SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND TEACHERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2696, 9 August 1894, Page 2

SCHOOL COMMITTEES AND TEACHERS.

Auckland, August 7* At the Board of Education a letter was read from Mr Wm. Johns, Chairman of Tenahu School Committee, relative to the recent case, Wrigley v Fisher, and asking if letters from a committee to the board re conduct of teachers are privilged communications. Mr Johns stated that the case tried at the Supreme Court places school committees in a position so critical that his committee wished a written decision for their guidance. According to the ruling the committee will certainly decline to take any action against a teacher, no matter how just or how patent may be the ground for doing so. The committee would not feel justified in communicating to the board touching any wrongful acts which teachers in their district might be guilty of. No honourable men can be expected to serve on a committee on conditions so humiliating. Mr Cooper, solicitor, member of the board, who is at Gisborne, forwarded, at Mr Udy’s request, his views on the question raised by Mr Johns. He said he could not see the slighest occasion for the school committee to be alarmed at the result of the action. He had an opportunity of hearing Mr Justice Conuoll’ys direction to the jury, and that direction was quite sufficient to protect any committee who had acted in the bous fide exercise of their duty. As he understood his Honour, he directed the jury that the law was that communications from a school committee to an education board were, although not absolutely privileged, the subject of the rules governing what lawyers call qualified privilege ; that is, that a plaintiff in order to succeed must not only show that the charge communicated to the board was untrue and without foundation, but that the committee or person against whom action was taken wore actuated,by malice against the teacher; in other words, if the chairman or committee, as the case might bo, honestly believed in the truth of the charges communicated to the board, and acted in what ho or they con] sidurod honestly ami in good faith to tho interests of tho school, thou that, however uutvuo tho charges might eventually be proved to bo, tho chairman or committee wore entitled to a verdict; but if thq

plaintiff succeeded in showing that these charges were not made from a proper motive, but with the desire to injure the teacher, and not in the honest performance of the duties of the Committee, then plaintiff should obtain a verdict; and that the onus of showing this rested on the. plaintiff. Mr Cooper concluded by stating that so long as he is a member of the board he would oppose the adoption of any office rule which would have the effect of keeping a teacher in ignorance of charges made against his or her character, or prevent the fullest investigation being made into a charge. He did not think Mr Johns or his committee had rightly appreciated the position. The board agreied to send a copy of the communications to the different committees. A resolution also was passed thanking Mr Cooper for his valuable letter.