MUDDLING CHARGE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 156, 18 June 1935, Page 9

MUDDLING CHARGE

VENTILATED BY BOARD “Round the Mulberry Bush” NAPIER HOSPITAL PLANS The statement of the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board, Mr. C. 0. Morse, that “muddling at this end’’ was responsible for the Department of Health not approving the plans for the administration block at the Napier Public Hospital, was discussed at yesterday’s meeting. Mr. C. Lassen declared that the letting and acceptance of tenders a few days before the elections, right on top of a manifesto by the County Council candidates that they favoured the immediate commencement of the work, was electioneering propaganda. He subsequently withdrew the remark, though he said the tenders were called and one accepted before the department had approved the specifications.

The board decided that the architects were to blame for any muddle, and not the managing secretary. Two Hastings members of the board are to join the Napier building sub-committee in a conference with the associated architects upon the subject. Dr. J. Allan Berry began the discussion by asking whose was the responsibility for forwarding the information concerning the heating and engineering services to the department.

The chairman said there could be no way other than through the architects, and he quoted the example of the Hastings Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, all the architectural details for which were sent by the architects. In the case of the Napier Hospital administration block, someone had muddled. Mr C. Lassen: Who is this “someone” ? ARCHITECTS TO BLAME. The chairman; Well, the architects. I don’t want to cast any reflection on the associated architects, but I say there has been some neglect, and I say very definitely it is the architects’ job to get all the information required to “put the matter over” and present it to the department. They know what has to be done, and know what obstacles have to be overcome. I went to the department last week and I am quite sure I could have put it through, but they said, “Where are the plans of your steam-heating system?’’ None had been provided. Why should it be put upon me to see that everything has been done to get the subsidy? Once the thing has been given to the architect, it should be done by him. It was up to the architect to send the plans down in one lot.

The chairman said that in one plan, for example, no provision was made in the specifications for electricity, but fortunately it was noticed before the plan was sent down to Wellington. The architect had not done anything about the steam plant, when it was his duty to collect all the data, and in general attend to the business of the board so far as the plan went.

Mr H. V. Hoadley agreed, and said it appeared to him that the duty of the architect was to send down a complete set of plans to Wellington, and it was his duty to see that everything was in order.

Mr 0. Lassen said he could not agree with the chairman. “You instruct the architect to draw plans,” he said, “and specifications for a certain building, and you don’t ask him to see that the engineer has drawn plans. I can’t see anything here where your plans and specifications have been approved by the Health Department.” Turning to the chairman, he said, “I noticed in the Press that you made a (statement that the delay was caused through someone’s muddling at this end. Then on Wednesday last, when I saw you and asked you a question, you said it was the fault of the department; now you say it is the fault of somebody here. I would like the Press to take particular notice when I say that it was through no fault of mine, ns the representative of the County Council. ON EVE OF ELECTION. “You say the muddling is on the part of the architects,” Mr Lassen went on to say, “but I do not like to see a statement like that in the Press drawing attention to muddling on the part of ‘someone’ at this end. I believe this tender was rushed through i because of the hospital election, which was on a few days after tlie tenders were called, and ” The chairman: It is unfair of you to make that suggestion, Mr T.assen. It is quite a wrong remark to make, and I want members to support me in this. Do you withdraw that? Mr Lassen: Why I made that remark was because there was nothing back from the department giving approval of your plans or specifications, so why call tenders, particularly when the County Council representatives put out a manifesto. One of the things in the manifesto was that they would support the immediate restoration of the administrative block at the Napier Hospital. No sooner was that done than the tenders were called, and let. The chairman; That is a very unfair remark to make nt this juncture. T appeal to the members, and ask you to withdraw it. Dr. Berry said he thought that Mr 1 nssen should withdraw the remark. He felt that if Mr Lassen would look Oirough the detailed account, he would i dud that Air 'Morse had worked hard • nt it months before the election. ■ The chairman; Vos. T put in n fortnight, doing nothing else at one stage. REMARKS withdrawn. i Mr T.assen: Well, I will withdraw it, lit | adhere to the statement that the 1 lenders were called without final ap-

proval of the department. I still say that you can’t produce any letter from the department finally approving of the plans and specifications. The chairman said that Mr Lassen would agree that entirely the same procedure was followed in the instance of the Hastings Memorial Hospital, when the department placed big obstacles in the way. Mr Lassen said he was not aware that in that instance the tenders were approved before the plans were finished] Mr Morse: The thing repeats itself every time. Wo followed the procedure of specifying the materials they had previously approved. What else could we do? Practically, wo had the approval of the department, but there were obstacles. We got over that and you all finally approved. Mr 8. J. McKee: I agree with quite a lot of what you have said, Mr Morse, but I disagree with that statement which appeared in the Press, for it was a reflection upon the whole board. It appeared as though the whole board had failed in its duty. Ihe chairman: I meant no reflection upon board men hers. Air McKee: Well people saw that in , e 1 ress, and quickly took it up. lhe chairman: It really means that the requirements have not been met by the architect Mr McKee: That makes it clear now, and < agree with you that apparently the architects have failed. REFLECTION ON COMMITTEE. Dr Berry (to the chairman): I took those remarks in the Press as a reflection upon the building sub-cominitteo at Napier, and a reflection on the managing secretary. What you had in your mind I think you should have said. The chairman: That was for the board to say after the meeting to-day. 1 want some explanation of it. Mr 0. Duff said he did not know where they were. There had been a lot of talk, that was all. It was the duty of the architects to send the plans to Wellington, or to make special reference to the board’s officers to seo that all plans went down to Wellington at the same time. There was no doubt that the architects had been the cause of the delay which was annoying to the hoard, and the department was right m saying that the architects, as the board’s agents, had failed. Possibly, the board was in some measure to blame. He thought that in the case of the Hastings Memorial Hospital and other jobs, the board had urged the chairman to go ahead without the formal consent of the department. This was rendered necessary by delays by the department. In this instance the board accepted tenders on May 3, but did not actually receive Ministerial consent till May 8. While the department were “fiddling about” consent, the board went ahead, and rightly so. UN FORTUN ATE POSITION. Mr H. V. Hoadley agreed. Undoubtedly, it was the duty ot the architect to see that all the necessary data was made available to the department before the plans actualh left for Wellington. The beard hau been placed in an unfortunate position. Mr McKee asked whether the architects sent down tho plans to Wellington without the perusal of the Napier building sub-committee. If they had, it would alter the position. The architects should have conferred with the board or its representatives, so that the board could be aware that the additional heating system was not embodied in the plans. It appeared that the dual dealing—the board with the department, and the architects with the department—should be abolished, so that the board should know exactly what was the position.

Dr IL M. Wilson said he considered that the delay had the quality of “Here we go round the mulberry bush” over and over again. Dr Berry said he began to understand what the chairman said when he referred to a muddle. Certain specifications were mentioned for windowframes, yet somehow word was received from Wellington that the department endorsed specifications of which the board knew nothing. Presumably, the architects had been in touch with tho department. He could not say. He did not know whence came the authority to substitute corrugated iron for some other substance. The chairman: Neither do I. Dr Berry: Bluntly, is there anything that has got to be hidden in this business? We find the department authorising the substitution of corrugated iron for R.P.M. yet we as a board know nothing about it. I want an explanation of that. MISFIRING SOMEWHERE. The chairman: There has been some misfiring somewhere. Someone hits been responsible for the delay. I think the building committee at Napier should request an interview with the associated architects to clear the atmosphere. It might appear that the whole of the associated architects are getting blamed for possibly what is the fault of a single member. I do not wish to east reflections against the person they have appointed, but I think definitely some better arrangement should be entered into. Dr. Berry: That gets away from the point as to how that corrugated iron was substituted for something else. There's some reason I would like to find. ■The chairman: That is a matter we should go into with the associated architects —■ Mr Hoadley: I think that is necessary. Dr Wilson: I do not wish to curb the powers of the Napier building subcommittee of the board, but X would like to see some other members of the board interview the associated architects to find out the explanation of all this. I suggest Mr McKee and Mr Hoadley.

The suggestion was adopted, the names of these two members to be added to those on the sub-committee to interview the associated architects, to discover who was the cause of the muddle.