“ COMPLAINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO BOARD MEETING.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18467, 19 May 1928, Page 4

“ COMPLAINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO BOARD MEETING.”

CRITICISM OF M’LEAN INSTITUTE ANSWERED. A reply to statements contained in a letter which Mr G. A. U. Tapper, honorary treasurer to the M’Lean Institute, wrote to the Board of Governors of the institute prior to his departure for England recently, and published with his consent in the “Lyttelton Times/’ was made by the Mayor, the Rev J. K. Archer, at yesterday afternoon's meeting of the board. The letter dealt with certain matters in connection with the finances of the institute. The Mayor said that the Finance Committee, of which Mr 11. D. Acland was chairman, was of opinion that some statement ought to be made by himself as chairman of the board in regard to Mr Tapper’s letter. The feeling of the committee was that, while it did not wish to enter into any controversy with Mr Tapper, particularly in his absence, his letter contained statements which were given as facts, but which, in the opinion of the Finance Committee, were not facts, and Che public, therefore, should be made aware of the true position. “First of all,” the Mayor proceeded, “the Finance Committee wishes to say that it is ah extremely unfortunate thing that Mr Tapper felt it his duty to hand his letter to the newspapers for publication before we, as members of the board, had seen it and had had an opportunity of considering it. The fact that we were forced to deal with it in his absence is regarded by the committee as all the more unfortunate, because, just on the eve of his departure, Mr Tapper had a long conversation with the chairman of the Finance Committee, and he then made no reference to the fact that he intended making any public statements regarding the board’s affairs.” *

Mrs W. S. Bean: Was the whole of the letter published, or only part of

The, Mayor said that the letter had been published in full. On the question of finance, Mr Tapper said that the financial position, so far as the board was concerned, was very much improved since he had become honorary treasurer. That was quite true, but the Finance Committee claimed that it was very largely due to its policy of economy, quite apart from what Mr Tapper did. He shared in the committee’s policy, but was not responsible for it. Mr Tapper claimed that he had instituted the policy of placing two sisters in a room, but the facts were that arrangements had been made for. that to be done before Mr Tapper became a member of the board.

The Mayor went on to say that Mr Tapper also claimed that he was the one who suggested that, by re-arranging the accommodation, the board could, at the same cost, provide for manv more ladies than it was able to take at present. The facts were that, for many years past, the board had been trying to find a way out of that difficulty. One. of its greatest difficulties was the possession of “Holly Lea,” but the .board had not found it possible to arrange for the exchange of that property for other more suitable properties owing to the great difficulty of finding a purchaser for “Holly Lea.” Perhaps the most serious statement contained in Mr Tapper’s letter was his reference to the business in connection with a certain beneficiary. Mr Tapper suggested that the board not only acted contrary to his advice, but without obtaining legal advice, and that its action was contrary to the terms of the late Mr M’Lean’s will. Whatever might be said as to the merits or demerits of the treatment of that beneficiary, all that was done by the board was in accordance with legal advice. The board had never acted without obtaining legal advice, and it had a legal opinion that would guide it in the future. With regard to auditing the balancesheet, it waS the opinion of the Finance Committee that it had never made any' payments contrary to the terms of the will. It had always acted strictly in accordance with the terms of the will and in accordance with the instructions of the solicitors to the estate.

“The feeling of the Finance Committee,” said the Mayor, “is that, if Mr Tapper had any complaints to make, he should have made them at a meeting of the board, so that they could have been discussed in his presence, instead of sending a statement to the newspapers and making it necessary for the board to make a reply in his absence.”

There was no discussion following the Mayor’s statement, and he remarked that the matter could be regarded as having been disposed of. A letter was received from Mr W. J. Hunter, solicitor, asking to be allowed to wait on the board in connection with the affairs of the beneficiary referred to by Mr Tapper. Mr Hunter stated that certain proposals made by the solicitors to the estate were not satisfactory to his client, and, 'as the had -dragged on for a considerable time, he wished to have it settled without further delay. The letter did not state the nature of the proposals to which Mr Hunter objected. Mr H. J. Otley said he strongly objected to the tone of Mr Hunter’s letter. What was being done in regard to the particular beneficiary referred to was, he considered, entirely the board's business and not Mr Hunter’s “If they have got a claim against the board, let them take action,” said Mr Otley.- He said he thought the board had quite made up its mind what it was going to do in regard to the case. The Mayor asked whether the meeting was prepared to hear Mr Hunter. Mr Otley said he thought Mr Hunter had better be heard in committee. He did not want any dirty linen washed in public. A motion that the board go into committee was carried, and Mr Hunter was invited to make a statement to the board. Those present at the meeting, in addition to the M»vor, were:—Mrs W R. Bean, Bishop West-Watson. Bishop Brodie, the Rev W. T. Blight and Messrs H. J. Otley and G. Harper. Leave of absence was granted to the Rev N. L. Webster, Mrs T. H. Wilson and Messrs H. D. Acland, IT. A. Young, S. , and G. A. U. Tapper.