School Building Funds.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 7, 19 January 1905, Page 4

School Building Funds.

PREMIER V. BOARDS. At Tuesday’s meeting of the South Canterbury Education Board the chairman, Mr Howell, read a . newspaper paragraph, which stated that the Premier, in replying to a complaint by the Waitara(Taranaki) School Committee that their school was overcrowded, reflected upon the management of their building 1 grants by the Boards of Education. ; The paragraph was as follows : — “ The Premier said Parliament had given the Education Boards a much larger grant this year for building purposes. Each Board I got its share, according to the ' schedule of requirements supplied at the request of the Department, and the money was handed over by the Government on the understanding that it would be used to meet urgent cases. He asked what use were the Boards at all 1 The Government must rely on their spending the money wisely, or else the people would want to know if they should be done away with altogether. The proportion of votes for these purposes was considerably in excess of the increases in population during those years. If the case was as stated, the Board must be to blame, and should be told so. If there was overcrowding the Board was to blame, and public opinion should be brought to bear upon it. This would result in Parliament ultimately insisting upon this building ' fund being allocated by the Govern- 1 ment itself. There was a large sum — approaching a hundred thousand pounds—voted, and the . Minister responsible to Parliament had no say in its disposal. This was contrary to recognised constitutional practice. The Boards can mis-spend or do what they like with the money. He recommended the committee to ask the Board for an explanation, pointing out that/ the Health Department had emphasised the over-crowding. He would also ask the Board himself for an explanation.”

Mr Howell made some comments upon the paragraph as he read it. This Board bad sent up an application for enlargement at Timaru South three times and it was refused. As to the funds being 'allocated by the Government 7 • 5

.itself, that was just what happened now ; the Premier’s statement was humbug from first to last. It was very wrong of the Premier to ray chat the Minister responsible to Parliament had no say in the disposal of the money; it was a scandalous mis-statement of the facts of the case.

Mr Armitage said it was** rot the Board had to ask leave to spend every penny. Mr Barclay had noticed the paragraph, and was glad the chairman had drawn attention to it. The Premier, from the case being brought beforak him, seemed to think that he was put on his defence, and he blamed the Boards for their difficulties, but took no share of the blame himself. His statement was exceedingly fallacious. The case mentioned was one of the need for an addition to a school, and that was a class of expenditure which the Department had taken wholly out of the hands of the Boards. If a Board wished to make an addition to a school, they must refer it to the Department and ask for a special grant for the purpose. It was therefore very wrong and misleading for the Minister to make misstatements like that The Department's regulations forbade the Board spending a penny on addi* tions, without the leave of the Department, and he could name a number of cases, Morven, Hazelburn, and others, for which this Board had applied for fnnds for additions and could not get them. He was astonished at the Minister’s statements, and at his unfair and unwise attempt to free himself from blame and throw it upon the Board, He said the Minister had no say in the allocation of the money. As a matter of fact it was the Boards that had no say. The money was sent to them, when they did get it, tied up with conditions; in some cases they did not get the money at all, the Department paying it away. This matter should not be allowed to rest where it was. The published statement quite misrepresented the facts, and it seemed to have been made by the Minister for the purpose of prejudicing the people against the Education Boards. He protested strongly against such misrepresentatlsus, no doubt made to rendi] the abolition ot Boards more MJy. Mr Hamilton said the Minister either did not iow the business of the departmen) as Minister of Education or he mule a deliberate misstatement. It seemed as if he were working against the Boards, turning the people against them ; then he would say that the Boards were not wanted and should be abolished.

Mt McCaskill said he saw in the papers that the secretary for Education intended visiting Temuka to look into an application for enlargement of the school, and Pleasant Point to inquire into the application to have the school made a district high school. Did the office know anything about that ? The chairman said no, and he thought it an insult to the Board, to have their recommendations investigated in that way. Mr Barclay said the chairman was perfectly right The chairman thought it an insult to the Board, who were appointed to look after the interests of education, to have people coming down from Wellington to revise their recommendations.

' The secretary turned up correspondence from the Department which stated :—“ In future it is the intention of the Government to follow the recommendation of the | Education Oommitte in regard to ! the distribution of the building votes, and I have further to ask you that the moneys thus distributed shall be expended in aocord- > ance with the recommendations of the committee and with the appropriation of Parliament Accordingly, the purposes for which ' this grant (the ordinary grant) is available are as follows :—Main- . tenance, renewal and rebuilding of ' school buildings (including ap- ’ paratus, fencing, furniture, etc.), maintenance of school residences, rent of buildings used for school purposes.” Mr Bell pointed out that new buildings and additions are expected from the purposes of “ordinary grant and the “special grant ” from which these are provided, is expended entirely at the discretion of the Department. It was moved by Mr Barclay, seconded by Mr Hamilton and carried unanimously—“ That this Board takes strong exception to the remarks made by the Premier in answer to a deputation at New Plymouth, the more important statements %eing contrary to fat k / At especially with reference to ad., , I ditions to school buildings. Ul 1 application for additions and new ’• ’jfl buildings have to be referrred to . j I the Department, and many urgent 'J cases in this district are being held d| over as the Department refuse to " grant the necessary money. The <* building grant received by the Board can only be spent as the Department specially allows. Thus the Premier’s charge of mismanagement by the Board is most unfair and quite uncalled for, and the Board would call his attention to the Department's letters of 17th and 24th February, 1904." It was suggested that another protest should be made against an [officer of the Department interfering with the Board’s recommendations re Temuka and Pleasant Point schools, but no motion via made.—Herald.