THE CASE OF MR. O'DONOGHIUE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 29, 3 February 1904, Page 5

THE CASE OF MR. O'DONOGHIUE.

| DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE, j ! i The case of Air O'Donoghue. head- j '■ I master of the Mount Roskill school, ; r | now under notice of dismissal from the | , ' Education Board's service, was advanc- ' 1 | ed a further stage last night, when the j t | Mount Roskill School Committee, alter i ; 'some lively discussion, resolved to call f i the Education Board's attention to the < i fact that the Committee had only asked \ i for an exchange in the headmastership I \ ' of the school, and not a dismissal of the I 1 present master. The request of the ' = ; meeting of residents, that the Commit- j t I tee should resign, was put in the back- I t | ground for the present, no notice being ( I taken of the resolutions. At the very beginning of the meeting, r J when Mr Kinloeh challenged the minutes, which be said contained a reso- ] lution that the Committee should not £ meet in January, though the motion \ had never been put to the meet- , ing. He wanted the paragraph deleted from the minutes, but it was re- , j taiued by five votes to two. Later a j letter from the Education Board, en- j I closing a letter to the Board from Mr | R. P. Kinloeh. a member of the Commit- j. 'tee. was read. Mr Kinloch's letter conrained a request for all correspondence upon the headmastership of the Mount ' Roskill school, giving as the reason for the request an allegation that "tbe l chairman had concealed from the know- i ledge of the rest of the Committee all l ; correspondence that is based upon the x I matter with the exception of the Chief * i Inspector's reply of October 19.' ; The * ' chairman of the Committee (Mr C. Bag- * leyi read the letter, and then asked Mr \ Kinloeh to substantiate his statement. * Mr Kinloeh adhered to the allegation. - and the chairman retorted that he had never concealed a line of correspond- - 1 ence on the matter. He asserted that c Mr Kinloeh should have found some-!-thing more than conclusions to go upon j before he made such cruel statements, c Mr Kinloeh said that the Board had U told him all the correspondence had I been forwarded to the Committee, and I ■ bis only alternative was to say he must i have been misinformed by the Board. i This trouble disposed of temporarily, f the chairman read the communicated re- ;. I solutions of the residents' meeting on t j December Bth. requesting the Commit- , | tee to resign, and he added that as the ~ -chool was for Mount Ro-kill residents, j j 'and he was sure that the Committee i had the support of the Mount Roskill families, he did not see why any notice ' -hould be taken of the resolutions. .Other members of the Committee took a similar view, and ihe matter was dropped after a little, di.scu-siou. Mr Kinloeh then moved a resolution, i which with slight alterations was ' .adopted, as follows:—"That the Com-: . mit tec's attention being called to the .Board.- dismissal of the headmaster from the Board's service, they beg respectfully to state that ihey only ,asked for an exchange in the head-I masters for the school.'' This also was vigorously diseus=i-d by the Committee, but eventually carried without much j ■ opposition. DISCUSSION AT THE EDUCATION i ' LSOAI-LD. | I Ihe Mt. Roskill srhoul question was! I again before the Board this morning.! I The secretary reported that Mr O'Donoghue had written asking for certain examination questions and answers. The | letter had been referred to the Chief In-j , -pt'etors. who had forwarded to Ml I O'Donoghue certain answers and papers. ■ A letter was also received from a par- | ent protesting against the failure of his, 'child in composition at the examination of 1001, and Mr O'Donoghue wrote to similar effect. Messrs Devore and Martin wrote to the Board on behalf of Mr O'Donoghue, ! stating that Mr O'Donoghue could not accept notice of dismissal from Ml. Roskill school, as the dismissal was uot in ' accordance with the Act. Mr Parr said that these papers had been asked for by Mr O'Donoghue some three months ago. At the time a reply i was sent to Mr O'Donoghue stating that ' the papers were not in the Board's possession. It now r.ppeared, however, ' that the papers were in the possession • of the inspector. He -thought the secrel tary should have informed the Board " of this when the request was first made. Mr Rice said that he had done what ' the Board told him to do. He had nothing to do with the examinations, 5 but he believed that Mr O'Donoghue > saw the whole of the papers when the ) school was examined. The Chairman said the Board had now '• to face legal proceedings, aud be would t move that the letter from Messrs De- | ' yore and Martin be referred to the Board's solicitor, and that consideration s of the correspondence be deferred until i the solicitor's opinion be obtained, t Mr Harris asked whether the curtailfc ment of the examination at Mt. Rose j kill was done under the instruction of > the Board. t The Chairman: "Lex mc say that i teachers laugh at this question of cura tailment. It is not our place to ine struct the chief inspector what to do." r Mr Greenslade said teachers did not aU laugh at it. He knew of a case in which there had been a curtailment, and in which the inspector promised to make due allowance. In his opinion this was a most pernicious system. Mr Harris again put his question about the instrunctions of the Board 1 with reference to the curtailment of the 1901 examination. £ The secretary read a letter from the : Epsom school committee in 1900. point- - ing out that children who failed at '- neighbouring schools were sent to Mt. k Pvoskill school for the examination a r few months later, and suggesting that - the Mt. Roskill school should be examr ined a few mouths earlier to obviate jj this. This had been sent on to the j chief inspector. Mr Luke said that the curtailment c was made at the request of the Epsom s school committee. Mr. Parr moved as an amendment: / "That in order to avoid litigation, and a in view of the present committee having i- declared that they only want exchange, o not dismissal, the notice of dismissal '" be suspended until the new committee I ? to be elected in April has been first coni- suited upon the question of rhe removal *' of the heacEmaster." Air. Parr said he thought the board might take another ►t course than that which was contained in *> the motion. Children had failed for a • standard because it suited the convenience of the inspection department. The children fead a claim on the board, and he wonld suggest that the work of the ■>. children be revised by Mr. Goodwin, - the senior inspector. He moved his amendment because since the lasi naeet-

ing it had come to their knowledge that I the commutes had said that they onlywanted Mr. O'Donoghue exchanged, and' not dismissed. They were bound to re-j' spect this wish of the committee. The chairman rose to a point of or- ( der. Mr. O'Donoghue had not been dis- i missed. j At Mr. Harris' request tbe secretary \ read the board's resolution of November 18. as follows: (1) That effect be iriven to ihe request of the Mount Roskill School Committee for a change of head teacher; (2) that Mr. O'Doiioghtte's engagement as head teacher be terminated j by three months 5 notice, in accordance with section 47 of the Education Act. Mr. PaiT said that if this did not constitute dismissal he did not understand the English language. He contended that it was not intended that Mr. O'Donoghue should be re-engaged. The Chairman: "Mr Parr was not present at that meeting.'' Mr Parr continuing, said tha* Mr Bagnall. who proposed the resolution, said that Mr O'Donoghue should not be in the service of the Board. The chairman had no intention but that Mr ODonoghue's engagement should be absolutely terminated. He was quite willing to leave it to the public of Auckland to say whether this was a dismissal or not. He contended that the Board had not consulted the committee about the dismissal. If the Board proceeded on -the present course they would be going contrary lo the express wish of the committee, who only contemplated an exchange. With regard to the legal position, supposing the matter went into Court, and an action had to be fought, the case could not come on before May. They ought to postpone tbe matter until the new committee j was elected. The press and the public were against the Board, and he felt strongly that the Board had erred. The secretary read a telegram from Mr Purdie. inspector, to Mr Petrie, chief inspector, in which Mr Purdie stated thai in his report on the examination of Mt. Roskill school in 1901. he certainly made allowance for the early date of the examination. Mr Stallworthy thought a lot of time had been wasted by members. Mr Harris: ''Your mind is made up?" Mr Stallworthy: ''That is an insult. and f throw it back in your teeth." Mr Stallworthy went on to point out that the amendment of Mr Parr would throw the matter on to the householders to squabble over. This would be shirking the Board's responsibility, and would be most unwise. He thought the wishes of the householders and the school committee and the report of the inspector was enough to go upon. Mr Dye thoughl they should take notice of the inspector's report. Mr. Harris supported Mr. Parr's amendment. The chairman then ruled that .Mr. Parr's amendment was out of order, and I that if he wished to carry his point he must give notice to rescind the resolution already carried. Notice of the termina- j tioti of Mr. O'Donoghue's engagement had been sent to Mr. O'Donoghue and j to the committee, and the resolution j must be rescinded before other action ; could be taken. Mr. Greenslade said he wished to protest as strongly as he could against this way of conducting business. The chair- | man had allowed the amendment to be discussed and had then suddenly ruled it out of order. The chairman should have taken a firm stand at first. Mr. Edgeeumbe had desired him to say that he would support such an amendment as Mr. Parr's, and he would support it himself. He hoped the amendment would be accepted and passed unanimously. The chairman said he was simply doing his duty. After his engagement was terminated there would be no difficulty in Mr. O'Donoghue applying to have his name placed on the list for employment. Mr. Luke said he would vote for Mrf Purr's amendment because he did not think that the inspector's report warranted dismissal. A man given three months' notice would find it very difficult to set another engagement. Mr. Parr then moved that the letter from Messrs. Devore and Martin be received and that consideration be deferred until next meeting. Mr. Parr said this wonld give them an opportunity of receiving the committee's resolutions. The chairman then withdrew his motion, and the motion to defer consideration was carried.