A BASELESS CHARGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4953, 19 March 1926, Page 2

A BASELESS CHARGE.

HOSPITAL BOARD ALLEGATION. MR. HALE LECTURES THE PRESS. ENTIRELY UNFOUNDED. The following is reprinted from the Thames Star: — A most serious allegation, subsequently preven to be entirely unwarranted, was made against the Thames Star at Friday’s meeting of the Thames Hospital Board. The allegation arose out of the publication of the following “local” on February 11: “The management of the! kitchen at the hospital was the subject of a strongly-worded report from the medical and nursing staff at this week’s board meeting. After consideration in committee it was decided to dispense with the services of the. cook and appoint a female cook and necessary assistants.” The charge referred to above was introduced by Mr G. Death, who alleged that a certain matter that had been dealt with “in committee” had since been reported in the “Thames Star.” There was a grave leakage somewhere. Mr Danby agreed, and maintained that the “Star” had transgressed. The Hauraki Plains, Gazette must be completely exonerated, and had respected the wishes and confidence •di. the board. Mr Haji also contended that certain information ■ had leaked out and had been published in the “Star.” ‘ MOTION WITHDRAWN. At this point the chairman of the board (Mr W. EL Hale) rose, and, addressing the “Star” representative, sa.id that apparently undue publicity had been given the discharge ’of the chef, and should not have happened, seeing that the matter had been dealt with “in committee.” He must insist that in future matters dealt with “in committee” be treated as sa.cred by the Press. . . Mr Death moved that in future the Press be wholly excluded ffcsm matters dealt with “in committee.”

Mr Danby thought nuch a. resoultipn w,ats unnecessary. The paper might have been but his experience was; that the “Star” had always been fa,irly disposed towards committee matters.

Mr Death intimated that he was prepared to withdraw his resolution if an apology was made .to the chef. The chairman contended that this; wa.s a matter between .the chef and the paper concerned. The resolution was then withdrawn, and the matter was not proceeded with further. Later in the day Mr Death asked if a letter had been received from the chef asking for a 1 testimonial. The chairman replied in the negative. Mr Death thought it must have gone astray, as he knew' one had been sent. GRAVE ACCUSATION. The impression conveyed to the mind of the reader by the above report of the discussion, which is taken practically word for. word from the Hauraki Plains Gazette, in order to obviate any suggestion of biap on the part of this is that the" Star” had been guilty of an unpardonable breach of journalistic etiquette in reporting a matter that had been taken “in camera.” No more serious clrarge could possibly be levelled at a newspaper, involving not only, as; it does, the personal honour of the members offi its staff, but that'of .the whole profession of journalism.

- The “Star” does not proposje to take this insult lying down, and now pro-, ceeds to inconteetibly prove that the charge is too utterly baseless' and fantastic for words.

CONCLUSIVE PROOF. At the conclusion of the' meeting the “Sta,r” representative examined the minutes of the previous meeting, and there found-the following:—“Moved that report; re chef be taken in committee.” “Moved that the board resume open meeting.” “Moved that the services of the chef be dispensed with and a female cook engaged.” This clearly proves .that, the resolution, was passed in open meeting, and that the paper in no way infringed by reporting the result of the discussion.

In any case, members of the board, who are supposed to have some knowledge of standing orders, should know that it, is compulsory to re-affirm decisions taken “in committee,’’ otherwise the proceedings would be invalidated. This' makes the action of the chairman in lecturing the Presjs on a matter of this Sort all the more extraordinary, and indicates an amazing ignorance of procedure.

Even when the “minute” referred to 7 was brought under the notice of the chairman he made no effort to put the matter right, by disproving his serious allegation, but pointed to the words “strongly-worded report” contained in the “local.”

The report was included in the correspondence, a copy of which was taken by the Press prior to the meeting in the usual way. The Preps, is privileged in these matters, and was perfectly justified and within its rights in referring to the report in this manner. CHALLENGE. TO MR. DEATH. From the “Gazette” report, Mr Death infers that “it was not the first time that committee business) had leaked out.” There is space available in these columns for Mr Death to prove that the “Star” hap 1 at any time been responsible, and. he is hereupon challenged to do-so. In view of the publicity accorded the incident by .the “Plains Gazette,” and the fact that. its representative was shown the “minute” above referred to, yet persisted in publishing a false charge against a newspaper circulating in the same district, the “Gazette” is- invited to publish the above in refutation. [Our reporter states that. he did not read the resolutions ’ referred ito, and merely reported, the discussion that took place at the meeting.—Ed.]