The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2032, 18 March 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1907.

The Njapier “Telegraph” takes the Gisborne members of the Education Board to task for not having supported the recalcitrant members of the Board who left the last meeting in a body because the Chairman ruled against their wishes on a matter governed by the regulations. Though the matters in dispute are of some considerable interest from a jurist’s point’ of view, we would hardly have thought it necessary to refer to the matter were, it not that the “ Telegraph” has taken a parochial view of the matter and endeavours to set up further discussion by suggesting that the action of the Gisborne members in supporting the Chairman was due to the fact that they were Northern members, and not from any honest convictions (right or wrong) that they entertained to guide their votes. This, we are convinced, is absolutely wrong, and the “Telegraph” should effer its apologies for having suggested it. If there is my ground whatever for the charge it rests solely upon the fact that, the three Gisborne members were on the same side, and that they have often done before without any suspicion of parochial collusion. It was a mere coincidence, and nothing more, and the fact that the Chairman of the Board, who is not a Gisborne member, was on the same side robs tho incident of any grounds whatever for the “Telegraph’s” accusation. Now the whole point of those members’ offending is that they have supported the Chairman of the Board against the onslaughts of five members of the Board who, according to tho “Telegraph’s” report of the proceedings, showed a disposition to run the business on their own account irrespective of the Chairman’s authority or tho provisions of the Board’s regulations. If a Chairman’s ruling is not to he obeyed it may reasonably be asked what a Chairman has been appointed for at all? And in this case the ruling ho gave was fortified by legal opinion in one case, yet those members persisted in tlieir obstructive tactics. If they had the interests of education really at heart they would have accepted the ruling gracefully, and with something like proper decorum, and if they still held contrary opinions there was a course open to them to have the matter tested without in any way sacrificing the good feeling that ought always to exist in a public body of that description. If those members had a grievance at all in regard to the signing of the minutes, their grievance was against the wording of the Act which stipulates that the minutes shall be read and signed by the Chariman, and makes

no provision for tho Board’s approval thereof boloro his signature is appended. But the real grievance was not so much tho form of procedure in that rospoct so much ns tho laet that a notico of motion had not appeared therein. This notico of motion asked that tlio conduct of tho Chairman “bo taken into consideration,” and apart from its offensive tone, which tho Chairman very pro"porly took notico of and rojected it in consequence, it 1 is not usual or obligatory to record notices of motion in minutes of proceedings. This view tho Gisborne members, who wore not personally concerned in tho dispute, very properly took, and voted with the Chairman without in tho smallest degroo being influenced by ho laet that they wero representatives of this portion of tho district. At another stago of tho proceedings those members who wanted to act in contravention of the Education Act, loft tho mooting in a body bocauso tho Chairman ruled that the Board’s regulations debarred them from adding tho namo of an applicant to tho alI ready full list recommended by tho Solcction Committee. Hero again the Chairman was right, and tho throo Gisborne members who supported him wore right also, and yet they arc soused of having “sot themselves dotorminodly in opposition to tho wishes of tho Hawke’s Bay members.” Had tlioy done anything olso than what they did tlioy might with greater consistency bo accused of a graver cliargo than that of opposing tho wishes of a section of members who claim to ovortlirow tho authority of tho Chairman, tho law, and the regulations which they are in duty bound to respect. Tho “Telegraph,” with curious reasoning, claims that because those fivo members constitute a majority-of tho Board, their wishes should dominate the law and the regulations, and loavo tho Chairman without any authority whatever. This is an interpretation of' majority rule that oven tho “Telegraph” in cooler moments would hardly support, and it is only from a Tammany boss that wo should expect such a doctrine to emanate. Presumably the Board’s regulations wore adopted by a majority, and until a majority repeals them in constitutional form tho majority of the Board must abide by their provisions and those of the law also, and instead of acting in a partisan spirit tho Gisborno members in acting and voting as they did showed that they wero nbovo party considerations in upholding the Chairman when he did what was lawful and right.