UPPER WAITOHI SCHOOL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1792, 20 September 1888, Page 3

UPPER WAITOHI SCHOOL.

TO THE EDITOE. Sib,—ln your issue of the 15th instant you publish a letter ■igned by Messrs Seales, Matthews, and Pearce, in reference to the action of- the Committee in declining to pay the sum of £6 10s to the Board of Education as a contribution towards the teacher's salary. I am sorry this letter appeared, as such things must injure the teacher more than any one else, and I certainly do not wish to injure anyone, and I defy anyone to show a document written by me in which anything is said against the teacher. The facts are that the former teacher was dismissed because of not having a certificate, and we got instead another teacher who never had charge of a school before, and had no certificate. The condition on which this teacher was appointed, as shown by a letter from the Education office, dated June 2,1887, was—that a certificate should be obtained at the next examination, The teacher has made no effort to obtain a certificate up to the present. Now the extraordinary part of the thing is that some of those who used every effort to dismiss the former teacher on account of not having a certificate are the noisiest in their efforts to keep the present uncertificated teacher. Some of these very people passed a resolution when they wanted to get rid of the previous teacher to the effect that they would pay no contribution to the teacher's salarv, unless tbey got a certificated teach'er. Mr Seales was one of those who helped to pass this resolution with regard to the previous teacher, and nothing has been done now only that the example then set has been followed. Tet one would think by reading the letter signed M. Seales and Co. that those who did exactly as Mr Seales and others did with regard to the previous teacher were unmitigated scoundrels for doing the same thing to the present teacher. If it is so wrong to decline to pay this now, was it right for Mr Seales and others to decline to pay it two years ago? There is another little matter Mr Seales might think about: I was Chairman of the Committee in 1886, and every penny due to the Board as a contribution towards the teacher's salary was paid. Mr Seales was Chairman for the most part of 1887, and not a single penny was paid, and the amount due now is chiefly made up of a legacy left by last year's Committee, with which I have bad nothing to do. Why did not last year's Committee pay the contribution? Was it because a resolution was on the minute book stating that no contribution would be paid except to a certificated teacher ? Above above all others Mr Seales should hide his head and say nothing until | last year's contribution of salary is paid. As regards my having given to j newspapers reports of the meeting | of the Committee, I do not think I need apologise for doing so. It shows that everything was _ done openly. When I was chairman in 1886 1 often gave newspapers reports, so there is nothing wonderful in my having done so now. I may point out that it is illegal for the Board to keep an uncertificated teacher according to clause 45 of the Act, and if so there can be no great illegality in refusing to pay them. In conclusion I may say that we have done nothing, except comply with a previous resolution that no contribution be paid except for a certificated teacher, and as Mr Seales was instrumental in passing this I think that for decency's sake he ought to have nothing to say now, more especially as last year's contribution has not yet been paid.—l am, etc, Pateick Coll, Chairman of Committee.