates -second.

HIGH TRIBUTE TO,HOSPITAL

BOARD SECRETARY

Cr. H. E. Maud© said he deplored the discussion on the subject. He had voted for the conference., .All were agreed that the hoard was doing its hest. for the..district,, and that was one. of the reasons . why ho had voted ,I'or. the conference. .There, was no question of criticism,, of .expenditure, but, the general, desore to assist the board. ,He hfjd felt-.at the time that no l good would come from the conference, but there was a possibility that something beneficial might eventuate.,, They off admired the Hospital Board and he complimented that body on its managing secretary, who. was second to none in the Dominion. The board was indeed fortunate in having an officer of the calibre of Mr C. A. Harries. Personally he did not think councillors could not object- If they received recommendations from any body that might help .it-. A Citizens’ Association had been formed and had held one meeting. He thought the object of members of that association was to help the council, and he could see no objection in that. -He deplored the disharmony. as all were doing their best for the community as a whole. Tho Mayor sa : d he -lid not think there was disha* mony on the Subject.. One could only judge-opiivon-s by-, t-hA attitude’- or a- speaker on the •remarks made.

MISCONCEPTION at THE START

Cr. G... Bradley Smith said that so far as he was. concerned, there had been. a misconception (at. the start. One . could see That- by the published report of. the attitude of the Waikohu County Council,, which had taken a wrong- attitude when they refused to participate in the proposed con Terence, on. the ground that it would mean criticising members of the. Hospital Board. It was not intended to criticise the work of the board and certainly such criticism would not be warranted. He took, it that none of them had any axe to- grind, but wc -o serving on local bodies in. an .endeavour to do/ their best- for all concerned. If the conference biad been held some of the decisions may have been of value even to the Minister himself. So far as- the Hospital Board was concerned it was doing its host under the circumstances. The trouble was-that the- hospital was being u'sed by people for whom it was never intended. If iSneli persons used the institutions they should pay on a scale -—— Tho Mayer (interrupting) said ho could not allow the’ discussion to proceed on those lilies. Cr. Smith said that that was on* of the matters that would arise at the conference. LOCAL BODY AMALGAMATION Cr. H. Holmes said thay some time ago the council passed a remit to be forwarded to the Municipal Association thfat local bodies should be represented on such bodies as the Hospital Board. This was done in an effort to bring about the amalgamation of local bodies. According, to the report of the Hospital Board’s meeting lie saw that £30,000 Lad been saved •in five years 'and that was another reason for the amalgamation -of local bodies-

MAYOR, ADVISED NOT TO GET . HEATED'

The Mayor read a minute .stating that Cr. Bull said it was deplorable to see tho increased expenditure in the Hospital Board’s levy and moved that a conference be held to., discuss the question of the Cook Hospital expenditure. Cr. Bull rose to a. point of order, find siuid that was tho reason for the conference.

The Mayor said ho was merely quoting the mliiiite book of the council, and the motion that was moved. He had said it was “dcnlorable.: ’

Cr. Bull said there was no reason for the Mayor to get heated. He had said that word and, he stood by it. If suggestions were made at the conference he was prepared to say they would be entitled fo. be submitted to tlie Hospital Board. He had agseheme in mind,.to relieve the Hospital Board expenditure. It concerned people using the hospitals who, lie contended, should not use them. No mention had been made, of the board’s/ efficiency but of its expenditure. It would he colossal impertin.ance to critici.sq the .Harbor Board expenditure for instance, as the coun oil did not contribute to the board.

The Mayor: We do.« . , Cr. Bull contended that ratepayer s were entitled to criticise the Borough Council. Would they consider it “cheek” if any citizens c'aime there and criticised them for their expenditure. He should say not. , , ' Thel Mayor said that was a different matter. One local body could not criticise another.

CR. HALL: IN HOT WATER v Cr. Jb Hall said that no good .purpose was served ’ by the discussion. The proposer of the motion had nursed the point because he didn’t giye the. reason in full for' holding the conference, .and this had been misrepresented to other local bodies. Had they been sincere they would' have dcsie so. The Mayor said he could not allow that remark. fir. Hall said they were not drying

to get out of it by saying this, and that.. The Mayor said Cr. Hall had no right to insinuate that the propose is were not sincere.;. ■ Other councillors objected and Cr. Hall sat down. Or. Bushnell said there had been a good deal of misconception and the true cause had 1 been rather hidden. He had supported the conference idea because he thought it would be for the good of all and in the, hope that some good would come from the conference. The mnUoi'Mhcn dropped.