STORMY MEETING

Wairarapa Times-Age, 27 June 1941, Page 5

STORMY MEETING

WAIRARAPA COLLEGE BOARD STRONG PROTEST BY STAFF AGAINST STATEMENTS MADE BY MEMBER. DISCUSSION TAKEN PARTLY IN COMMITTEE. One of Hie stormiest sessions in Hk* history of Hit* \V:iir;ir;i|);i College Board of Governors look place last night when the board decided to dissociate itself from remarks stated to have been made by a. member, Mr A. Owen Jones, at the last meeting of the board, when a motion that every member of the staff be requested to take or renew the oath of allegiance ■was defeated. It was decided to advise the staff to that effect and to convey to it a resolution passed by Hie board which provided that in future all complaints should be submitted to the board in writing. In the course of the meeting Mr Jones asserted that members of the college teaching staff were pacifists prior to the war. His remarks in that connection were taken in committee, as was the heated discussion which ensued. PRINCIPAL’S SUGGESTION.

The matter was raised when recommendations contained in the Principal's report were before the meeting. Mr G. G. Hancox (Principal) recommended that in the future any matters affecting the staff be taken in committee and a statement issued if it was in the interest of the public to do so. Sweeping general statements not substantiated by written facts did the college much harm. Also, that all complaints be made in writing to enable full investigation. If complaints were not made in writing they should be ignored. “It is not for the Principal to tell us what to do,” said Mr Jones. An employer, he added, would not stand for his employees telling him his business. It was a matter for the board. In the lively discussion which followed members, in general, agreed with Mr Jones’s contention. . “Anything of a contentious nature or which tends to belittle the college should certainly be taken in committee,” said the chairman, Mr W. R. Nicol. No action was taken. A motion moved by Mr F. M. Whyte that all complaints be forwarded in writing to enable the education committee to bring down a full report to the board was carried. “People with genuine complaints would not hesitate in putting the facts in writing before the board,” observed Mr Whyte. Mr L. T. Daniell: “I am tired of hearing Mr Jones’s complaints.” Following further discussion the chairman ruled that the matter be deferred until later in the meeting. LETTER FROM STAFF. In correspondence a letter was received from the teaching staff arising cut of a published statement of the last meeting of the board. The letter, which was signed by Miss O. R. Sutherland and Messrs G. W. Morice and A. J. Drew, on behalf of the staff, stated: “At a staff meeting held recently a resolution was passed protesting against the publication of some remarks by a member of the board,Mr O. Jones, in bringing forward ai motion that members of the staff be' required to take an oath of allegiance. “The staff are unanimously of the opinion that the publication of such statements both locally and by the Press Association not only is. detrimental to the smooth and efficient working of the school, but also will seriously affect the standing of the school throughout the country. Efficient and selfrespecting teachers are not likely to apply for positions in a school where the staff are frequently pilloried in the Press, nor will parents be inclined to send their children to a school where doubt is cast on the loyalty and integrity of the teachers. “A statement was also reported to have been made by the same member, that if a parent made a protest concerning a matter the pupil would be persecuted for such action. We believe that this statement is entirely untrue and challenge the gentleman who made it either to substantiate it or withdraw it publicly."

REFUSAL TO WITHDRAW. "Let anything that is said be in a friendly manner.'’ observed the chairman at the outset. “I do not intend withdrawing my remarks." said Mr Jones. As late as last week, he continued, the R.S.A. had framed a resolution embracing the Civil Service in the same matter. The Auckland and Wellington education boards had discussed the same thing. Referring to the last paragraph in the letter from the teachers lie considered that they should be more careful in correctly reading a report. He stated that he made no such statement as implied. What he said was that a member of the- board had been frightened to come forward concerning a complaint, in which he had been backed up by the chairman. Mr Jones said hel would not stab anyone in the back. If he had any complaints lie went straight to the Principal or teacher. He was not frightened to come forward. "I look on the teachers as above that sort of thing," he said, "and if not they should not be in the profession." Mr G. C. L. Dickel: “There was no mention in the Press report of the statement alleged to have been made by Mr Jones. I am afraid that some members of the board have been talking." Mr Nicol: "The Press report was quite accurate." Mr Dickel: “Particularly so in this case." Mr Jones reiterated that he would not withdraw his remarks. He said (hat after the last meeting of the board Mr Hanley told him that he might have said more, but he was frightened that it would be taken out on his children. “All this is not in the best interests of the College. If we can't be constructive then let us avoid being des-

tractive,” said Mr Nicol. “I think the best thing we can do is to receive the letter.” He moved a motion in that direction. "I would like to have my last say in this matter. There is a confusion of ideas,” said Mr G. C. L. Dickel. Mr Jones. Mr Dickel added, had referred to a discussion which had taken place after the last meeting. He did not agree with that. The chairman came in for castigation in that connection. He had been dodging discussing the board’s affairs out of the board room for eighteen months. Mrs J. L. Hair: "I quite agree.” “I don’t think it was fair,” continued Mr Dickel. “It got one member into trouble and has made the rest of us look like silly goats.” Mr Nicol: “Thank you. It was a fine speech. The matter was discussed here and not in the street. I met Mr Jones and Mr Hanley in conversation while leaving the board room. I could not definitely say what the subject was." Mr Jones: “I could!”

Mr Nicol said that he could not definitely say whether the word might or would was used when Mr Hanley spoke about being frightened that action would have been taken on his children. He was most surprised that Mr Jones had used the word “would.” RESOLUTIONS PASSED. Mr L. T. Daniell said the letter from the staff asked for a statement to be withdrawn. What was the position'? he asked. Mr Jones had said lie would not withdraw the statement because he had not made it. Proceedings which had been at a warm tempo became very hot. The chairman frequently called members to order. Mr F. C. Daniell seconded the motion moved by Mr Nicol that the letter be received. It was a most unfortunate business. The reference in the letter to selfrespecthyj teachers and parents was very true. “Can we throw stones at the stall and then shelter behind our action in formally receiving the letter?" asked Mr Whyte. “It was made quite clear in the Press report that the position did not apply solely here." said Mr Jones. Mr Whyte: “You can’t come and go in one breath.’’ “Prior to the war we had teachers on our staff who were definite pacifists." said Mr Jones. He was interrupted by the chairman who moved that the board go into committee. Mr F. C. Daniell recorded his vote against the motion which was carried by a large majority. When the board resumed in open meeting resolutions, which had been passed were confirmed. It was decided to convey to the staff a resolution that in future all complaints be forwarded to the board in writing, and a resolution stating that the board dissociated itself from statements made by a member. Messrs Nicol. Hanley and O'Connor voted against a motion that the letter received from the staff be made' available for publication. j