HOSPITAL BOARD AND CRITICISM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 10 June 1926, Page 5

HOSPITAL BOARD AND CRITICISM

THE BALL, CROCKERY AND GROUNDS MATTERS - ATTACKS ON THE MAIL ' Prior to the usual business of the Hospital Board yesterday afternoon, the chairman (Mr G. M. Rout) said he wished to welcome back the old members, because they had been under fire, very unjust and unfair fire—during the election, and all had been returned, some against severe opposition. This was not only a compliment to himself, but also to the Board. He had been on the Bo*rd previously for some years, and he had never known members to devote such a lot of time to their duties. They had been returned nothwithstanding the unjust and unfair criticism levelled by The Evening Mail and anonymous correspondents. Mr Berryman, in acknowledging the chairman's congratulations, said all had • seen the correspondence criticising the Board and they had also seen the • cor- - respondence, from their chairman both in reply to Dr. Gibbs (B.M.A.j, and also anonymous correspondence and editorials in The Mail. He thought it was only due to the chairman that the - Board should pass a resolution, and he had much pleasure in moving that the chairman’s action in repudiating the attacks on the Board, and the very able answer in regard to the equipment be ; endorsed and affirmed by the Board. He went on to say that he thought the Board had good reason for being very grateful that they had a chairman of such business ability ,who had worked so hai’d without any fee or reward for the benefit of the institution! If such', unfair criticism were allowed to go unchallenged he was sure they would not get business men of the same calibre as their chairman to take the position he ' now held. Mr Berryman thought the - chairman had taken the criticism too seriously. Some of the criticism was so ■ absurd that it should have been treated with silent contempt; yet when-the press took it up they must not forget that- the press is supposed to be the leader of public opinion, and he was " quite sure the or ;jsubleaders or whatever they were, were calculated to do far more harm than any of the anonymous twaddle. Mr Spiers, in seconding, dealing with’ 1 the criticism in The Mail, said be thought it was shameful the way The Mail allowed that correspondence to go on. The Mail not only encouraged it but encouraged the people to go on with it. It should have' been closed, as it was twaddle. He thought the • chairman had really nothing'to answer." The motion was put and carried, - On the motion of Mr Spiers it was resolved to hand the chairman’s statement to the press for publication. The chairman then read the following statement: — “Judging by the number of letters, that have lately appeared in the Evening Mail from anonymous correspondents, and the attitude taken up by the editor of that paper, I think the facts concerning various matters complained'of should be placed before the public, and in addition the Hospital Board be allowed to ventilate its own grievances . against tbo Evening Mail and it's anonv- -. mous correspondents. ‘ln the first place a letter written urn . aer the worn de plume of “Disgusted” asked for certain information about the . purchase of crockery for the new Hospital, and the very signature of the writer showed the enquirer to bo. both. biassed and vindictive. The chairman replied that when time permitted a full. ; statement regarding equipment including crockery lor the new Hospital would be given, and notwithstanding the. vast, amount of work entailed in the purchase and equipment of the new Hospital, the change over from the old to the new institution (this in itself being a very big undertaking), consideration of extra staff required,;and one hundred and one other things, all requiring care and consideration, further letters asking for the same information appeared, in addition to paragraphs from the editor saying that the promised information was not forthcoming, that- the leading city dealer in crockery had stated that he could have supplied similar crockery to the Board, . etc., etc.

“I think my letter published in the Mail in 22nd May is a full and complete answer to t’nc editor of The Mail and his 'carping critics.” “Gibson and Patterson are not grocers with crockery as a side line, as stated by “Disgusted” but wholesale crockery people only, and are controlling agents for New Zealand for the line of crockery purchased by the Board. I say distinctly that similar crockery to that purchased for the Nelson Hospital could not have been procured- by our local dealers in that line, but even if it could have been, the ratepayers'would have had to pav considerably more for it. ‘Surely ‘when all the big companies and institutions in the world use this crockery, including practically all hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, and when the New Zealand Government give one order to the same firm for 109.000 pieces, what have the Nelson Hospital Board done to deserve censure? > “The Christchurch Hospital Board, as stated in Gibson .and Patterson’s letter, have a resolution on their books that no other crockery (than the kind we have bought) be purchased, as by reducing breakages to a minimum, the •interests of the ratepayers are best served. '

“It is now over a fortnight since the publication of Gibson and Patterson’s letter, but up to the present the editor of The Mail lias not seen fit to make the .amende hon<Virajble t£hieh : tyis caused considerable comment amongst the business community. ‘The next grievance a few disgruntled individuals seemed to have was lettin°; the contract for laying out the Hospital grounds Fo a Christchurch professional landscape gardener, while an anonymous writer urged saving the expense of beautifying the grounds as unnecessary, and suggested planting vegetables and building a few poultry houses in front of the Hospital. Surely a respectable paper should refrain from publishing rubbish like this. If I am not very much mistaken, the writer of the letter referred to, “R.S.” is not even a ratepayer, and I challenge him to refute my statement. “Mr Buxton of Christchurch who was given the contract of laying out and beautifying the Hospital grounds, is moreover a ratepayer in the Nelson Hospital District, and as he and Mr Tannock, M.R.H.S./, are considered two of the Lest landscape gardeners in New Zealand, surely the Board have acted wisely, and do not deserve the criticisms' that have been hurled against them. “As trustees for the public, the Hospital Board could not afford to risk experimenting with unknown or secondclass tradesmen even to extending paironasre to a few local ratepayers whoso contributions to the Hospital after all, should not count against the interests of the whole Hospital district and comr munily. “All through, (he Board have acted in the best interests of the ratepayers, and

in the matter of equipment alone, hundreds of pounds have been saved them notwithstanding that the editor of The Mail said if the Board continues as it has done, The poor ratepayer will soon bo unable to pay his rates. This statement was repealed twice, but it is untrue. '‘Another grievance the Board has was in the matter of broadcasting Uiicwgt* ttiri Unitoj Frees ’ Association, word for word (T believe all over N6w Zealand) the article which appeared in ' The Mail headed ‘After the Ball.’ ■ “This ball was a private dance and had nothing to do with the Board beyond the fact that they gave t lie contractor permission to hold the dance m one of the wards, but this was not made clear in the ne.vs as broadcasted. Is it not a fact that Tire Evening Mail or its editor is actually the local representative of the United Press Association, and was responsible for distributing this news through l New Zealand? Could ■ not local pride have forced him to keep the name of the Nelson hospital out of the telegram and merely refer to the true position, i.e., that the dance was a private one given by a. Christchurch contractor. “Dfirty linen is usually washed m one’s backyard and not broadcasted about like this news was, and actions like these do considerable harm to Nel-j ‘.son. . ; “It is a great pity that the editor’j does not try'to further the interests of Nelson, and considerable feeling has i been worked up, even to tlie extent of obtaining another newspaper, as it is ’ considered a bad thing for Nelson for a "newspaper to have no opposition, and if there was ' another newspaper we ‘would probably get “fair play.” One - bsuinessjman , along offers to put down tbyra'ijds 1 •, 'establishing; •> ’•ngwspaperV for Nelson, and sufficient. .capital could easily be found-if neces-. sary.' 1 ! .“The election : of four country mem-1 • bgrs jpf . the Board, has just- been , held, | Land notwithstanding opposition, thej whole four have been returned. A year ' ■ago the three city members were re- j turned unopposed, and I think this is; < the best answer to The Mail and its. critics.

«. - “Unfair criticism drives men from J public; offices, and if this sort of criti- • cisih whicn we have been having lately is going to continue, very few men "will be found willing to come forward 'when their reward is “no pay and much “‘abuse,’ for '-here is considerable work Sand worry attached to all public of--fices.

‘‘Not one ■word of praise has been * given the Board by The Mail for erect- ' - ing a very fine institution after it had •' ‘hung fire’ for several years, or , for - faithful services rendered, but as I said "before, , the Board only wants ‘fair play.’ * v - ‘.‘in. future, no notice will he taicon ~ of anonymous correspondents, and anyone desiring information must write to •-•*? the Board, when the same will be willingly given.” _ > Sir Berryman, in some further reX marks, said' when the crockery question “'wats before the Board,, the chairman, ylwhen asked by him (Mr Berryman) why y/lejiders were not called, gave a very '. full report why they were not., The ‘“'Mail reporter' was present, and in fairnees - to the Board the explanation . should have been published; and then - the Editor of The Mail : would have % been in full possession of all the facts. “\Ve cannot possibly understand why he o should have overlooked such facts, and *: put in such a scurrilous article as he "ii did.” He felt very strongly that they not opened a subscription list for the improvement ,to the hospital grounds.:,: / V/y . ■ The 'chairman: They killed it. iMr Berryman: “I am sure The Mail see the error of their ways after falling into the soup over the crockery, . and will see the importance of helping to advance the course we have decided -/bn'; in-getting up subscriptions.” Mr '"/Brirryman went on to say that it put “/the Board in a very awkward position. " ‘He had been hauled over the coals for - daring to commit the ratepayers in con.'JfCetion with the grounds improvement. The Board had been committed to only >:,a certain amount. There was,a- feeling abroad which showed whatTnischief " sudh ' articles published iq The Mail *• would do. He hoped the thing would be fixed up and a start soon made with the . subscriptions. ' Mr Barton said when he returned to ( Nelson after being absent ,fcr' a short while,' he felt it very much that the effort had' been “scotched” by the Editor of The Mail. ■ The' chairman: Hear,, hear ! Mr Barton: And I think that we, as ” 1 ' friiembers of the Board, should put so much; in arid, hand it to The Mail and make .them open that list. That would be fOne way of getting that publicity which' we so desire. Mr Barton went on to say that the Otago Daily Times invariably opened a subscription list according to the interest that was needed, ahd'then they kept pushing it. “I hay* never seen that done in Nelson yef,” he added. The chairman: No. He added that it was rather annoying and vexatious for the Editor of The Mail to harp about ■ it arid nip the Whole thing in the hud. The sub-leader settled the whole thing. And then it ended up by saying they Would be pleased to open a subscription list.

Mr Bar top said as a ratepayer lie contributed £1 to hospital administration. Mr Spiers: Perhaps this little bit of criticism may bring The Mail to their senses and they might start with £SO after they find they made such' a mistake.

It was pointed out that the hospital rate was only 3fd in the £. The country rate was 8-21st of a penny in the £ on the capital value. “And then they talk about the Board being unable to pay their rates.” This was more twaddle.

Mr Berryman said the average contribution per head of population in the Christchurch district was 14/0. The average per head over the Waimea county was 0/5. This showed that the Board had not been extravagant as The Mail would lead people to believe. The chairman said the rate in the £ on the total rateable value of the hospital district was ..142 of a penny. This covered all hospital and charitable expenses. He hoped the press would note his remarks, as it would disabuse their mind. He repeated, it was most unfair and annoying. Mr Berryman said the Board had been congratulated more than once by the Department of Health on running the Hospital on a most economical basis—about the cheapest in Hew Zealand. Is not that so?” he asked the chairman. The chairman: Yes.

Mr Berryman: After the terrible things that have been said about this Board I think they (The Mail) should publish the other side of the case. The chairman said he felt so strongly on the matter that he was not going to seek re-election when his time was up. He went on to refer to a remark which he said was made by Cr. Wigzel in the City Council that it cost £21,000 a year to run the hospital. “That is a most unfair thing. It was the first local or in a very prominent place so that everyone could see it. The editor of The Mail could easily have rung up the secretary and found out. but he did not. It is not costing £21.000 a year to run the Hospital. Why did not lie (the editor) find this out? C’r. Tunnielitf: Very unfair. The Board then went on to deal with other business.