THE THAMES HOSPITAL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4625, 14 November 1923, Page 4

THE THAMES HOSPITAL.

THE MATRON’S DISMISSAL. DEPUTATION BEFORE BOARD. At the meeting ofi the Thames Hospital , Board on Monday afternoon the deputation appointed by a public mooting of Thames residents was present in regard to the matron’s dismissal. The deputation comprised Messrs T. W. Rhodes., M.P., H. Lowe, W. McCullough, G. H. A. Cribb, Rev. J. Milne, Rev. R. J. Beck, and Mesdames C. Johnson and F. Davies. Mr Rhodes introduced the deputation, and said that it had been appointed by one of the largest and most representative meetings eve? held in Thames. .That meeting had passed a resolution, a copy of which had been forwarded to the Board, and .the deputation came in support of the resolution and to ask that the board reconsider the question and retain the services of the matron. There way np doubt that the matron’s services were appreciated by the people of Thames, and also by the board, as evidenced by its letter. It| was at one time thought that a matron with dual certificates would be necessary to control the two institutions, butt he had in his possession a letter from .the Health Department stating that this was not necessary. In other hospitals only the sister in charge of! the maternity ward had a maternity certificate. In that light the deputation would ask the board to reconsider the case. As. the maternity ward was on one side of the street and the hospital on the other i,t would be necessary to have a sister in charge who possessed a certificate. The public meeting had voiced the opinion that the matron be retained, and the deputation thought that the board should do as asked. Mr H. Lowe said that he endorsed the previous speaker’s remarks, but did not come to“ criticise the board. Asm member of a local body he did not feel that he should do so, as he did not know what had actuated the board. The matron had proved a good, matron, and had won the respect, admiration, and gratitude of a large number of people. These people felt it would be detrimental to part with her. He had personally known the members of the Board for a number of years and felt that the matter could safely be left in their hands. In regard to the policy of the Beard, a point was worth considering : Was it worth while parting with a, matron who had proved satisfactory because she did ndt possess all the certificates. In reply, Mr Kennedy said that the Board was just as sorry to part with fihe matron as were the people of Thames, but lie wished to emphatically protest against the attitude taken by a section of the people of Thames. He would defy any person to say that any employee of the board had not received justice. He did not object ,t® t,he deputation asking for the retention of the matron, but he took strong exception to the action of those people who criticised the board by writing anonymous letters to the press. Mr Brenan asked if the deputation advocated the control of the annex by tiyo women, Mr Rhodes said that as a roa,d separated the two wards it would be necessary to appoint a qualified sister in charge of the maternity annex. Mr Brenan asked if the deputation had thoiight of the advisability of having two women in charge of one ward Mr Rhodes said that the deputation had come at the request of a large number of people, and had nothing to do with the correspondence in the press. Mr Kennedy asked if the people of Thames always rose up in such a manner when a public servant was dismissed. Mr Rhodes said that whenever the public of Thames thought that an injustice had been done he knew of no community that rose up so spontaneously, and his knowledge extended for over 50 years. The following statement was then made by the chairman:— “Allow me to express my pleasure at the. moderate and courteous expression of your requests, as voiced by Mr Rhodes and Mr Lowe. As ratepayers of this hospital district yon are quite within your rights in approaching the Hospital Board as a deputation. “I cannot but notice and point out, however, that when in a deputation there , are chairmen of two local bodies of the district who Would suggest, to the chairman and members of another local body how they should discharge their duties that it is a proceeding of very debatable propriety. “Presuming that the newspaper reports were correct; reports—T was bound to express surprise at a statement now twice made by the Rev. Buck suggesting ‘hole and corner’ methods, or, in other words, questionable and dishonourable methods to members of the Board —I would tell Mr Beck very plainly that the members of the Hospital Board are honourable men, who enjoy the entire confidence of the ratepayers of their respective districts. Surely it; is nor necessary to introduce such suggestive language when discussing a matter that could and should be approached in a courteous, dispassionate manner. On behalf of the members of this board I resent such questionable insinuations, whether made by a reverend gentleman or anyone else. They are unworthy. “Now, let me assure the members of the deputation, and through you the citizens whom you repi esent, that in that matter of the matron of the hospital and the desirability of having one with the double qualifications, that this decision was not arrived at hastily or without, mature and very full consideration. “The Board’s aim always has been, the maximum of efficiency in administration and equipment, combined with economy. “It was during the term of the late Mr McCormack’s chairmanship that the provision of a maternity annex was decided on. To him it was an urgent necessity, and by consultation with the authorities and the heads

of similar institutions in other parte of the Dominion he formed the very definite opinion, which ,w as shared by the previous board, that; when the maternity annex was built at Thames it was desirable in the interests of efficient control and economical management that a matron holding the double qualifications should preside over both the hospital and maternity annex. The policy of single control was held by the late chairman and previous board, and I might say that the considered judgment of this board is the endorsement of that policy. “Having in mind the position of the building at Thames, the arrangement and supervision of staff necessary, and the greater question of maximum efficiency in the supervision of both institutions and the maintenance of discipline in control, the Board adhered to the policy of the previous board in deciding that when the maternity annex was opened a matroa with double qualifications • should have full control. At the meeting of the hoard held on March 7 of this year it was definitely known that the equipping of the maternity annex could be arranged for, and the question of matron was again considered. A full board was present, including the three representatives of the Thames Borough, Messrs Rowe, Mackay, and the late M' Baker. Of that meeting the following minute is in the minute book. After a long discussion the chairman stated that in fairness th the matron he thought that she should be informed that as the board nad decided to go on with the maternity hospital the board would require the services of a doubly qualified matron —one with a maternity certificate. As the present matron did not have a maternity certificate the members considered that it would be advisable to inform her of its intention. The following resolution was then carried without dissent : That the chairman have authority to interview the matron re the Board appointing a matron with a maternity certificate when the maternity hospital is ready.’ That resolution was confirmed by the full board, and if the press did not report; it the board cannot be blamed, and accused of ‘hole and corner’ methods. I conveyed that resolution to the matron personally within a few days of the meeting, and suggested to her the wisdom of her applying for any portion offering that she considered suitable. I understand that the matron did apply for a position, but without success.

“At last month’s meeting of the board held on October 8 the contractor for the maternity annex notified the boar,d that the building would be ready for occupation in mid December. The board then, passed a resolution : ‘That the board, while appreciating the splendid services rendered to board by the matron, regrets that owing to the opening in the near future of the maternity home, and the matron not possessing the necessary qualifications .to retain control of the whole institution, and it being part of the board’s policy to have a matroa with double qualifications, it is the intention of the board to appoint a qualified matron as from December 1 next, the matron to be informed that her engagement would terminate on November 30.” “This resolution was then conveyed to the matron, seven months after she had been advised by me of the board’s intentions. You will therefore see, ladies and gentlemen, that in this matter the board has done everything possible to consider the matron’s feelings, and has not —as some have suggested—dismissed her without due notice. This board has endorsed and put into effect the policy of an, earlier board, and Js fully convinced that in the interests of efficient supervision and economical administration it is desirable that .a matron with double qualifications shall be appointed. “This view is endorsed by the medical superintendent. Ladies and ger.tiemen, your representations will be carefully considered by the board, and its decision communicated to His Worship the Mayor,” Mr Lowe said he. assumed that the statement had been written prior to the arrival, of the deputation. He had prefaced his remarks by saying that he would refrain from any personalities and would not criticise the board. The chairman said that the statement had been written the previous dav, but he still held that it applied. The Thames County Council had .a representative on the board, and the chairman should have ascertained the position. Representations had been made to the chairman of the Hauraki Plains County Council to be present at the public meeting, but he had made inquiries and had consequently declined. Mr Rhodes said he very much regretted that the matter had been prejudiced by the chairman, who had ab.o tried to build up a case. He thanked the board for the hearing given the deputation, and expressed the hope that the board would thoroughly reconsider the matter. The deputation then withdrew. The chairman said that the medical superintendent was present to give his opinion as to the desirability of the matron holding the two certificates. Mr Hall said that in fairsesA to the doctor the board should go into committee .to hear his recommendation. He moved in that direction, and Mr Brenan seconded. Mr G. Death opposed going into committee, and was., supported by Mr McKay. The chairman said that it was only in fairness to the doctor that his remarks should be heard in privateThe doctor had already expressed the opinion to him that a matron in charge of a dual hospital should possess both certificates. He asked the doctor if that was not so, and the doctor said "yes.” Mr McKay asked why the doctor had been invited to be present. The chairman said that, it was at his invitation, and his action was approved on the motion qf Mr Brenan, seconded by Mr Robinson. The resolution that standing orders be suspended was carried. On resuming open meeting the

HI7M

chairman said that the board should now consider the request of ithe deputation. Mr Hall said that the matter had been discussed at previous meetings, and he was not going to change his views. He moved that the previous resolution be endorsed. He said that the board should adhere to its previous decision that a matron holding a maternity certificate should be appointed, and that the deputation should be informed that the board would not change its opinion. Personally? he liked the matron, and thought that she 'had fulfilled her position admirably, but he would support the policy of the boatd that a matron should have dual certificates. He felt no antagonism towards the matron, but felt, considering the question of efficiency, that, he should support the resolution. > Mr Hale, in supporting the resolution, regretted that the connection was to be severed, but thought the time would come sooner or later wncn she would have to go. The board had to study economy and had to go on with the maternity ward. In his opinion it would be some time before the ward would be self-support-ing. It was undesirable to have two women in charge of a ward. Mr Brenan said he considered that the people of Thames were justified in expressing their opinion not by anonymous letters in the press, but .by coming before the board. He did not hold that they should dictate the policy. After hearing the Mayor and the county chairman he could see no reason .why the board should change its view, and he felt he would be doing the right thing by supporting the motion. Mr Hall expressed the opinion that •perhaps the chairman had been too harsh in censuring the chairmen of the other local bodies, as they weie present as representatives of a pub lie meeting. Mr Danby said that as a representative of the Thames people on the board he had approached the subject, aware that it was a serious matter. The question of administration of the maternity annex had been decided prior to his taking a seat on the board, and he understood that the board then had information to justify its decision. He considered (now that it would be unwise in the interests of the matron and the institution that she should remain. It seemed to him, on hearing the discussion when in committee, that ithe time had come when a thorough review of the administration should be made. He had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be unwise for tlie present matron to remain and that it would be preferable to have a new matron, who would reorganise. Mr Kennedy said that the board had no knowledge of anything wrong with the hospital. Only during the last few months had there been any sus? picion pt friction. The board members had done .their best, and were very sorry to see the matron go, but they considered it advisable. Mr McKay said that the policy of

the board was supposed to have been made on March 7. No one had evei explained when the policy had been adopted. On March 7 a. round-table conference was held, but no resolution was carried. . Mr Danby pointed out that a motion was carried unanimously. Mr McKay asked why no intimation had been given the matron when appointed that the boards policy required a woman with two certificates. Mr E. N. Miller said that his position was a difficult one, as the present meeting was the first one since his appointment. He had difficulty in understanding the ; reason for the resolution passed at the previous meeting, arid it appeared, to him that the board was labouring under a misapprehension. Its letter said that the reason for dismissing the matron was her lack of qualifications. Now it was known that these were not absolutely necessary, and, consequently, the reason fell Qp the ground. In regard to the board’s policy, he contended that it would not have had that policy had it known in Marcn that double qualifications were not necessary. He ’ was sorry the position had arisen, because he considered that the board had not acted in the manner it should. In view of the circumstances, however, he could not see any*reason why the resolution .should not be adopted. The chairman said he regretted that his reply to the deputation had not been approved of. Under the circumstances he did not think it too severe, in regard to the resolution passed in committee at .the last] meeting. he was sorry that the confirming of it was overlooked owing to the eagerness of members to finish the business and get away by train. The board had endeavoured tp save the matron unnecessary publicity, and in its earnestness had been grossly misrepresented. The resolution as proposed by Mr Hall and seconded by Mr Brenan was elaborated to read: “That the board, having heard and having fully considered the representations of the deputation, adheres to its previous decision te appoint a matron possessing the desirable qualifications,, capable of controlling a maternity annex in conjunction with the general hospital, and that the deputation be informed of this decision.” On being put to the meeting .the motion was carried, Mr McKay disseuiing. Tne chairman said .that the statement made in his reply to the deputation had been doubted. The establishment of a maternity ward had been under review for eight years, but, owing to the financial stringency it had never been brought forward *s a likely proposition until lately, when the high school building was acquired. Under the circumstances the board could not be accused of not informing the matron when appointing her that the annex was to be opened. . Messrs Hall, Death, Robinson, Kennedy, and Brenan endorsed this.