In a recent session of the Rathkeale Board of Guardians, chaired by Mr P.L. O’Sullivan, a significant matter of contention was discussed—a motion to rescind the former decision of the board concerning the augmentation of salaries for union medical officers. The notice of motion, introduced by Mr P.M. Culhane, prompted a spirited debate among the attendees.
Dated January 17, 1906, the Local Government Board’s letter had brought to light the proposed increase in medical officers’ salaries in Rathkeale Union. The new scale suggested was as follows: an initial salary of £120 per year, rising by quinquennial increments of £4, until a maximum of £180 was reached, with the increase being applied retrospectively. The adjacent Croom and Kilmallock Unions had already adopted their respective scales, with Croom Union setting an initial salary of £150 per year, escalating by increments of £10 every quinquennial period of improved service, up to a maximum of £180. Kilmallock Union, on the other hand, adopted a scale with a maximum of £190 per year.
However, in the case of Rathkeale Union, the proposed scale would have required a medical officer to serve for 65 years before advancing from the initial £120 to the maximum £180. The Local Government Board recommended that the guardians reconsider the salaries, urging them to confirm a scale of £120 to £180 and include an allowance of £5 after each triennial period of approved service. This concession would enable a medical officer to reach the maximum of £180 after 36 years of approved service.
Mr Culhane introduced his notice of motion to the board, prompting a discussion that revealed some guardians’ lack of understanding about the proposed salary adjustments. Some members, like Mr McCoy, expressed doubts about the majority’s awareness of the previous decisions. Mr Hewson highlighted that the guardians seemed uninterested in understanding the matter.
The Clerk, Mr Naughton, presented the salary breakdown for medical officers under the new scale, highlighting their individual years of service and resulting salary increases. A lively exchange followed, with differing opinions on whether to satisfy the Local Government Board or retain the present arrangement. Despite the debate, a poll was taken, with 14 members voting for the motion and 24 members voting against it, resulting in the motion’s defeat. The initial action taken by the board to increase medical officers’ salaries was thus confirmed.
In response, Dr Hayes expressed gratitude on behalf of the medical officers for the kindness and support they had received from the guardians. The debate shed light on the complexities of salary adjustments and the challenges faced by the guardians in striking a balance between the demands of the Local Government Board and the interests of the medical officers and the community.
Limerick Echo – Tuesday 06 February 1906
