EDUCATION BOARD TROUBLES.

Evening Star, Issue 10401, 24 August 1897, Page 2

EDUCATION BOARD TROUBLES.

A special meeting of the Education Board was held, this morning for the purpose 1 of! considering the questions' arising out of: the unauthorised alteration, of the plana* of the Board’s new offices” in Crawford! and Jetty streets. All the members were present as follhws:—Messrs D. Bowie (chairman), ,H. Clark, W. J. J. • Ramsay, A. M'Kerrow, J. F. M. Fraser, J. M‘Rae Callaway, P. B. Fraser, and the Hori. John MacGregor. ■ After some discussion as, to how, the inquiry was to be conducted, it was decided that the Board adhere.to their-previous resolution and .hold, it in,committee, -on the understanding that at any time they could return into opan board and have the evidence taken by a shorthand writer. . M? Somerville (the Board’s architect) and Mr Pryde (secretary) having been called-in tho inquiry was opened. , Mr P. B. 'Feasee at oncis moved “that go into open Board,?’ both Mr Pryde amj Mr Somerville, being agreeable to that course.

The motion was carried unanimously and the inquiry was consequently conducted in public. , , , "

After the; resolution authorising the erection of Board offices at the corner of Jetty street and .Crawford street had been read the following statement was made by Mr Somerville x—As this inquiry is, I understand, being held at my request, I respectfully ask that, it be held in public, because the subject has been freely discussed by the public, and it is best in the interest of all concerned that everything should be open. The main questions on jvhich.l have asked for an inquiry are; (1) Whether the alteration made .in the plans of the new offiobs was made by mo ofmy own accord, or whether it was made under the instructions or with authority of . the secretary; (2) the general question as to the relation between the works department of the Board and the secretary *.e., whether I am subject to the directions of the secretary, and, if so, to what extent,* and whether the responsibility for the conduct of the department rests wholly on me, or partly on me and partly on the secretary, or whether the secretary; .is .merely the vehicle by which the Board's instructions are conveyed to me. In dealing with the first question, the following are the circumstances under which the plans were prepared and afterwards altered., As soon as the Board decided to build offices the secretary came to me and said I was to proceed at once to prepare plans; as he could never rest until the. work was done. I sketched out a plan showing the main entrance from Jetty street, and when Mr Pryde saw it he said he wouldn’t have that—“the entrance must be from Crawford street. I must have it there, Somerville;” and he told me to nrepare another plap with entrance from Crawford street. This was done, and a plan with the entrance, from Crawford street was approved by the. Board and signed by the chairman. I have always been of opinion that the entrance should be from Jetty street, and I argued the question very fully with the secretary; but the Board never. asked, me for my opinion on thesubject. Some time after the plan had been approved, and when the foundations had been put in for the outer walla, Mr Pryde came to me and told me to prepare a plan showing the entrance from Jetty street. I did so, and Mr Pryde was constantly in and out of my office, seeing how I was getting on with it. When it was finished he brought the inspectors in to see it, and, after full discussion, he said ; “ Well, do it that way, Somerville.” , I said would Ibe right in doing that 2 What about the Board 2 Mr Pryde said; “ Oh, it was only the elevation they approved of. I don’t suppose they.know much about anything but the elevation. You just do it that way.” I proceeded to carry out the work according to that plan. , Some time afterwards Mr Pryde came to my room, and we had a discussion, during which Mr Park was present, , and a little later, Mr Niohol. The , secretary .then denied that he had authorised or instructed nie to make the alterations. We had some high words. I said that if he said he had not authorised it he. would be telling a downright lie. A change had come over Mr Pride’s attitude in the interval since the original plans had been approved. The question of a room for the use of the teachers had been raised, and Mr Pryde was very much opposed to it. I was of opinion that a room could easily be provided for the purpose, and had said so to Mr P. B. Fraser on his asking me. On the general question of the relations between the works department and the office, I have to state that for years the secretary has treated me as if I was as much under his instructions as the clerks in the office, and matters requiring a knowledge of building are often settled by the secretary, when they should bo left to someone who understands how the work should be done. In consequence of this I am often placed in a very difficult position, for instead of being left free to carry out what I consider best I have had to do things that I could not approve of, and what has taken place regarding the plans of the offices is one instance. The plan submitted to the Board for their approval showing the entrance from Crawford street would never have been suggested by me if I had been consulted by the Board, or if it had been left to the exercise of my own judgment. When I pointed out my objections to the plan the secretary settled the matter, simply saying; “I want them that way.” I may mention another instance that occurred some time ago. I instructed the clerk of works shortly after his appointment that when he was in the country he should make a point of examining the school buildings, so that when applications for repairs or anything else came in I could advise the Board without a special visit. Shortly afterwards the inspector had occasion to visit a school at a considerable distance in the country, and on his return he reported to me verbally that the residence was in a bad state. The ‘secretary happened to be present, and he said to the inspector that that was none of his business, and that the house was .too good for the man that was in it. Another instance that occurred a short time ago may be mentioned. It arose in connection with the building of a water tank at Hyde. Mr Park told me one day that I was to send men up to do the work. I pointed out that the work could not be done in frosty weather, and I suggested that a telegram should be sent to make inquiries. This I understood was done, and a reply was received by the secretary to the effect that the weather was favorable. The workmen were accord-' ingly sent up, and it turned out that the gravel had not been provided by the Committee. After the gravel had been got and the work commenced the men had to knock off on account of the frost. If I had not been interfered with by the office this would not have happened. But for some reason or other the office seemed anxious to bring on the work, and again I was prevented from exercising any discretion. T have another instance to mention, and that occurred in connection with the alterations in Albany street School. The chairman gave orders to remove two platforms from one of the rooms. That was done, and the secretary asked me; “ Who authorised you to do that’” and said “You had no business to do it without my authority.” I would be glad to be informed what my position is in such cases, as I am sometimes very awkwardly situated. I mention these cases for the purpose of showing how necessary it is that there should be some distinct understanding as to how far I am to be under the instructions of the secretary. This I consider necessary in the interests of the Board. ■<’

In reply to questions, Mr Somerville said that he could not remember when it was that he received instructions to prepare a plan showing an entrance from Jetty street. So far as he himself was concerned, he always was of opinion that the Crawford entrance was a mistake. In reply to Mr Pryde, Mr Somerville said he was quite sure that Mr Pryde brought the inspectors into his room. He was certain he did not ask them to come. He could not give any particular instance where Mr Pryde had treated him disrespectfully or crossed him in his purposes. Adam Nichol, inspector of works, called ai a witness by Mr Somerville, said that hfi saw the first plan Mr'Somerville prepared. It had an entrance to Jetty street.

' f ' *' ■ " Mr Pryde came into the room, and, noticing that the entrance was from Jetty street, he told Somerville that the.entrance must be .from Crawford street. He had heard. Mr Somerville say it would* spoil the building to .have the entrance in Crawford street.This was previous to the plans being,approved by the Board. One day, Mr;Pryde came, into Mrbomervllle’a room.and saw a, plan on the table showing the entrance from Jetty .®freet,-. Mr Pryde.aaid he -.would .have.in •.the inspectors to,* look! at; it., ,He said Very .well, .S^eiwiUe, : ;juß^*).'.(t t ' , tluMt w . a y-; ..Mr, Somerville .asked; ,“What about the.Board 2, They had approved of .the other plans.” :Mr Pryde replied that it was the elevation that the Board were concerned about, and he- questioned whether the members of. the Board knew much about the other matters,; That was .on the 10th of July. -He had heard Mr Pryde give verbal instructions.to Mr.Soineryilie, but could,not recall any matter ofdmportance—with the exception of the tank, at Hyde—that Mr SomerviUe . had bron’. instructed to do bjr Mr Pryde.,, ~ jAt 3 35 Mr Pryde, commenced to give side of the case. He denied having made any suggestion as to the alteration of the entrance from Crawford, street, to-Jetty street. He took blame to himself for not haying told, Mr Somerville , to bring, the matter of the change before the Board.: All that he (Mr Pryde) was consulted abotitwas the alteration in the internal arrangements consequent upon the change of the main entrance.

Mr Pryde had not concluded his evidence at 4.15. . , ,