ALLEGED SALE OF EDUCATION PROPERTY

Grey River Argus, 20 September 1948, Page 7

ALLEGED SALE OF EDUCATION PROPERTY

Canterbury Board Rejects Mr F. L Turley’s Motion

What was done was not in the best interests of the board, and, if it wanted its name cleared, it could do so by supporting the resolution, said Mr F. L. Turley at the meeting of the Canterbury Education Board on Friday. He was speaking to his motion: That a committee,'which will submit a report at the next meeting of the board, be set up to inquire why, and on whose authority, property of the board in the north-west ward, worth £lOO at the time of sale, was disposed of for £5; the committee to comprise the chairman of the 'board, the chairman of the finance committee (Mr J. F. McDougall) and an officer of the Education Department. The motion was lost. Members objected to the implication that the board needed to have its name cleared, and the chairman (Mr A. E. Lawrence) asked Mr Turley to withdraw his remarks. He added that the resolution had a more sinister background than appeared on the surface. It gave the impression that this was the first committee of investigation to be set up, and that the motion had come from Mr Turley. This was not correct, because a ‘resolution had been passed at a previous meeting, setting up a committee of enquiry into the matter. That committee had been set up, but it had been unable to operate since, because of this resolution. The inquiry was welcomed, but this was the reason it had been delayed, added Mr Lawrence. Mr Turley, he said, was not prepared to place the matter before a committee without an officer of the Education Department.. He had also been invited to make his charges before this committee, but had not done so, and, in addition, had refused to recognise the committee. He asked Mr Turley to state his charges. Mr Turley said the chairman and members of the board wanted to know this, so that they could do a lot of things before the inquiry took place. The sale of the property was authorised by the members, he said. Asked what property, Mr Turley said they would know when the committee was set up. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT Later, Mi’ Lawrence stated that the committee of inquiry set up in August, met after the board meeting and Mr Turley was asked to formulate his charge, and to indicate whether he wished to call witnesses. Mr Turley, he said, refused to recognise the committee, or to specify the charges. When it was pointed out that he had demanded investigations, Mr Turley said he would not recognise the committee, and wanted an officer of the department included on the committee. That was where the matter rested. Mr Lawrence added that the board set up a committee of inquiry immediately the charge was laid, but, after two meetings attempting to ascertain the precise nature of the allegations against the board,, the committee was still without details. Mr Turley had not accepted the clearly expressed willingness of board members to afford him the fullest opportunity for a searching inquiry into his charge, said Mr Lawrence.