APPEAL AGAINST SUSPENSION

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21324, 17 November 1934, Page 5

APPEAL AGAINST SUSPENSION

A HEADMASTER'S ACTION ALLEGED CRITICISM OF BOARD The appeal of Mr R. J. Thompson (pr'ncipal of the Ashburton Technical School) against the action of the school board in. suspending him for one month recently for alleged wilful disobedience of the orders of the board and of the chairman (Mr A. L. Jones), was heard at a sitting of the Teachers' Court of Appeal at Ashburton yesterday. . The decision of the court, which will be final and binding on both parties, will be in writing, and will be sent to the Minister for Education (the Hon. R. Masters) and the parties concerned. The court comprised Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M. (chairman), Mr 1 E. F Nicoll (nominated by the Ashburton Technical High School Board), and Dr. J. R. Wells (nominated by the Technical School Teachers' Association). Mr Thompson conducted his own case. Mr E. Buchanan (a member), represented the Ashburton Technical High School Board, and Mr C. M. Keys, of Christchurch (president cf the Technical School Teachers' Association) also attended. The action of the Technical High School Board in suspending Mr Thompson followed his refusal to insert in a newspaper a letter declaring that he had no intention of casting reflections on members of his board when he wrote two previous letters to a newspaper concerning matters raised at the first'conference of the Ashburton High Scnool and Technical High School Boards to discuss the amalgamation of the two schools. Reasons for Appeal The grounds of Mr Thompson's appeal were as follows:—(1) The board has no authority under section 4 (1) of the Educatiorl Amendment Act, 1932-33, to suspend its principal and secretary; (2) he had not at any time disobeyed any lawful command given in relation to his duties; (3) the board exceeded its powers in ordering him to publish a letter protecting members from imaginary reflections on them; (4) the punishment was unreasonable and out of all proportion to the alleged offence; (5) the continual bullying and unrelenting antagonism of the chairman and three or four members prevented an amicable understanding; (6) no board meeting was held on August 20, the date on which he was officially informed the resolution suspending him was carried. In opening the proceedings Mr Buchanan said members of the Tecnnical High School Board considereu the publication of Mr Thompson's first letter following the conference of th-2 two boards, improper because as an employee of the board he had no right to enter into public controversies on matters under consideration by his board without its leave. The general tone of the letter and the method of reference to a public man was not such as would be expected to come from the principal of the Technical School. The general tone of the letter and such expressions as "floods of generalities, platitudes of futilities were poured forth at the conference" amounted to distinct reflections on members of the Technical School Board in view of the fact that all the members of the board who had been present at the conference had spoken, and six of the eight had definitely stated that, subject to information being obtained showing that technical education would rtbt suffer as the result of amalgamation, they were in favour of the scheme. After the chairman (Mr A. L. Jones) had instructed him not to write letters to the paper, Mr Thompson wrote a further letter containing reflections in expressions such as "fickleness of boards," "tinkles on telephones," "chats on Burnett street corner," and "packed meetings," which could only apply to members of the Technical High School Board. Strenuous efforts were made by the board to get Mr Thompson to write a letter to the effect that in his previous letters hj« had not intended to cast reflections on board members but he would not do that, so the board had no option but to take disciplinary action. The board maintained, continued Mr Buchanan, that Mr Thompson was not bullied nor waa antagonism shown to him, and that instructions to Mr Thompson not to write letters to the paper were clearly lawful commands given in relation to the principal's duties. A Peculiar Position The chairman said a peculiar position was that Mr Thompson had been asked to sign a letter which would be tantamount to saying that he was a fool, and declaring an untruth. Mr Buchanan said the conditional clause was added to the resolution of suspension, so that it would be automatically lifted if the letter was published. Board members had endeavoured to extend every leniency to Mr Thompson. "It is obvious that Mr Thompson disobeyed instructions when he wrote the second letter to the paper," said the chairman. Mr Buchanan said the Education Department had advised that Mr Thompson was the servant of the board. The chairman said the court had decided it would not go into the clause of appeal relating to "continual bullying and unrelenting antagonism." The clause relating to the date of the meeting of the board was only a technical objection. .„,,*., . , Mr Buchanan said that the board realised the gravity of the position when suspension was being discussed, and Mr Thompson and Mr Charles had been left for 20 minutes in an endeavour to arrange a letter for publication which would be suitable to both parties. They had asked Mr Thompson to insert the letter. The chairman: It depends how a man is asked. Sometimes the asking rubs him up the wrong way and makes him fight. An Objection At this stage an objection was raised by Mr Thompson to Mr L. A. Charles, a member of the board, who was also a solicitor, passing on advice to Mr Buchanan, when the constitution of the court and procedure did not allow any party to have counsel. Mr Buchanan submitted that Mr Charles, as a member of the board, had drafted most of the letters and was In possession of all the facts. The chairman: Mr Charles must be allowed to give certain reasonable assistance arising from facts in his possession. Giving evidence, Alfred Lexington Jones, chairman of the Technical High School Board, said that at a meeting of the board it was indicated to Mr Thompson that in defying the chairman he was defying the board. He considered that Mr Thompson had cast distinct reflections on members of the Technical High and High School School Boards in letters he had written to the paper. The Technical High School Board was in favour of amalgamation with certain reservations, the principal of which was that technical education was adequately safeguarded. The High School Board favoured amalgamation. The letters of Mr Thompson jeopardised a wholesome discussion of the question of amalgamation. In answer to the chairman of the court, witness said that generally the letters of Mr Thompson were not contrary to the views of his board. He objected to the letters coming from an officer of the board. Mr Thompson said the question of amalgamation was not discussed in his letters, which were written purely to correct mis-statements concerning the Technical School made at the conference of the boards. He contended that Mr Jones and members of the Technical High School Board should have corrected those mis-statements and -should not have Jeft him io da so„,

To the chairman of the court, Mr Jones said Mr Thompson's letters were an attempt to correct mis-statements, but had had a bad effect. Leonard Andrews Charles, a member of the Technical High School Board, said the board would not accept an addition which Mr Thompson wished to make to the letter which he was asked to insert in the newspaper. Witness took objection to the first letter Mr Thompson wrote to the newspaper, and he considered it wrong that a servant of the board should write on the subject of the conference without at least consulting the chairman. The chairman said that, taking an unbiased view, there was no doubt that Mr Thompson's letters were a criticism of the High School's advocacy of amalgamation. Mr Thompson could ht.ve assured his board that he had no intention of casting a' reflection on it, but he did not want to admit a mistake. Before Mr Thompson opened his case, the chairman said the points at issue were: Was there a wilful disobedience in sending the second letter to the paper? Was it wilful disobediance in refusing to sign the letter as requested by the board? Assuming there was a breach, was the punishment reasonable? "If you imaintain -that you are not a teacher under the meaning of the act, does it not cut the ground from under your feet, as you have appealed as a teacher, and the case is before the Teachers' Court of Appeal?" said Mr Orr Walker to Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson: I could not be suspended in that case. The chairman said that if MiThompson was not a teacher, the court could-not decide the case. In that case action would have to be taken in an ordinary court. "I think wc will assume that we have power," he said. Appellant's Case In opening his case, Mr Thompson' said that none of the board's reasons for suspending him touched the real point at issue which was: Had the board the right under the act to suspend him for the reasons given by it? The unexpected and violent interpretation given to the act by the board had created surprised consternation in the minds of many in the education service. The board had no authority to suspend him because (I) he was not a teacher as denned by the act. as he taught only 11 hours instead of 20 hours a week as required of teachers; (2) he had not been guilty of any neglect of duty; (3) he had not disobeyed any lawful command given in relation to his duties. The board claimed to have suspended him because he refused the request of the chairman not to publish a certain letter, and his refusal to publish another letter. If the request of the chairman was a command given in relation to the duties of the principal, the question then arose, did the circumstances warrant the issuing of that request or the principal's disobedience of it There were many urgent reasons why he should not accede to the request of the chairman. The claims of the public interest more particularly the interests of the present and future students, were of sufficient importance to warrant publication of more accurate facts. Parent:; were disturbed particularly by the fact that an important question, vitally affecting present and future students, was being rushed through immediately before four, or possibly five new members of the board would have the opportunity to consider it. In the absence of the principal from the conference of the board, the public naturally looked to the chairman of the Technical School Board to correct obvious mis-statements regarding technical education, continued Mr Thompson. He failed to do that leaving the speaker no option but to defend the reputation of the Fehool through the newspaper. The attempt of the chairman to prevent him doing that was beyond his power. It was an unjustifiable attempt to stifle discussion, and in refusing to obey the chairman, the speaker neglected no duty and disobeyed no lawful command. "In fact I was carrying out a defined duty," said Mr Thompson. It would have been much better to have sat still and done nothing, or at least to have signed a fictitious name to a letter, still none of those methods appealed to him. He signed the letters as a parent anxious to put the matter on the right footing. Being principal of the school or secretary to the board did not take away his right to freedom of speech as a parent. Some parents were worried and urged that more accurate facts be placed before the public. He was the only person in the town capable of focusing attention on the inaccuracies on which amalgamation was to be built. There was an obligation placed on him to endeavour to give the true facts to parents and the public. Members of the Technical School Board failed to realise that the most serious part of the punishment was the publicity, and they were imposing a penalty which would do incalculable damage to his reputation, said Mr Thompson. "In asking me to publish that letter after it had punished me, the board was endeavouring to force me to sacrifice my principles," concluded Mr Thompson. The court indicated that its decision would be in writing and would be sent to the Minister for Education (the Hon. R. Masters).