EDUCATION BOARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 16 January 1931, Page 7

EDUCATION BOARD

COST OF ADMINISTRATION REPLY TO STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OFFICIAL FIGURES The Hon. Harry Atmore writes from Wellington:— “Your readers will remember that the Hon. Mr Mclntyre, M.L.C., cnairman of the Nelson Education Board, challenged the accuracy of my statement that the annual cost of the Nelson Board exceeded £3,000. The accompanying statement sent me by Mr Benge, Secretary, Education Department, will convince your raders that Mr Mclntyre is wrong again.” Mr Benge’s memorandum to the Hon. the Minister of Education, dated 14th January, is as follows: — With reference to the remarks of the chairman of the Nelson Education Board as reported in the “Nelson Evening Mail” of date 16th December, 1930, challenging the accuracy of your statement of the costs of administration of the Board, I have to say that the statement supplied to you was compiled from information given in the Board’s own returns for the year ending 31st December, 1929. The one return (Annual Return, No. 3), from which the office salaries and expenses are taken, was signed by the chairman of the Board, Mr F .W. 0. Smith, and by the secretary, Mr H. J. Thornton. The cost of the architect’s department is in accordance with the Board’s statement of 16th July, 1930 (signed by Mr H. J. Thornton, secretary) and is—

Mr Mclntyre quotes from Table F 3 on P. 14 of E2 for 1930 in which the cost of administration of the Nelson Board is given as £2286. It will be seen from the information furnished above that this does not include the cost of the Architect’s Branch (£950 4s 8d). The reason for the omission is that this £950 is not charged to the Board’s General Fund for administration, etc., but is charged to maintenance of school buildings and to the Education Purposes Loan Account in proportion to the value of the work carried out by the Board under each of these two headings. The Board’s officers would know that the figures given in F. 3 do not include the cost of the Architects’ Branches, but to avoid misunderstanding by the general public the position will be made clear in future issues of E.2.

£975 4 8 Less adjustment made after investigation by Department (on account of sale of old motor car) £25 0 0 Net cost £950 4 8 The items extracted from the returns were as follows:— £ *s. d. £ s. d. Office salaries 1468 12 1 Office expenses 817 9 2 2286 1 3 Architect’s Branch— Salaries 631 13 Travelling ex4 penses, etc. 318 11 4 950 4 8 £3236 5 11