EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 23, 17 June 1914, Page 6

EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE

payment: of delegates. , is it legal? taranaki hoard members prosecuted.

A ease which is of great interest to education boards, arising out of a question which lias been a vexec one fcr some time past, was beard in the Xl-.ij.'ijf'iiii's Court at New Plymouth yesterday, before Mr A. Ci'ook'c, S.M.. when l-lic Taranaki Education Board (Mr 0. 11. Weston) sued Harold Trimble and others, the chairman and members of tihe Board, for £5 Us, being the amount paid to Arthur Morton, one of the member?;, as his expenses for attending a conference of education boards bold in Wellington in May, ]<Jli. The

cafe hag been pending for some time. The Audit Department surcharged the members of the Board with the amount paid, and they refused to pay it. whereupon the present suit was brought as letween the Board and its .members.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE. Mr C. H. Weston, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said that the amount mentioned in the statement of claim was £7 7*, but £1 ICs had been paid into court, and he would amend the statement of claim accordingly. The authority for the claim was section 120 "■ of the Public Revenues Act, 1910. This Act had been repealed in 1912, .but still iheld good in respect to payments made ! previous. to its repeal. Tlic facts, said Mr Weston, were agreed upon. In 1012. Sir Joseph Ward drafted a Local Government Amendment. Bill. He went out of office, ibut the Mackenzie Ministry j adopted the Bill, and decided to call a i conference in Wellington of delegates ' from local bodies to discuss its im- ] provement. Circulars were sent to ! each hospital district in New' Zealand, (authorising the appointment of tw'o delegates from each. All the local bodies in Taranaki, including the Education _Bo%rd, were notified, and at a meeting held subsequently Messrs J. Brown and E. Maxwell were appointed to represent Tai-anaki at the conference. The Education Board was thus indirectly represented. About May 8, 1012, the Education Board received a circular from the Netssn Board, suggesting that a conference of education boards be held in Wellington in June, to discuss the portion of the Local Government Bill dealing with education. Subseqiient>ly, however, the North Canterbury Board convened a conference of education boards, to be held prior to the Government conference, in order to formulate a protest against a suggestion in the Bill to transfer the control j of education to. local bodies. Mr Trimble, seeing that no meeting of the Jioard could lie convened before the proposed conference, requested Mr Arthur Morton to attend the conference as the Board's delegate, and also to interview the Minister for Education on several matters which were ibeing negotiated between ' the Board md the Education Department. Mr Morton attended (he confer- , once on ..ay 20 (the day before that convened by the Government) and lie, wit-hi other delegates, waited on the Minister with resolutions from the conference. He then waited on him alo-.ic as to tlic matters winch Mr Trimble had placed in his 'hands, and was put off until May 23. He saw the Minister on that date, and returned to New Plvmouth on Mav 2-1. At the n..\| mectiii" o-' the Board, on May 29, the meafes present were those named in the statement of claim. Mr Trimble repoit d that he had appointed Mr Morton to represent the Board at the conference, and Mr Morton reported on what had taken place. The action was confirmed, and £7 7s wa-i voted to Mr Morion towards his expenses. The Audit Denarlment subsequently surcharged the Board. Mr Crooke, S.M.: But why wa-) the £1 Ills paid in if the members hold that 'tl.oy were entitled to pav the expenses? Mr Weston staled that under seel ion 3? of the Education Act, BIOS, as amended by section 3 of the Act of 1910, power was given to icimbur-ie "the expenses reasonably incurred and actually paid by a member in going to and from a meeting or making an official visit when appointed to do so bv the hoard." If it was .he'd that Mr Morton's visit was official he was then only entitled to out-of-pocket expenses, which amounted to only £o lis, therefore the difference between that and the £7 7s had been paid in. The. object of the conference was to discuss proposed legislation, which was nothing to do with, the ad-

ministrative duties of tlit? Board. Tt was admitted that tlie conference liad been of great value, but that was not the question, Mi

'.r Crooke: Was the proposal tn vest the control of education m tin- hand's Oi local bodies to be discussed by the other conference? Mr Weston spid that be thought so. The Board had indirect representation on the conference and a say in the appointment of the divegatcs. Mr Crooke. Did the other boards pay their delegates? Mr Weston replied thai he had no instructions on 'that point, lie pointed out that folic Board had not appointed Mr Morton as its delegate, and so was not entitled to pay his expenses in any case. It might 'be urged that the .Board's confirmation amounted to an appointment to make an animal visit, ■hut it could be seen that Mr. Trimble's report made no reference to the visit to the Minister, merely to the, conference, and therefore' the Board's confirmation of hU action was not an appointment to make an oll'Lcial visit. The resolution on the minutes abo omitted mention of thi-\ It might be urged that the voucher for £7 "s brought him wit-Inn the scope of the Act. '

The Magistrate: Independent of your contention that there is no nowcr to pay the expenses of a delegate to the conference? Mi- Weston: I submit that there is no power to do so, but it may be urged that because Mr Morton saw the Minister, that made, his whole visit official, lie stated that although the form' of the voucher referred to the visit to the Minister it must be remembered that the voucher would not 'be seen .by the Board as a board. Besides, the attendance there, mentioned migiht have been that made in company with the other delegate. Mr Julnistone: "In his report Mr Morton states that lie did not sec the Minister privately until May i'l." Mr Johnstone called 'the principal defendant.

THE DKI'K.XUK. Harold Trimble, eJiainv.an of the Tarnnaki Education Board, deposed that when the Local 'Uovenuncnt Bill of 1012 was under consideration it Wjis sent to his Board anion.;' others for consideration. Shortly afterwards the S'elsou Board asked for a special conference becau-c the Bill proposed to take control of education from the boards and hand it over to local bodies. 'pinNorth Canterbury Hoard sent hinii tincircular mentioned by Mr Weston, and lie saw Mr Morton aiid asked him to attend the conference on behalf of tinBoard, and to interview the Minister on matters which were under discussion between the Board and the, .Education Department. Attending to these matters caused a delay of two extra days in Wellington: He thought it was certain that in. addition to 'his written report

he reported verbally to tlic Board concerning the other mailers on which, lie had asked Mr .Morton to s-.ee the Minister. The fact that no special reference was made to them in-his written report was probably an oversight. The conference was- the main object of Mr Morton's visit. Some of the representations made by Mr .Morton in the conference were acted upon eventually. As a result of -the conference of the hoards, the idea of [lacing education in the hands of county councils was abandoned by the promoters of the Bill. The Bill never boca-nic law befiiu-e the Ministry (Mr McKenzie's) went out of office.

To Mr Weston: His object in asking Mr Morton to see the Minister was in connection with proposed luture legislation to divert the Opaku University reserve in Taranaki, which provided scholarships for Taranaki residents, to other purposes. There were other small matters. He had not been in correspondence with the Department regarding the Opaku reserve. As to the other niattrs, he coirld not say. It would not have .been impossible to put in writing the Board's views with regard to the Opaku reserve, and if Mr Morton liiad not been going to attend the conference, he would not at that time have been sent to Wellington concerning the reserve, because as the matter had not reached a legislative stage the Board would have waited for a possible vi-dt to Taranaki by the Minister. While he had been on the Board (some 10 years) members hal been sent to Wellington on departmental 'business, and. in IJHO two members were sent to a conference ill Wellington. Wilicn the Audit Department charged the payment to'Mr Morton, witness did not lit once raise the question of Mr Morton's visit to the Minister. His own attendance at a conference at Wanganui was also surcharged, but -the Department paid on that occasion. To Mr Johnstone: Some distinct effort was made iby the Council of the Wellington University to divert the revenue of the Opaku reserve, and the Taranaki Board regarded the matter as important. The Wanganui Board wanted to divert it for building an agricultural college, and the University Council had yet another idea. In 1010 a conference at education boards (the first of its kind) was held in Wellington. Two delegates were sent, and no exception was taken to the payment of their expenses. Tihe Education Act and education matters, generally wore discussed. It was convened liy the boards themselves.

M,r Johnstone pointed out that the expenses relating to his attendance on the Minister -amounted to £4 Ss. Referring to Press reports of tlie conference, he contended that it had done valuable work in suggesting improvements in a crude and ineffective Bill, All tike hoard* agreed that the proper course was to hold a conference, and the appointment of Mr Morton \va-. ratified by the Taranaki Board, althoua'i. that fact was omitted from the minutes. Tie was delayed for two days in Wellington in seeing the Minister on matters which were subsermentlv satisfactorily settled, lie contended 'that Mr Morton's visit to Wellington was an official visit within the meaning of the Act. pointing out that as the Education Board .had not, like other local bodies, power to make unauthorised expenditure up to a.certain percentage of its revenue, the only provision approaching ihis was entitled to a broad reading. Tiie conference discussed purely educational matters, which could not be properly dca.'t with by the Government conference, on which, moreover, the Board was only indiriclly represented. It was , an official gathering of boards, and its

'status as such could not have been added to even if the Government had convened it. Very strict proof should ' required that the payment objected to bv the Audit. Department was- illegal. At pre--cnt t'-'e Department merely said that it was. and then sued to detenu ine its illegality. Tie also submitted that in ease the find ins: was again<f the members of the Board, no costs should be allowed, as thev lei I acted in food faith. Mr Weston replied briefly, 'basing his argument on a, literal interpretation of the word "ol!'icial." and coiiteiidinsr that mere authority bv the Hoard did not make the visit, official unless it dealt with matter-"' cc liceniiti"- tlic administration of the Board. As to t'v interviews with the, .Minister (bev wee merely a subsidiary part of Mr Morton's visit. His Worship reserved liis decision.