SACK THE BOARD, SAYS SUPERINTENDENT

Northern Advocate, 26 June 1937, Page 4

SACK THE BOARD, SAYS SUPERINTENDENT

NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

Evidence On Alleged

Influences

[Special to “Northern ■ Advocate ”] NAPIER, This Day.

The Royal Commission investigating the affairs of the Napier public hospital held a sitting in camera yesterday morning, when evidence was heard concerning alleged influences in the institution, calculated to have a deleterious effect on the work of the hospital. Proceedings in the afternoon were again open to the Press. Questioned by Mr N. A. Foden, Crown Solicitor, Dr. J. Alan Berry said that the managing secretary had power to veto any expenditure, major or minor.

Mr Foden; You did not resign as medical superintendent, because of conflict .with him. Witness: No. Secretary’s Authority. You endeavodr to stick up for the rights 'of the medical superintendent? —Yes You attribute some trouble to the fact that the managing secretary has usurped some of the highest authority?—l think so. z Do you think there has been a lack of cohesion?—Yes. Doe? it extend from the- board downwards?—Yes. Mr Foden; Cleavage in the board militates: against the successful running of the institution? Witness: Yes. It has been the cause of all the trouble. Had there been a good head it would not have occurred, Mr Foden: A local Mussolini? Supposing someone considered something should be done for Napier, would he be in difficulties if he came against the Hastings faction? ■ Witness: He might be sacked. Nurses a Good Type.

And it lias its repercussidns?—Right down through the institution. Do you regard the nurses’ response to requests as good?—They seem to be a good type. Are the sisters responsible to suggestions and requests?r-Yes Mr W. E. Bate, for the hospital board: I think you and Mr Rees do not hit it off too well? Witness: I would not say that. v ;

'You have made remarks. I suggest, ih open board against Mr Rees? —I should say they were fair criticism. You have said .he was obstructive on occasions? Can you give us any recent instances which were tO the: detriment of the Institution? —I think he was diligent in arranging his duties. '“Very Humiliating.”

Mr Bate: You are not complaining that the board’s time is wasted by unnecessary requisitions?—Yes, -- I- did make that statement. You mentioned that the managing secretary assumed that he was in charge of the whole but the by-laws say that ‘the medical superintendent is the head, the managing secretary being head of the other employees?-—lf the medical superintendent wanted a splint made, the carpenter would have to refer it to the managing secretary, because of the cleavage. I found it very humiliating.

On what point has the board been most sharply divided—your oWn suspension as a member of the staff, and the dismissal of - a sister ?—Yes. Is there anything else? —The question of the site of the isolation block has. been, one matter.

Any cleavage of the board has been attributable largely to your own status and what was to be done with the — *Vcs Could Do Without Board.

Sir James Elliot,. a member of the commission: There are 50 beds at Hastings and 180 here?

Witness: Yes. And the operating. facilities are the same?—Yes.

You say you are getting more than your share of chronic cases?—Yes. Has Hastings more patients per bed per year than Napier?—That is my opinion.

Have you any suggestions how the differences ' between Napier and Hastings could be reconciled?—Sack the board.

Sack, the lot?—Yes, . that is worth thinking about/ Could you do without a board? — Yes. . / • ' The, chairman, Mr. E. D. Mosley. S.M.: Can you think of any other suggestion? N Witness: Two hospital boards and two hospital districts. “Sack All Boards.” , What about nationalising the hospitals?—Sack all boards. Would you not object to the loss of franchise?—No. London has done it. Mr Foden: It is worth looking into. To Mr A. E. Lawry, representing witness, witness said that during his time as medical superintendent he had been proud of the hospital and its examination results, and considered it one of the best training schools in the Dominion.

Mr Charles Ormond Morse, a former chairman of the hospital hoard, of which he is at present one of the Napier members, said it was an admitted fact that there was a cleavage on the board between the Hastings and Napier members. This had been in evidence for some time. He did not consider it serious.

Regarding the question of the matron having direct contact with the board, witness said: Perhaps it was not wise, but, since 1931, we have all had to apply ourselves away from the by-laws. Hard and fast rules went by the board- and matters were allowed to drift that way.”

Three Captains Undesirable

Mr Foden: You will admit it is not desirable to have three captains to a ship? Witness: No, It would soon bo wrecked.

If there are to be two. who do you think should be the captain?—l think it should be the medical superintendent.

In reply ■to the chairman, witness said he agreed that it seemed an anachronism, that men with no knowledge of the affairs of a hospital should control it. He insisted that a firm line of demarkation should be made between financial and medical aspects and administration. Sir James Elliott: Don’t you think that limitation of hospital boards would be a good thing? Witness: I think that the department should exercise greater supervision and control.

In dismissing the witness, the chairman said the commission was considerably beholden to him for his candour.

Secretary’s Evidence

Edward Thomas Rees, managing secretary, said all the services of the hospital came under his control? excep: the medical and nursing side He recogivsed the medical superintendent as the official head of th e institution. “It is a complicated position,” he said, referring to_his duties as managing secretary “I have done m y best and 1 v/culd , be Wlllm § to become plain secretary. ,

Mr Mosley. Mr Rees is an estimable officer, but, whether he has carried out his cvuties not only efficiently but with a mede of. discretion L nece^r ily another matter, -.aece_«rThe hearing was adjourned.