EDUCATION BOARD’S AND COMMITTEES.

Evening Star, Issue 4941, 3 January 1879, Page 4

EDUCATION BOARD’S AND COMMITTEES.

A case was recently decided in the Auckland District Court which has a Very important bearing upon the question a few months ago very warmly discussed, in Dunedin—namely, the relative functions of the Education Boards and/the School Committees in the matter of the. appointment and dismissal of teachers. ; The facts were very briefly these : —The plaintiff (Mr Smith) held the office of teacher of the “half time’’ schools. at, Lucas Creek and Pukeatua, originally under the several Provincial Ordinances, and upon their repeal by the Education Act’of 1877 tinued to hold Office under the provisions of that enactment. On Jumi 28, T§7Bi the Secretary to the Auckland Education Board wrote to Mr Smith as follows:

In acconlanca with section 47. of,the Education Acb 1877,1 am' directed by, the Board to. give you notice that your engagement as a teacher of the’ Lucas’s Creek and Pukeatua (half-time) schools will terminate at the expiration of three calendar months from the 30th and- that your services will not be required by the Board after,-that period. V. E. The notification of this notice of dismissal having been sent was at the' same - time formally made to the chairmen of the School received from Mr Long, : the secretary of the Lucas Creek school,, to the effect that the local committeehad made no complaints against the teacher, and, in fact, had none to make,”'smd askedjn the haine of the Committee for further explanation ; and, in reply to a communication from the Secretary of the Board that the school wag; not considered in a satisfactory state, Mr Long again wrote— T ’? r .> / ’ ; It would be matter of ' surprise if* where only four months’ instruction ini the twelve were given to the pupils, the school should be. in a’thoroughly satisfactory state. No complaints .against the teacher were lodged in the school hooka - He took upon himself to say that there were no grounds - for such complaints. On the sth July, Mr Jeeps, the chairman of the Pukeatua Committee, replied to the notification sent by the'secretary : The removal of tho teacher is not, as you state, according to section 45 of the Education Act, 1877, as this Comniitteo has not consulted. Subsequently in August Mir Jeffs again wrote : ’ That no charge or complaint had been made against Mr Smith as teacher of Pukeatua school; and that the half-time system was to blame for any deficiency in the school as regards either teacher or pupils. The declaration in the case simply alleged that the dismissal of the plaintiff was a wrongful act, and the Board in defence pleaded a general issue ; but it was urged by their counsel (Mr H. H. Lusk) Jdiat -the notification in writing'to the Comthjttee was in the nature of a 'cbnsilltatfoh,' ! and tbat therefore clause 45 of the Act bad been duly complied with. It was also suggested that the determination plaintiff’s engagement was not a “ dismissal ” under clause 45, but the expiry of a contract or “engagement ” under clause 47. From the statements of counsel on both sides it 'was, however, 1 clear that the object, especially of the Board, was to raise the'question and obtain a decision whether thb Board could dismiss a. teacher without first consulting the local committee. After, the evidence oh behalf of the plaintiff, which simply related to the facts as to the letters and notices as above stated, had been taken, Mr Lusk, in moving for a nonsuit, said that-the Board of Education v* as a public body, and the only object they had in view was to determine their rights as a public body; There could he no doubt, he alleged, as to the power given them by the 4,5 th section, and it was competent ( to. construe that section in effect that the'notice given to the School Committees— * ■"

In accordance with section 45 of the Education Act, 1877, 1 am directed to inform you'that it is the intention of the Board of Education to remove the teacher from the Pukqatiia'sehqol; and' that 'the engagement of Mr Smith will cease at the .expiration of three months from this date,, and the Board, will appoint, a teacher in his stead; ; : ■ t

had for Tits object to elicit from those bodies whatever,was to be said, against what the Board proposed to do-at the end of three months, and that it was open to the Committee to give reasons why the Board should not carry out, the : intention notified. But thefe was," Mr .L'dsk argiied, another question whether this would be regarded a dismissal ’ within the meaning of the Act, or in any sense. The 47th section provided the mode in which an “ engagement ” between a teacher and the Board should be determined. The teacher must give a month’s notice, and the Board must give a teacher ■ three months’. The Board had done this, and so far had acted in conformity with the Act. The .judge overruled all the points raised, and refused a nonsuit, expressing his ‘ opinion that there was no inconsistency between the language of sections! 45 and 47. "Where the “ engagement ” was determined against the will of the teacher, it was to all intents and purposes a dismissal. As to whether there had been any “ consultation ” of the committee, that was a question which had to be determined by the facts,-and was 1 clearly a matter for the jury. After some deliberation the 'jury gave a'verdict for the plaintiff for the full damages claimed—£loo—evidently considering' the dismissal to be wrongful, in that the Act had "not been complied with; the notice to the committees not being within the provision that “no appointment, suspension,, or dismissal shall take place until the committee have been first consulted.” . , .