APOLOGY REFUSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 107, 15 February 1935, Page 3

APOLOGY REFUSED

TECHNICAL BOARD. I MR THOMPSON’S SUSPENSION. NEW MEMBER’S MOTION REJECTED. BY SEVEN VOTES TO THREE. EIYELY PASSAGES AT MEETING. By seven votes to three the . Ashburton Technical High School Board last evening declined to tender; an apology to the Principal (Mr R. J. Thompson) for his suspension of one month in the middle of last year, a decision that was reversed by the Teachers’ Court of Appeal. The meeting was orderly, but some members became slightly heated during the debate. There were three separate discussions arising out of the suspension of the Principal. The first discussion arose after the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, at which a letter had been received from the Education Department pointing out that in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Principal’s salary for the month ho was absent from the school would have to be paid. In the minutes it was stated that the suspension had been “illegal. Mr E. Buchanan objected to the use of the word “illegal” in the minutes, stating that as far as lie could recollect there was no mention of illegal in the Department’s letter. At the request of the chairman (Mi A. L. Jones), the Principal (who is also the "secretary to the Board) read the letter. It did not mention the word. r< -rr Mr Buchanan moved land Mr DF. Maynard seconded, that the word be deleted from the minutes. Mr R. Houston: I won’t vote on it as I don’t know if it was illegal or not. 'Mr H. Watts: I want to take up the same attitude that Mr Houston has taken up. The decision of the Couit of Appeal was that the suspension was 111 The* chairman: Order, Mr Watts. Order. ~ Mr Watts: Well, that was its decision. «l won’t Vote. Mr Houston: I won’t vote. The< chairman stated that every member must vote or leave the room while the motion was being put. Mr Watts: Where do you get youruling ? ■ i • •, The chairman: We have no standine rules to abide by, and in event we must accept Parliamentary procedure. I don’t want anybody nob to vote. , Mr Houston - : I don’t want you to think there is anything obstinate about me, but there are two members ot the Board who were at the last meeting and who are not here now, and it would he a lop-sided vote. Mr Buchanan-: This is not a question of a lop-sided vote, at all; it is a question of correct records. Mr Houston (to the chairman) : xou can ask me to leave the room, bu won’t go! , The chairman said that*there was a record in the minutes referring to the “absence! of some members of the Board who were the cause of the suspension.” He' had to remind 'the meeting that the vote for the suspension of the Principal was unanimous. Mr Bramley: There is one other thing. It is stated in the minutes that Mr 'Watts gave notice of his 1 intention to move a motion at this meeting, but he did not mention the second motion recorded there. He mentioned only the first one. The Principal stated that after the meeting Mr Watts had given him the motion and had then added the second.

One. , r + Mr Watts: The second one 1 put in as a suggestion. I am prepared to have them put in as one, with a little alteration. . , After some discussion on this 'point, it was agreed that the motions stand as they were. The chairman held that Mr Watts had been in order in what he did, as members had been given notice of his intention to move the two motions, e appreciated what Mr Bramley had said drawing attention to the question. Deletion of a Won*. The minutes were then confirmed, with the deletion of the word “illegal ’ before suspension, and the meeting went on to routine business. Motion for ah Apology. At a later stage, in accordance witn his notice, Mr Watts moved the following: “That in view of the records minuted regarding the suspension of the Principal, the decision of the Lour, of Appeal to the effect that he was wrongfully suspended he inserted m the minutes,” and “That the chanman or one of the other members active in the sorry business move that an apology be sent to the Principal for the undeserved stain cast on hiwork by the publicity given to the illegal act of the Board in suspending him.”

The chairman: We will take tlm first motion first. I think the best thing we can do to-night is to adop. procedure in accordance with the general rules of debate. He went on to explain the procedure. Mr Watts: I would like to ask a question before I move this motion. Has the Board had any advice from the Court of Appeal as to its decision? The chairman: Yes, it has. Mr Watts: It has never been before the meeting. Had it been, there

would have been no need to move this motion. The whole thing would have been wiped out. The chairman: We received the official communication the Court. If I have not put it into the Board, and I think I have put it in, it is in the office. It was all published in the newspapers. Again Called! to Order. Mr Watts: That paper is the Board’s property and we should liaye had it here. We should not have to rely on the newspapers for our official information. This is not the first time since I have been on the Board that the same thing has happened. The chairman: Order, Mr Watts.

Mr AVatts then formally moved the first motion. The chairman: I will second that. Everything else in relation to the suspension of Mr Thompson has been recorded in the minutes, and it is only fair that this should be recorded there, also. Mr L. A. Charles: I would like to move an amendment. The wording of this motion does not appeal to me. In the first case, Mr Thompson was not dismissed; he was suspended. This remark applied to the fact that in some of the notices sent to members the word dismissal appeared instead of suspension. The correction was made clear. The wrong .word was attributed to a- mistake in the part of the typiste. An Amendment Carried. Mr Charles then moved that the words after the first word be deleted and the following substituted: “The full text of the decision of the Teachers’ Court of Appeal, and its accompanying memorandum, relating to the appeal of Mr Thompson from his suspension, be recorded in the minutes. Mr Charles added: “We will then have a full record*-of it, and I Jiope we will never have to refer to it again. Mr Buchanan seconded the amendment.

Mr Houston: But Mr Thompson was not dismissed. He was suspended. The Principal: That’s right. It is a typiste’s error in some of the notices sent to members. Mr .Maynard spoke in favour of the amendment, which was carried unanimously without further discussion. Mr Watts: I will now move the second motion, and I don’t think I need add much to it. I feel very sincerely that the Board has a little further duty to Mr Thompson beyond the Coui’t’s decision. The fact of his sus-„ pension was published throughout New Zealand. As far as the, local district is concerned Mr Thompson will be not greatly affected ; they know him. But in other centres it is different. The chairman: That is not what you suggest in your motion. You say that the chairman or ono ot the other members who were active in the sorry business should apologise. Mr AVatts: I am prepared to leave it to the Board. I was not on the Board at the time of the suspension. Mrs Tinker seconded the motion.

“No Right to Order.” Dr. J. Connor: I would like to call your attention to the wording of this motion. It is not in order. This Board has no right to order the chairman, or anyone else, to move a motion of apology or to do anything else. ( The chairman: The Board may make orders like that, but those orders might not be carried out. They might be followed by some resignations; but orders we don’t take.

Mr Bramley: I agree that the wording is wrong. It says that an undeserved stain has been cast on Mr Thompson’s work. Who said anything about his work? It was never mentioned in connection with the suspension. In the minutes it is stated that the vote of the Board was unanimous, and we were all active m it, not the chairman and a few others, as is stated here. (Turning to Mr Watts). You nave mentioned the chairman, hut none of the others. You must know who they are, so why not mention them, too? Mr Buchanan: No one has the right to move a motion to order anyone on the Board to apologise. If I were ordered to do it, I wouldn’t do it. And why should we apologise to Mr Thompson, I should like to know? The Magistrate found that the Principal had been indiscreet, and he ordered him to pay half the costs of the hearing of the appeal, so it appears we Were not fully to blame. Mr Thompson brought some of this trouble on himself, of that I am certain. He was not blameless. Mr Houston: The motion could do with some alteration m the wording, but we should apologise. If we were in the wrong, we should apologise. Member Becomes Heated. Mr Buchanan: It is no good Mr Houston talking that way. He knew what was going on, and lie was not at the meetings to enter his protest. Mr Houston (advancing upon Mr Buchanan): Withdr aw! Withdraw ! The chairman (also on his feet): Order, Mr Houston ! Older ! Mr Houston (standing near Mr Buchanan): Withdraw that, old man ! Withdraw it! You must withdraw it. I was sick when those meetings were being held. Mr Buchanan: There was one particular meeting—— Mr Houston: I will not have it, Mr Chairman. He must withdraw. Mr Buchanan: There was one meeting I remember, when I particularly asked Mr Houston to be present, and he didn't attend. Mr Maynard expressed regret that the subject had been brought up again. “I think it was a great mistake on the mover’s part,” he said. “The Court made its decision and the Board knows what it- was. It should stand by it, content to let it drop.” The chairman: It is unfortunate that Mr Watts was not on. the Board at the time we discussed all this. Had he been a member then he would have known exactly how the Board dealt with the question. And now the chairman, or some other member, is asked to apologise for the decision the Board came to. I fail to see why lie should when it was done by the unanimous vote of the Board. It is not a sorry business, eitlier. The Board considered that it had been wronged through the action of the Principal and it acted according to its reading of the legislation on the point. If it acted wrongly then there was only one thing for Mr Thompson to do, and that was to appeal through the Court. If there was any stain on Mr Thompson’s character after the recording of the Court’s find-

ing in the minutes, then the Board was not to blame for it. I think it would be best to drojJ the motion. The Board acted with the best of intentions; it was very careful and deliberate in its choice of a representative on the Court of Appeal and it thought a long while before' it chose Mr E. F. Nicoll. It wanted a man who would be strictly fair and impartial on the Court, ihe Magistrate did not say that we were wrong in what we did, but that we had been wrong in our reading oi the Act. There were problems presented at the Court of Appeal that could have been fought, successfully, but the Board had acted in the way it felt was most fair to all parties. “Cruel to Mr Thompson.” Mrs Tinker: I considered that the Board was rather cruel to Mr Thompson at the time and I think the public thought' that, too. Mr A. Brown: The Board acted in the way it thought best. AVhen the question of amalgamation with the High School came up in the first place, the Board acted in tne best interests of the whole County. Any action the members took was in the interests of the pupils and no one had any axe to grind over it. If this is carried, we apologise. It is pretty hard when we come down to members of local bodies being asked to apologise to their staff, when they acted in a way they thought was best for everyone. Not a Bit Concerned. Mr AVatts: I am not a hit concerned about what people think who are in opposition to this motion, and I think I have got a large num,ber of people at my hack. I am prepared to drop the motion, if my seconder will agree, and to move another one, not ordering anyone to apologise. Ths chairman: You can’t do that. Mrs Tinker: But he can if I agree. The chairman: No, he can’t. He must go on with the motion. It has been moved and seconded. The motion was withdrawn, and £he Board proceeded To the consideration of “new business,” and under this heading Mr Buchanan referred to remarks that had been passed at the last meeting regarding certain members who were absent. Mr Houston had cast reflections on some of the members, and had said that what lie (the speaker) had said about not being present was all “eyewash.” Mr Houston: I did not use that word at all. Mr Buchanan (producing a copy of the “Guardian”): I can show it to you. Mr Houston: I don’t take any notice of that stuff. I didn’t use the word. Mr Buchanan: At any rate you cast reflections on some of us.' . Mr Houston: Oh, get on with the business of the- meeting. Mr Buchanan: I resent Mr Houston’s words at that meeting. He ought to have been satisfied with the members’ apologies for not attending that meeting. If I liaye got anything to say about a man I say it to him, and not behind liis back. Mr Houston: You can talk all night. It won’t make any difference to me, and you can take it to law if you like. Remarks Out of Place. Mr Brown: I thought Mr Houston’s remarks' were quite out of place, and Mr Thompson, who knew all about the reasons why some members were absent, should have corrected the position that arose. The chairman: I sent in my apology for my absence, and explained it to Mr Thompson. It was an urgent reason. It do not intend to give it to the meeting. Dr. Connor: I did not speak at the last meeting, but I will now. There .were some rather offensive remarks passed about absent members, and seeing that Mr Thompson knew about the absentees he should have corrected the impression that had been made. Mr Thompson: This concerns me now. I read the apologies at the meeting. The chairman: AA 7 e will be pleased to receive Mr Houston’s explanation. , Mr Houston: I am not' making anyapology for what appeared in the newspapers. The report was exactly correct, and I have nothing to apologise for. If l there were any explanations to have been made that night, why didn’t Mr Hillier, who was acting as chairman, make them. No, lie sat tnere like a stuffed —— The chairman : Order I Order I Mr Houston: You can tell him that from me, and if I see him I’ll tell him I Make no mistake about that I The chairman said that Messrs ■Charles and Buchanan were told by him that there was nothing very urgent on the agenda for that meeting, and that they could very well be given leave of absence. They had good excuses for being absent. Then lie (the chairman), on the night before the meeting, had been obliged to make urgent arrangements to go out of town. He went ou to' sharply criticise Mr Houston’s use of the term “the chief actor” in. the affair, as applied to the chairman. Acted for the Board. Mr Houston: I only said that the chief actor in this play was the chairman. The chairman: AVell, you should not have said so. I was not the chief actor in the sense you infer. I acted for the Board on the unanimous vote of its members, and I refute your charge in every detail. Mr Houston: I always refer to the chairman of a body as the chief actor. The chairman: But not in this case! Mr Buchanan: In the face of the whole tiling, members should lie specific when they are casting blame on other members, and then we would . know where we were. Mr Houston: You are going into tiu tacks now. Mr Buchanan: I am not going into tin tacks, as you call it. Mr Houston: Oil, rubbish! ■Mr AVatts: I will move that the Board should tender a- letter of apology to Mr Thompson for his wrongful suspension. The chairman: Is there a seconder for that?

Mrs Tinker: I seconded the motion, so I might as well second this. Mr Buchanan: I shall vote against it, Mr Chairman. I gave you my reasons before; it is no good saying them again. Mr Houston : I will support it. I am sorry Mr Buchanan and I can’t agree on these little things. I think there should he an apology. “Make Apology Mutual.” Mr Charles: Make the apology mutual and you might he right. The chairman: This was not a wrongful suspension. Not even the Appeal Court said it was wrong. What it said was that we had read the Act wrongly. As to tendering an apology, it is extremely wrong. I oppose it most strongly.

Mr Houston: They proved us to be wrong. . Mr Bramley: I will vote against the motion. The Court of Appeal said that, in acting the way lie did, Mr Thompson had acted indiscreetly, and that was the cause of the trouble. He was asked to apologise to the Board; be refused, and he was suspended. AVe can’t apologise for liis indiscretions. Mrs Tinker: The trouble was in making it public. The chairman: That can’t be helped. Mr AVatts: I can’t agree that the suspension was not wrongful. The Board must have been in the wrong. The chairman: Does that demand an apology to. Mr Thompson? Mr AVatts: I think it does. The chairman: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr AA 7 atts: I am going to ask for a show of hands. The chairman: A 7 ery well, a show of hands. The voting was as follows: — For: Messrs AVatts and Houston and Mrs Tinker. Against: The chairman, and Messrs Charles, Brown, Maynard, Buchanan and Dr. Connor. The chairman: Seve,n to three, the motion, is lost; Thank you, Mrs Tinker and gentlemen ; the meeting is closed.