HOSPITAL LOAN

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 65, 18 April 1944, Page 5

HOSPITAL LOAN

STONEWALL TACTICS FAIL NOTICE OF MOTION LAPSES The third attempt by Mr C. H. McCready to stonewall the proposed new improvement loan * sponsored by the Whfikatane Hospital Board to the extent of £45,000, collapsed at yesterday's! meeting when his notice of motion, filed nearly a month ago, that the decision to adtopt the amended plans be rescinded' was defeated by five votes to two. Speaking to his motion Mr Mc"Cready said his fundamental reason for opposing the loan> was the same as it had always been. The unfairness of the hospital rate and the fact that the ratepayers had not been given the full story of the de-» liberations of the Board with regard to the loan. There was however an •election to be held very shortly and jie suggested that the. whole question could be deferred until after that date, when any doubts in the :jninds of members as to whether they should proceed with the loan would be dispelled. If the ratepayers wanted the loan, they would put the ;Board back, if not they would be replaced. Strong Criticism) Mr McCready strongly criticised ■ what he termed the method of compromise used by the Board when adjusting the. new basis of the -amended plans with the lowest tenderer. The tender system he said was the only means of protecting the public against a racket, and if • any alterations were to be made, it . should have iDeen a case of calling fresh tenders altogether. Only by this method could the air be cleared and the ratepayers shown exactly wliat was happening to theii money. The Board should at least seek a mandate fro.m the ratepayers by awaiting the outcome nf the •election. In seconding, Mr A. F. MeGou,/gan. contended t.Uat as they were •on the verge of a poll it would be sensible and wise to learn something •of the public mind on the question before actually adopting it. There had been too much opposition to the -scheme for the Board to be completely unsensible to it. Opotiki had turned its proposal dowm and now refused to go ahead with it. If all Boards and local bodies had ;xnade a similar stand they might have got somewhere by now, He realised the desperate state of the hospital but at the same time he did not think the Board would be justified in proceeding with the elections -so close. Board's* Duty Clear Mr Savage said he had heard no '"fresh arguments that would cause 3iim to change his mind on the -subject. They had been elected mem bers of the Board to make provision for the sick in the Whakatane district and had now arrived at a state -of affairs when' the institution was hopelessly overcrowded. En his 27 .years as a member, the Board had -always endeavoured to* do its utmost for those who Avere ailing. He saw jio reason why it should fall down on the job now. The hospital was firstly for the benefit of the. patients -and then for the ratepayers. He •could say that it had been run as well as any other hospital in New Zealand. Hei agreed with Mr McCready that the method of finance was not right, but their first duty was to the sick and ailing. Their -opinion as private ratepayers mighl be entirely different.. He uTged that the scheme be proceeded with as any delay would automatically in* -crease the cost. He added that the chairman of the Opotiki Board had definitely informed him that that .Board intended proceeding with their scheme in spite of all the opposition. Mr McCready: If the chairman :says that, I'm afraid after the election he. won't be there to carry it through. Chairman's Remarks The chairman, Mr L., Buddie, said he was surprised that no more cogent reasons had been, put forwarc in support, for the recintion. He wanted to safeguard the Board against any allegation that, this loan had been the subject of any undue haste. Two years ago the question of Increased accommodation had -been brought up and it seemed t( have taken an inordinate length of time to arrive at a stage of approval. It could not therefore be suggested that the Board was in, any way rushing the. matter through before the election. In refutation of Mr McCready's suggestion that there had ben anything illegal about the Board's dealing with the lowest tenderers when adjustments had to be made, he (Continued In next column)

could say that the. procedure had been perfectly proper. The Board's architect had been present and he had gone carefully into the whole j subject and made the adjustments! in the Board's interests. Not be:ing a rating authority the Board had to rely on levies and subsidies in return for which it carried out the hospital and health services of the district. It had adhered to that policy right throughout the piece and he trusted that its 1 decision that day would soon be. consumated by the accumulation of materials on the site and the sound of hammers at a very early date. Replying Mr McCready emphasised that that any variation, of the tender system was illegal. Why else had it been 'implimented if not to protect the public. There was something wrong when £5000 could be chipped off the original price. The chairman: That's not right. There have been substantial, reductions in materials. Mr McCready enquired if the law of tender had been altered that such things should now be allowed without the calling of fresh tenders. It was a hit and run method of conducting the Board's affairs. He asked why the new plans did not include a laboratory, a first essential in any hospital. At the present. time all samples had to be sent to Gisborne and back before a disease could be diagnosed. None of the members had been caught, as he had been and he considered it vital to have a bacteriologist on the spot. The chairman: Would you vote, for installing a laboratory? Mr McCready: Certainly I'd vote for it. 'Though there is a first class man in. the district who could carry out the work if he were approached! He went on to say that he was merely voicing the opinion of the ratepayers of his district who were apparently not in the hunt as faras the Board was concerned. Their only chance of a voice in the subject was by means of the election next May and he thought the Board in fairness to itself should wait till then. On the motion being put to the meeting it was lost by 5 votes (Chairman's, Messrs Suckling, Savage and Barr and Mrs Haultain) to 2 (Messrs McCready and McGougan). (We have been informed l that a further notice of motion has been lodged by Mr McCready indicating his intention to move at the next meeting that the decision to accept the lowest . tenderers amended price be rescinded and asking information from the Controller and the Auditor General as to the legality of the Board's acceptance of a tendler so substantially amendcd. Ed.)