Let­ters to the edi­tor

Northern Outlook - - WHAT’S ON -

after-hours ser­vice in Ran­giora to serve the needs of North Can­ter­bury res­i­dents.

To sim­ply say the after-hours surgery is less than an hour away by car does not take into ac­count the long wait­ing times which ill pa­tients have to en­dure be­cause of the high de­mand for ser­vices at the 24-hour surgery after hours.

Also an after-hours med­i­cal ser­vice should be avail­able in Ran­giora so that el­derly or un­well peo­ple and those that live alone, who may not be able to trans­port them­selves to Christchurch, do not have to find a way to travel to and from Christchurch for treat­ment.

The lo­cal doc­tors should be pro­vid­ing the ap­pro­pri­ate and timely duty of care for their pa­tients after hours.

Bill Poys­den Ran­giora

never been specif­i­cally made clear to the school or the com­mu­nity.

For the ben­e­fit of read­ers, Moore and Ste­wart have a pre­vi­ous back­ground at Marl­bor­ough Girls Col­lege.

Progress at the school post Can­ter­bury Earth­quakes was ham­pered by a lack of clear di­rec­tion by the Min­istry on in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the Ed­u­ca­tion Lands Act, which im­pacted di­rectly on the use of as­sets built up over gen­er­a­tions by the school.

As the Min­istry in­di­cate that they don’t record meet­ings or is­sue min­utes thereof, it is a lit­tle dif­fi­cult to un­der­stand how they can de­ter­mine ‘‘fur­ther progress was needed’’.

It is un­der­stood that two pre­vi­ous Board mem­bers whom re­signed, and it seems desta­bilised the Board in the process prior to elec­tions, now sit on the Com­mis­sion­ers un­demo­crat­i­cally ap­pointed ‘Com­mu­nity Panel’ which I be­lieve you re­fer to as ‘‘mem­bers of the school com­mu­nity’’.

Ms Casey, in her Ed­u­ca­tion Re­port to Ms Parata, who is­sued the no­tice to dis­solve a demo­crat­i­cally elected Board, de­tailed that Moore had ‘‘in­ter­viewed lo­cal coun­cil­lors’’. From re­search, this ap­pears not to be true.

As Prin­ci­pal for 13 years, Ms Bur­rows, the Board and the school had made fan­tas­tic progress which ben­e­fit­ted the stu­dents, the school and the com­mu­nity.

Moore’s re­port was is­sued to the Min­istry al­most three weeks prior to the Board’s dis­so­lu­tion. Moore’s ‘‘damn­ing re­port’’ was judged by the Em­ploy­ment Re­la­tions Au­thor­ity Hear­ing Mem­ber (an Em­ploy­ment Lawyer) to con­tain bias and pre­de­ter­mi­na­tion.

Moore was to is­sue the re­port to her em­ployer (the Board) but she in­stead is­sued it di­rect to the Min­istry.

Moore was con­tracted to ‘pro­vide ad­vice to the Board of Trus­tees on Gov­er­nance mat­ters re­lat­ing to their role as a good em­ployer’ and was cer­tainly not en­gaged to show her re­port to the Se­nior Lead­er­ship Team or is­sue it to the Min­istry.

Bur­rows and the Board never saw the re­port prior to the Board dis­so­lu­tion but it was shown to mem­bers of the Se­nior Lead­er­ship Team who were told not to dis­cuss it with Bur­rows, who was over­seas at the time it was is­sued.

The rea­sons the Com­mis­sioner dis­missed Ms Bur­rows were:

Ms Bur­rows re­lease of con­fi­den­tial doc­u­ments or her as­sist­ing oth­ers to re­lease con­fi­den­tial doc­u­ments to the me­dia. The ERA Mem­ber ruled this was not a find­ing the com­mis­sioner could make in all the cir­cum­stances;

Ms Bur­rows ac­cess­ing her com­puter when she had a clear and law­ful di­rec­tion not to and in cir­cum­stances where she had agreed not to. The ERA Mem­ber ruled that there was ab­sence of a clear di­rec­tion;

Ms Bur­rows pre­sent­ing to the com­mis­sioner for her sig­na­ture Board min­utes which Ms Bur­rows knew were in­cor­rect. the ERA Mem­ber ruled that this was not a con­clu­sion an em­ployer act­ing fairly and rea­son­able could reach in all the cir­cum­stances. The ERA con­cluded that the Com­mis­sioner had un­jus­ti­fi­ably dis­missed Bur­rows.

Paul Finch Ran­giora

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.