PARK ISLAND HOME

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 122, 18 May 1932, Page 5

PARK ISLAND HOME

And Secession Move

ON PART OF WAIPAWA BOARD

ENDORSEMENT OF LOCAL VIEWS

At the monthly meeting of the Waipawa Hospital Board held to-day in Waipukurau considerable discussion took place in regard to the position in regard to the Park Island Old People’s Home in respect of the liability of the Board for its maintenance, and the secession movement recently initiated by the board.

Legal Opinion.

Messrs Lee, Mackie, Harker and McKay writing in connection with the board’s desire to secede, from the Hawke’s Bay Board in regard to the maintenance of old people from the board’s district, who prior to the earthquake of February 3, 1931, were kept at Park Island home, and were now being kept by the Wairarapa Hospital Board, observed that the committee of management had formally resolved that the board be not allowed to secede on the ground that it is bound to a system of joint management for a. period of ten years from April, 1927, by an agreement between the three boards dated November 30, 1827. It was advised that express provision to maintain and carry on the Home, also.to maintain new wards and to make repairs, etc., was made, but there is no provision for the erection of a new home. The whole of the agreement makes express reference to the Home, its objects and methods of management, and in the solicitors’ opinion the existence of the Home is essential for the performance of the contract, and the destruction of the Home discharges the contract.

Director-General of Health’s views In a recent letter, Dr. Watt stated: —“With reference to your letter of the 20th April, I forward for your information copy of a letter sent to the Park Island Committee in which I have endeavoured to suggest a practicable means of adjusting present difficulties. I may say that the Department would view with great regret the complete termination of the joint scheme regarding old people’s accommodation, and I express the hope that every effort will be made by the joint Boards to permit of its coming into full and equitable operation when adequate accommodation is again available.” The Director-General of Health, Dr. M. H. Watt, writing to the secretary of the Park Island Committee, states: “With reference to your letter of the 30th April, I And on enquiry that a legal opinion is being obtained by the Hospital Boards’ Association as to whether the Waipawa Hospital Board is within its rights in withdrawing from your committee. This aspect appears to be complicated by the fact of the destruction of the Home in the earthquake. However, I must defer comment on the legal aspect until I have been-, able to peruse the opinion in question. With regard to the general aspect, however I would suggest to your committee that it carefully consider whether the present special circumstances do not call for a temporary modification of the terms of the agreement. The Waipawa Hospital Board points out that although it is contributing towards the maintenance of the old people in Greytown in the proportion that its rateable capital valuation bears to that of the three districts the number of inmates from its district is relatively much lower. At the same time that board, it is stated, is compelled to maintain its its hospital at Waipukurau, several old people who should appropriately be accommdated at an old people’s home. In this connection, I take it that your Committee received a copy of the report made by the chairman and secretary of the Waipawa Board following a visit to Greytown on the' sth April. I would suggest that pending the restoration of Park Island Home, each, contributing Board agree to p.ay for institutional maintenance of old people from its district. As regards those old people whose domicile cannot be fixed definitely and who are the joint responsibility of the three boards I would further suggest That the net cost of maintywee be ,; shared by the three boards T ■opUwion to respective rateable capital valuations. —-M. H. Watt. t

The chairman (Mr. W. H. Rathbone). said that the bbard’6 solicitors had confirmed the board’s views. The only legal member on the Hawke's Bay Board was at variance with the

opinion that board had received from the Crown Law Office. The letter from the Director-General of Health showed that he was on side as to the Waipawa Board’s viewpoint. “This board does not want to be antagonistic to the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board," said the chairman, "but wants the best conditions possible.” Various points at issue were the subject of general comment by members of the board, who agreed that the advices received confirmed them in the attitude already adopted. Motion By Chairman

The chairman submitted the following resolution: — "That the .Waipawa Hospital Board, having sought legal advice, maintains that it is within its rights in seceding from the Park Island Joint Committee, as the Park Island Home is not now functioning; but, in view of advice received from the Director-General of Health in his letter to the Park Island Committee dated 14th May, 1932, is prepared to enter into a fresh agreement along the lines suggested by the DirectorGeneral of Health, i.e., that each of the three contributory boards pays for the miantenance of its own inmates, and that the cost Of maintenance of undomiciled inmates and of any over-head charges be shared by the three contributory Boards in proportion to the respective rateable capital valuations.” Further, the chairman moved: “That the residential qualifications of all ex-Park Island inmates now maintained in other institutions to be decided by a committee consisting of the chairmen and secretaries of the three contributory Boards with an officer of the Health Department as arbitrator if necessary.” '/Mai, Mr. D. Eddy seconded the mofe proposed, which were unanimously carried.

The secretary pointed out that the Hawke’s Bay district had a population of 40,000, whereas the Waipawa and Dannevirke districts had only 20,000. “How, therefore,” he asked, “could the number of patients treated be the same?” Members concurred with this observation.

Mr. Atkins suggested that a; fresh agreement be prepared in the event of the Home being re-erected, but the chairman pointed out that the; point was covered in the resolution just passed. ,i • '<

In regard to patients in the Waipukurau Hospital who should be inmates of the Park Island Home, Mr. Hawthorn held that the cost of their keep should be deducted, but the chairman showed that all the boards were in a similar position as the result of the Home having been destroyed by earthquake. In reply to an inquiry by Mr. Glenny, it was stated by the secretary that the amount of £4OOO levied was based on the capital valuation of the three areas.

The Park Island Committee forwarded an advice stating that the board’s decision to secede from the agreement would not be countenanced.

The Park Island Committee advised that £4OOO will be called up from the contributory boards for the ensuing year, of which the Waipawa Board’s proportion is £1049 19s 4d.