SCHOOLS’ COMPLAINTS FOUND UNJUSTIFIED

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30736, 28 April 1965, Page 3

SCHOOLS’ COMPLAINTS FOUND UNJUSTIFIED

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, April 27. Complaints to the Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) about the decapitation of Thorrington and Paparoa street schools, Christchurch, have been investigated by him and found to be unjustified.

I le said this in reports released today of cases examined during the year ended March 31.

Of the Thorrington case he said the school committee had complained to him against the decision of te Minister of Education directing that die school should become a contributing one as from the beginning of 1965.

He mentioned that the term “decapitation” was frowned on by the Education Department.

“At the outset it was necessary to determine strictly the limits of my jurisdiction,” Sir Guy Powles said, “and 1 pointed out to the school committee concerned that 1 had no authority to investigate the actions and decisions ef either the education board concerned or, of course, of the Minister himself.

“Furthermore, preliminary inquiries had satisfied me that the decision in this matter was in fact that of the Minister.

CLARIFIED COMPLAINT “The committee then clarified its complaint by alleging the actions of the Education Department had resulted in the Minister of Education

being given misleading information upon which to base his decision. “It was also alleged officers of the department had exercised undue influence upon the board.” Sir Guy Powles said he went carefully into the department’s files, but found no evidence to substantiate the committee's complaint. It seemed the facts placed before the Minister were those which the department had obtained from the board.

He found that, concerning this charge of influence, there was a good deal of depart-ment-to-board and board-to-department communication. The complainants felt this meant departmental policy was being translated into board policy, “but in my view this was too narrow a way to view the situation.” The fact was that development of intermediate schools was clearly a matter of national educational policy, formed at various national' levels over a long period, “and it would be expected; that the various administrative organs of education . . would give effect to this national policy in due course, having regard to the necessities of proper and wise administration.

“NO EVIDENCE” “1 did not find in the flies anything which would lead me to believe something other than this had taken place. 1 could not find any evidence of any undue pressure by the department upon the board.” Sir Guy Powles said he had visited Christchurch and had interviewed the committee. He was also courteously and unofficially received by the chairman and secretary of the Education Board, and so was fully appraised of all aspects of the case. The only new fact which emerged was the comparatively recent discovery that the expected 1965 grading roll figures for the school concerned would be somewhat less than the previous estimate.

He considered this, and later advised the school committee the roll was only one of the factors involved, and that he did not feel the circumstances warranted a recommendation that the matter be reconsidered. “1 was also able to advise the school committee that the inspection of the intermediate school concerned, upon which 1 was able to elaborate in some detail, did not' support the committee’s contentions that this school was already full and unable to take more pupils.” the Ombudsman said “Indeed, all the evidence was to the contrary.” PRESSURE ALLEGED Of the Paparoa Street School complaint, the Ombudsman said that in addition to other claims, the com-

nrittee had alleged the department had exercised undue pressure upon the Minister

(Mr Kinsella). He made a very careful ex-j amination of the allegations, “in view of their potentially, serious nature." visited Christ-I church and the school concerned. and had "a long and frank discussion" with mem-, bers of the school committee, j “In the result I found no! evidence at all which would! justify my making any find-! ing to the effect that any! actions or recommendations of the Education Department! could be justifiably subject to any criticism under the terms j of my act," Sir Guy Powlesl said. “Far from there being any question of influence or pres- 1 sure being exercised on the! Minister, it seemed to me! l from my careful study of the! facts available to me that the! ultimate decision in the easel was clearly and definitely a! personal decision made by the Minister after a careful consideration of all the facts, and after hearing personally all the parties concerned, including the school committee itself,” he said.