College Governors Vote Again On Penalties

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30178, 9 July 1963, Page 12

College Governors Vote Again On Penalties

(From Our Own Reporter;

NELSON, July 8.

The Nelson College council of governors refused tonight to rescind a decision it made on May 30 to suspend one boy for four weeks and to expel another for the same offence. The motion for rescission, moved by Mr S. A. Whitehead, M.P., was lost on the casting vote of the chairman (Mr D. F. Horlor). But a second motion that the resolution relating to the boy who was suspended be rescinded was carried. This was done after the mover (Mr B. W. B. Cooper) had said that tne council had acted ultra vires in suspending the boy.

When it was later pointed out to Mr Cooper that the effect of his successful motion was that the suspended boy would be reinstated immediately, and that the expulsion decision had not been altered, Mr Cooper expressed dissatisfaction, and gave notice to move at the board’s next meeting that the punishment of expulsion on the other boy should be rescinded.

The two boys had entered a dormitory of the Nelson Girls’ College.

Before the council considered either notice of motion the meeting went into camera to hear a deputation from the father of the expelled boy. When the press and one member of the public had been readmitted it was moved that the notices of motion should be taken in committee, but this was lost on a show of hands. .

Speaking to his motion, Mr Whitehead said a mistake had been made and should be rectified. At its previous meeting the council had made its decision on the casting vote of the chairman, and he knew that the chairman was supporting the recommendation of the actingheadmaster.

“But I would now question some of the things said in that report,” said Mr Whitehead. “One of the things said was that the expelled boy’s behaviour in the hostel was unsatisfactory But we have since been told that the report sent to the boy’s father showed his be

haviour to be satisfactory. The boy had been away for two terms in 1962 but he was readmitted in 1963 by the headmaster (Mr B. H. if he was-an unsatisfactory pupil it is very doubtful if Mr Wakelin would have taken him back." Mr C. T. Marshall, supporting Mr Whitehead, referred tc a report from the expelled boy’s housemaster. “I am satisfied this report was written for one reason, and that was to substantiate the acting-headmaster in the action he was recommending should be taken,” he said.

At this stage Mr J. Newman objected to Mr Marshall’s quoting in open meeting from reports which were intended to be confidential to the council. “Hands Are Bound"

“Unfortunately, my hands are bound,” said Mr Horlor. "I could not agree more. Bui they were tabled in open meeting, and not as confidential.”

Returning to the report, Mr Marshall quoted one passage which said that the -expelled boy was “determined not to derive any benefit from his schooling. “This boy passed his school certificate examination while he was 13 and in his third year at school, and as he was away for two terms through illness, I would suggest he has what it takes,” said Mr Marshall. > "I am upset and concerned that we are here to discuss the lives and future of boys in public,” said Mr Newman, in opposing the motion.

He said he considered a decision had been made and the council should stick to it. No new evidence had been brought forward. “All the masters agree the decision was the right one, and there is a resolution by the masters along these lines," he said. “What will be the result if this council turns round and alters its decision?

There can only be one: we would have resignations from several masters, and I would not be surprised if the actingheadmaster did not see fit to resign if we did not support him.”

Supporting the motion. Mr E. Pearce said he felt there was only one punishment for both boys, and that was expulsion.

“If they had been outsiders it is possible they would have been gaoled for this escapade,” he said. New Member’s View Mr S. Haines, the Nelson Education Board’s new representative on the council, said that last month he was a ber of the public, but now was a member of the council —a rather peculiar position. “I think the public feel the punishment should be the same for both boys,” he said.

After Mr Whitehead had replied, the motion was put and declared lost on the casting vote of the chairman. Mr Cooper, moving his motion, said the council had acted ultra vires in suspending ’one boy for four weeks. The act stated that a board, or governing body, after receiving reports, could direct that a pupil be reinstated or expelled. It did not allow for suspension. Mr K. E. Knapp agreed that the council had acted ultra vires. It was quite clear that the act reinstated or expelled, he said. Mr Horlor said he had had a legal opinion on this matter and that was to the effect that there should be a reinstatement forthwith.

He had voted against Mr Whitehead’s notice of motion, but he had not known that the board had acted illegally, said Mr G. J. Dixon. “Must Start Again” “Had I realised that in the first place I might have supported Mr Whitehead. If our action was illegal. I feel we must wipe it off and start again,” he said. Mr Cooper, to Mr Horlor: What you told us was that our action was against the act. but that you considered the act was a bad one and we should ignore it. Mr Horlor: We had decided on two punishments, and our action was only ultra vires, if proved ultra vires. Mr Cooper: This council knew that. It passed this motion ’ when the act was there.

The motion was then put and carried. Mr Newman: What’s the story now? Mr Horlor: Punishment has been made and carried out.

Mr Cooper gave notice tha< he would move at the nex’ meeting that the punishmen 1 on the expelled boy be rescinded.