ALLEGED INTRUSION.

Grey River Argus, 6 May 1922, Page 3

ALLEGED INTRUSION.

GREY SCHOOL MEMORIAL GATES. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN v. EXCHAIRMAN. The proceedings of the School Committee meeting last evening were somewhat disturbed by a letter from Mr P. McKenzie (late chairman) who wrote expressing strong indignation at what he called “an unnecessary intrusion and a breach of manners,” on the part of the present chairman (Mr J. Tennent) in connection with the opening of the School Memorial Gates on Anzac Day. The outgoing committee delegated Mr McKenzie to take charge of the arrangements and the latter resented Mr Tennent participating in the proceedings. Mr McKenzie wrote as follows: I desire to bring before the members of your committee an irregularity on the part of your chairman, which is in the nature of a slight to me. At the last meeting of the outgoing committee a resolution was passed conferring upon me the honour of taking charge of the function of opening the School Memorial Gates —this as a graceful tribute to the personal interest I had taken in the work in question. I submitted my plans for the occasion, and on interviewing the present chairman, was coolly informed that he was taking charge himself. Thus he was guilty of not only setting aside the resolution appearing on the minute-book, but also of a breach of good manners. It could not bo explained on the grounds of ignorance as he was present at its passing, and voted for it in his capacity of a committee man. My programme, as submitted to the rector, made no provision for any speech-making on the part of the present, ehairman or myself and the speakers were requested by me not to refer to any individual’s or committee's work. This programme was carried out with the exception of the unnecessary intrusion of the chairman. His action would lead one to think that his vanity precluded his taking an inactive part. I could easily have had the ceremony during my term of office, but proposed to make it an appropriate occasion. I consider, sir, 1 am at least entitled to an explanation why this gentleman so autocratically overrode the resolution and good taste in his desire to take to himself that which was conceded me an honour.’ Mr F. Pullen said the letter was rather a hard one, but nt the same time ho thought the chairman hail overstepped the mark when he took over the position of chairman of the opening of the gates function. And, again, the committee had voted Mr McKenzie to take charge of the ararngements and in the face of that he did not think anyone else should have ste|i • d in and taken the position. He (th* peaker) had spoken to Mr Tennent on - he matter who eontended that, as chai: an of the present committee he had right to occupy the position. The speaker contended the committee, having passed the resolution, should have stood by Mr McKenzie, as he had done such a great, deal of work in the erection of the gates. A certain amount of discontent had apparently been created and several inquiries had been made at. the time. 11 # would have been far better if Mr Tennent had stepped down in favour of Mr McKenzie and abided by the resolution. There was a saying concerning a “rooster crowing on his own dunghill,” but this seemed to be !a case of a man crowing on another man’s dunghill. Mr W. Sherratt said he had been puzzled by the way things had been carried out, and asked for an explanation. In response to Mr Weaver the secretary (Mr \V. 11. Whitburn) read the minute which stated that “the chairman be invited to take charge of the arrangements in connection with the opening of the School Memorial Gates.” Mr J. Weaver said he understood from that that Mr McKenzie was to have sole charge of the arrangements. He agreed to Mr Tennent taking charge of the morning function on Anzac Day, as that was a separate one, but thought Mr McKenzie should have charge of the afternoon ceremony, as he had done a great deal for it. Mr R. J. Williams said, when he moved the resolution at a previous committee meeting, he had not thought of the future chairman, but considered that Mr McKenzie, having done most of the work in connection with the gates and being a military man, would be the proper person to take charge. The chief reason, however, was that he considered Mr McKenzie had more spare time than any other member of the committee. Personally he had no axe to grind and had not anticipated trouble. The Chairman (Mr J. Tennent) explained that he considered that, if any slight had been conferred, it had been on himself. He was chairman of the committee, and, as long as he held that position, the dignity of the chair would be maintained. He thought that Mr McKenzie in his own capacity, would resent the interference of anyone taking over any of his responsibility. He did not take this stand because he was “Jack Tennent,” but because he considered himself entitled to maintain the dignity of the position he held, as far as possible. With regard to the opening of the gates, it had come as rather a blow to him to learn that there was any animosity between Mr McKenzie and himself. In conversation with the former on a day prior to the occasion mentioned he had discussed the programme to be observed at the function. He told Mr McKenzie that, as chairman of the committee, he

(the speaker') would introduce the proceedings and then call on him. He did not consider they should devote the whole of the function to outsiders. Mr McKenzie had just shaken his head nnd gone away. The speaker contended the accusation contained in the letter was unreasonable. The resolution in question should have provided for the co-operation of the present chairman for the sake of the position. In fact he thought it was understood and considered that Mr McKenzie would have sufficient tact to understand it. If there was to be any trouble he was quite prepared to stand by it and repeated that what he had done had been to maintain the dignity of the chair. Mr Whitburn (secretary) said previous discussion had convinced members that the new committee was obliged to accept the responsibility of the old committee’s actions, and he considered it would have been more discreet on the part of Mr Tennent to have left matters as the old committee had intended. Mr Tennent explained that no feeling had previously existed between Mr McKenzie and himself. He thought the action of the previous committee irregular in appointing a man they knew would be out of office at the time of the function. Mr Pullen said he supported the principle involved and would “stick to it.” He regretted to say so, but thought it was unmanly of Mr Tennent having taken the action he did. Mr Williams said the function had been carried out and had proved satisfactory. He moved that the ordinary business be proceeded with. This was seconded by Mr Weaver and greted with relief by the other members of the committee and the matter dropped.