Page 4 Advertisements Column 5

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1010, 1 October 1903, Page 4

£* iSX. SS?S mm 15% ■;<;s 7.;>;Vr

See Public School Teachers Salary Act. —A deduction of 10 per cent, from the salary as described above shall bo made in the case of every uncertificated head or solo teacher or assistant, but not so as to reduce tho salary below £BO. . 4. Mr Quigley, however, when relieving at Waipawa about September, 1902, holding D 4 certificate in place of D 1 certificate required by tho department had no deduction made. In Mr Hogben’s early schomo there was somo such provision embodied, but it waß not agreed to ; not included in Act or regulation. . „ . 5. Tho assistant mistress’ place in Baikora was vacant from January, 1902, April 28th, practically four months, The only salary paid on account of this position was paid to Mrs Watson (relieving), sis weeks’ salary, amounting to about Aid in all. This was part of the regular salary, which amounted to ildß in four months. . ' Miss Stewart, mistress, received January salary, and on recommendation of School Committee was allowed to leave at end of January to take a position in Auckland. | Applications wore invited for a mistress, In tho moantimo Mrs Watson agreed to relieve, but could not stay longer than tho 31st March. On April the 15th the Committoo wrote stating that in the meantime they were without a mistress. Application had beon received and Miss Chappie appointed to commence duty on May Ist, as there was only two weeks to run. Mr Caughloy agreed to do the best he could. Instead of only £lB being paid Mrs Watson received £lllßs 2d and Miss Stewart £8 6s Bd, £2O 4s lOd in all, not £lB as stated. 6. When Mr Plank commenced duty at Elsthorpo he did not receive the Janupay. . . . Mr Plank commenced duty in Training School on January Ist; received £4 11s Bd, the Training School salary. In February he was sent to relievo ati Elsthorpe. Why should he receive salary for Elsthorpe for January when ho did not commenco duty there until February Ist, and had received Training School salary already ? ~ 7. Neither did Mr Auld, the previous teacher, receive salary for Elsthorpe. Mr Auld’s services ceased at Elsthorpe on December 31st, 1901, and he was appointed to Mangatua, and ho received salary at that school, 8. Miss Driscoll rolieved Mrs Barnett, Napier, in Fobruary of this year. Did not receive the salary belonging to the position. Mrs Barnett was paid on the old Board scale—Bliss Driscoll on new scalo fees 10 per cont., being uncertifieated. On August Ist received a letter from the department stating that her certificate had been issued as from January Ist, 1903. Tho difference has been paid. 9. When Blr Quigley was relieved at Ormond, 1902, he received for a week the full salary belonging to that headmastership, and on returning to tho Training School at the end of the month received his month’s pay there also. August Ist to sth Blr Quigley received £2 19s lOd for Ormond school; training school August sth to 31st, £3 16s sd. 10. Miss Balfour met with an accident. Bliss Balfour has been paid one month’s salary. 11. Mr Neill. He had been rofused sick pay, but on being informed by the Inspector-General that tho. money all aloDg had boon in tho Board’s hands Mr Neill went to the office and was paid. Mr Neill wrote to the Chairman applying for sick pay. I wrofco him on the matter of sick pay, which was under consideration. Mr Neill received his sick pay the same as tho others. 12. Mr Wilson paid for full month whilst sick. Mr Wilson’s absence was not reported until after ho received his salary. 13. With regard to other rnonoys tho facts showed that deductions contrary to tho department’s regulations have been made.

Not correct. 14. That these deductions are not enforced in every case. They are. 15. There is an utter absenco of uniformity. No such thing. 16. Again, the fact that in cases where teachers have insisted on being paid certain moneys they have received them. No instance given. Why? It is not necessary to reply to the remainder of the paragraph. 17. Advertisement. Mr Bigger, Patangata, found that on accepting an appointment under the Board the advertisement had been delusive as to salary. Tho advertisement stated salary about £9O per annum. Tho salary according to scale was £BB per annum, £2 less than advertisement, but Mr Bigger having no certificate was not entitled under tho regulations to more than £BO per annum—lo per cont being deducted. 18. Mr Cartwright found that on accepting an appointment under the Board the advertisement had been delusive as to salary. Tho advertisement inviting applications for tho appointment stated salary about £l3O per annum. Instead of £l3O be was paid for nine months at tho rate of £137 por annum. I might state that the Department fixed the average attendance upon which salary ought to be paid, , and the Board has no powor to alter. Salaries are paid and calculated under regulations of the Department, a copy of which has been supplied to every teacher in Hawke’s Bay —and they can calculate for themselves. In conclusion, the Institute seems to labor under the impression that the school fund is paid to the credit of the Board and remains there, no matter whether it has beon paid to teachers or not. This is not correct. Every quarter an adjustment is made, and on receipt of my return showing the amount paid by the Board to the teachers. Whenever a teacher has been absent, and no salary paid, the amount deducted from the next payment to the Board, and so on. Every penny paid to the Board for teachers’ salaries has to be accounted for, and cannot be used for any otkor purpose. In regard to payment of sick teachers, this has been a very vexed question, and has been the subject of a voluminous correspondence as regards relieving teachers. The department distinctly stated the Gd grant was only to be paid to relieving teachers. Last month came a letter stating that it could be used for payment of sick teachers or relieving teachers. On August 20th I received a letter to this , effect: The Department finds one salary according to scale. The board may allow the teacher on sick leave any amount up to full salary. The 6d per head capitation allowance is intended to cover the extra cost of such arrangements. Also I believo tho institute are under the impression that tho relieving teacher should be paid an amount to be fixed by the board. The following quotation from the department’s letter, viz.: —“ Believing teachers should be paid the amount of salary according to scale,” will settlo this matter. However, it is at the option of the board to pay the permanent teacher ono month or more on full or half pay.