QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 October 1921, Page 8

QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.

ERECTION OF MOVABLE BUILDINGS. ATTITUDE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. A letter from the Education Department was read at yesterday’s meeting of the Taranaki Education Board in which it denied that, any authority had been given to the board to erect the movable residences, in respect of which they had applied for a grant. The following was the letter which the board received from the Director of Education (per Mr. W. E. Spencer) in response to the application for a grant: “Referring to your memorandum of August 31, I am directed to say ’that the Minister is not aware that he gave any authority to the board to erect two movable residences without formal application being made to the department in the usual course. Though the matter of movable residences was discussed with the board on the evening of May 26, 1920, neither in the Press report of the meeting, nor in the notes taken by the Minister’s private secretary, or the department’s officer, is any mention made that such an authority was given. It appears clear, therefore, that the board must have misunderstood the position in adopting such an unusual and irregular course in proceeding with the construction of buildings the plans of which had not been approved, for which no grant had been provided, and without approval of the locality in which the building was to be erected. 1 shall be glad to be informed more definitely what reason the board had for its action. “Further, I have to point out that it was intended that movable residences should be erected where board could be provided for the teacher, but where privacy and sleeping accommodation were not available in a settler’s house. In all other respects the teacher would be required to use such conveniences as were used by the settlers. The board has gone further than this, however, in providing a tank and separate out-office accommodation. I have to inform you that the department is not prepared to extend the conveniences attached to movable residences beyond the original intention. “The application for the erection of one of these residences at M; lirakau will be considered when a reply to this memorandum is received.”

When the foregoing was read the chairman (Mr. P. J. H. White) expressed surprise at the attitude adopted. He said it was quite clear to those who were present during the Minister's visit in May of last year that Mr. Parr urged the board to experiment in regard to movable buildings for country districts, and he suggested that the architect might take the matter up, Mr. Parr personally addressing Mr. Moure on the subject. Mr. Trimble said there was no doubt that the board was given authority to construct two movable buildings. Mr, White remarked that, judging by the sympathetic letter which was received from the Minister himself, it did not appear as if the second communication was sent with his knowledge. Some photographs of the buildings were taken and forwarded to the Minister. Replying under date of September 26, the Hon. Mr. Parr .hud stated: “I have examined the photographs with considerable interest, and I shall be glad if opportunity oilers for me to visit one of these buildings during the coming summer.” It was decided that a copy of the department's latest letter be sent to the Minister, asking if it was intended that the action of the board should be repudiated. Recently plans of a movable and extensible building were submitted for sugi gestions from hoards, and a report of the architect (Mr. C. H. Moore) also came to hand at yesterday’s meeting. He stated: “I have gone carefully into the plans submitted by the department, and have come to the following conclusions. The cost of construction will be found to be more than an ordinary building of the same size, and therefore it is not, as stated, a substitute for a more permanent building. The plans show that the building is not simple enough for a temporary building, and, if once erected, would be a permanent structure, ihere would be a tremendous amount of labor involved in getting out the parts and erecting same in the first instance. Our own building is on much more simple lines.

“I am sorry to adversely criticise the plan, because it shows very fine and careful work on the part of the department’s architect. According to the department’s memo, they would be glad to receive suggestions to modify the plan, especially if it simplifies construction and cost. Our own plan is on much simpler lings, and would cost far less, and we have built two small structures that carry out all that is set out in the memorandum.”