COPY OF LETTERS WANTED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19249, 13 August 1924, Page 10

COPY OF LETTERS WANTED.

A VEHEMENT ARGUMENT. SOUTH OTAGO HOSPITAL BOARD DISTURBED, The well-ordered flow of formal business at the South Otago Hospital Board yesterday was slightly jolted by a fractious member, in the person of Mr J. W. Fenton, who wagited to know (vehemently) why at the last meeting of the board he was refused a copy of a portion of the correspondence. After commenting on the unreasonableness of the refusal he demanded a straight-out answer why lie was not given a copy of that letter. Chairman (the Hon. A. S. Malcolm, M.L.C.); The next business is in committee and—— Mr I) enton: Am I to be given a copy of that letter or, not? That’s all I want to know. I’m not here as a dummy. The Chairman: It was decided at last meeting, Mr Fenton, that you should not get a copy of the letter. If you look back in the minute.s—— Mr Fenton: The resolution is not entered in the minutes, and I want to know why. The Chairman: The discussion cannot continue unless somebody moves a motion. Mr Harris then moved—‘‘That Mr Fenton or any members of the board be provided on request with copies of any letters in the board’s possession and dealing with its business.” Mr Rennie seconded the motion pro forma, saying that he did not know what was in Mr Fenton’s mind. Mr Fenton then explained further that at the last meeting of the board several written requests were received from the Kaitangata Benefit Society, and ho had asked for a copy of a letter sent by the board in reply. He wa s refused this, and added that it was a sorry thing when members of the board were denied copies of correspondence. Ho could not for the life of him understand why the board bad taken up that attitude, for it was decidedly discourteous. Mr H. Simson said that ho felt Mr Fenion was not putting his case very accurately. The speaker said that he himself was responsible for the motion, but his idea at the time was that Mr Fenton had full access to the letter and was at liberty to take a copy. He did not see why the time of the secretary should be occupied in typing copies of the correspondence for every member of the board. Mr Penton, he added, had 'given the impression that he was not permitted to touch the letter at all. Mr Fenton; I’ve done nothing of the sort. I am not trying to say that I had no access to the letter, but I maintain that I should have been given a copy. Mr Jasper Clark objected to ‘‘being dominated by Mr Fenton.” Mr Harris said that he thought Mr Fenton was quit© justified in his contention and the board’s attitude apueared childish. It was clearly the secretary’s duty to provide copies of the correspondence.

The motion was then put to the vote and defeated by a large majority. Business again became formal and well ordered.