TECHNICAL SCHOOL FUNDS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 June 1924, Page 11

TECHNICAL SCHOOL FUNDS.

REPLY BY II.WYKHA CHAIRMAN. The question of the Technical School funds which were due to Hawera Board, and the extra amount which they considered should be paid to them above that proposed by the Education Board, was brought up by the chairman at last night's- meeting, who said that in view of the personal attack made by Messrs. Masters and Smith, he claimed the right to reply. He said the Hawera Board’s letter was very reasonable, and had been admitted by several independent men to be not at all out of place. He moved the following resolution: “That this board of managers, having no option but to accept the division of the technical, funds made by the Taranaki Education Board, fully supports the letter, dated 29th May, to the board on the question by the chairman,, and as a protest contends that the attitude of the Education Board and its sub-committee has completely justified Hawera-’s action in appealing to the department for consideration of the question, and only.-regrets that there appears to be no chance of legal redress,”

Speaking to the motion, he said that in view of the personal attack made upon him by two members of the Taranaki Education Board, he considered it necessary to call public attention to the facts of the case from the Hawera Board’s point of view. The remarks of Messrs. Masters and Smith only went to prove that his letter was sufficiently to the point, and if they had not been in the wrong no exception could have been taken to its tone. Mr. Masters needed to remember that his own attitude on this question had not been conciliatory, but m fact the reverse. Neither he nor Mr. Smith were prepared to -allow this board to go into the matters under discussion in detail, but tried to impose their decision on the Hawerai Board. In view of this attitude the Hawera- Board had taken the course of appeal to the department, believing that although they probably had as much knowledge of educational conditions, they were called on to prove there was no means of getting assistance from the department in obtaining wiuft they corfsidered to be a- square deal for Hawera. He said that stress had been laid on the fact that complete and accurate accounts had not been kept for each school, but he was convinced that the hoard’s own accounts as submitted to Hawera were sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes, and that the statements given to Mr. Gray and himself, which were sent to the department, were approximately a correct statement of the financial position of each school. The claim by Mr Masters that Hawerai had not paid sufficient for the services of Mr. Gray while lie was holding the dual position of Director of Technical Education and headmaster of New Plymouth Technical College would not hold water. Mr. Gray’s salary would, under any circumstances, have had .to be paid by the New Plymouth School or divided over the whole district. ‘However, they recognised that there might be something in Mr. Masters’ claim, and accordingly conceded that a further £IOO should i be deducted from the £llOO claimed as due to Hawera, leaving £IOOO to come to- this board. The fact remains that the Education Board, by originally recognising the claims of the various schools to -the balance of /the* technical funds, admitted that the various towns were entitled to the capitation, etc., which they had earned. In this connection it may be well to point out that when Hawera became part of the Taranaki Education district a debit balance was transferred from Wanganui and charged against Hawera. This point, nt least, is quite clear in the Education Board’s hooks, and Hawera not only wiped out this debit, but accumulated -a fund of £I3OO over and above all expenses charged to this account. The advisory committee were not' able to get from the board any statement of the position until the matter of the transfer of control was decided. They even then had very great difficulty in obtaining it. The board, having recognised that the various towns were entitled to the funds, his board could not yet comprehend why the accounts were not used as. the basis of distribution, and considered that the division as made could not under such circumstances be a “fair and impartial one.” The strictly “legal” position no doubt was that the board could distribute the fund as it saw fit. But having once admitted the “moral” obligation, it did not say much, for the “impartiality” of the Education Board when it decided to arbitrarily divide the fund. It appeared to him that Hawera had a very strong exception to take against this action, and also against the attitude of the Education Department in refusing to advise the board to abide- by the ac” counts. The only inference that could be taken was that either these accounts were right, and if so very unfair treatment was being given to Hawera school, or else the accounts were wrong, although prepared by the hoard’s officers. The charge that his letters were expressed in an “unfortunate” way did not worry him, because he believed that he had expressed himself similarly on previous occasions in dealing with educational matters, and the result had not been prejudicial to this district. However, even if his letter was “unfortunate” in tone, it was at any rate fortunate enough to express the* attitude of this board in such a way that there is no mistaking what this* board thinks about the whole matter. To sum up the following facts are undisputed: (1) The Taranaki Education Board may distribute as it sees fit the funds out of which we claim. (2) The board has kept or had compiled separate technical accounts for New Plymouth, Stratford and Hawera, showing the capitation earned by each and the expenditure thereof. (3) Those accounts show that Hawera has to credit approximately £I3OO. (4) In view of clause one above it is proper that debits on account of technical education in the smaller centres should he cleared off out of the total fund. (5) After the debits have been cleared off and an extra £IOO allowed for any deficiency by Hawera in its contribution to Mr Gray’s salary while he supervised Hawera from New Plymouth there remains to the apparent credit of Hawera approximately £IOOO. (6) The Education Board, relying on its powers in clause one ns above, refuses to give Hawera the £IOOO, and allocates the money as follows: Hawera £7OO, Stratford £360, New Plymouth £450. (7) The Education Department, refuses to interfere in the matter because it states it cannot legally do so. On the facts as above can any one snv that Hawera. has received “fair and impartial treatment?” If Hawera is not morally entitled to the lull £IOOO, why should it receive any more than an 'equal share with Stratford and New Plymouth. The answer is because the hoard knows it should receive more. Once this is admitted one of two conclusions must be correct: Either (a) the board’s accounts ale wrong, and do not show the correct position, or (b) if they are right, Ha-

wera is being deprived of its just due. Finally, if the accounts are wrong, on what basis does the board allocate £7OO to Hawera ? Hawera will apparently have to accept the apportionment made by the Education Board, but at least it has not done so without a protest which has ‘.‘touched the spot.” Mr Murdoch said that the board had left the matter in the hands of the chairman to draft a reply to the Education Board, and he was strongly of opinion that the statements of the two members were quite uncalled for. Naturally, he added, having left the matter to one man, the board would give him their whole support. Mr Harding said he supported the chairman unreservedly, and considered the Education Board knew that Hawera had put the matter in a right and true position, and that the action of some of the members in New Plymouth was camouflage. He referred ‘to the statements of the position of the funds first given by the Education Board, and considered they were taking advantage of a flaw in the Act by which the matter of the funds was entirely in the hands of the Education Board, ‘and the Minister had no right to interfere. Mr Miirdoch said that if Hawera had at the time had a board of managers instead of only an advisory board they would have been entitled to receive the funds at the time.

Mr Hobbs said he was. heartily in accord with the motion, as the books proved their case to the hilt. . Mr Harding said that the bookkeeping system formerly showed details for each school, but now 7 the board said it was all one fund and the others should not have been kept. The motion w r as carried unanimously.