SCHOOL APPOINTMENTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16352, 23 September 1913, Page 9

SCHOOL APPOINTMENTS.

BOARD AND COMMITTEE. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 22. An important case involving the question of what is the proper course to be followed by the Auckland Education Board when it has to appoint a teacher to a position for which applications have been called came before Mr Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court The' plaintiff was the City Schools Committee (Dr Bamford) and defendant the Education Board (Mr J. R. Reed, K.C., with him Mr Moore). During the course of his argument, Dr Bamford produced an affidavit made by F. E. N. Gaudin (chairman of the City Schools Committee) which stated that when a vacancy occurred the Education Board sent to the committee the name of the applicant with the highest qualifications together with testimonials. It also sent the names of other applicants, but in no case with their applications and qualifications. Dr Bamford said the material question arose in the Act amending Section 55 of the Education Act, 1908. The amending Act provided that when a teacher was removed from one position to another, whether in the same school or in a different school other than to the position of head teacher in the same school, the name of the teacher, together with a statement of his length of service and other qualifications, should be sent by the Board to the committee. In any other case, a list containing no more than four names (in the order,of merit as determined b-R the Board) of teachers whom the Board' considered best fitted for the appointment, with statements showing length of Hervice and qualifications or each teacher, was to be sent to the committee. If names had been invited, the Board was to send the names of all applicants, together with the applicatione and testimonials of each teacher whose name appeared on the above list. Section 6of the amending Act provided that if there was only one name on the list the committee merely had nower to make a recommendation. It had no power to select, but if there was rrftre than one namo the committee could make the selection and the Board was bound to make the selection. In conclusion, Dr Bamford said the obvious intention of the Legislature was to give the committee tho right of selection, at any rate between two persons, but-the action of the Board in sending only one name completely nullified the* purpose of the Act. 'No doubt the Boord bad deliberately adopted the policy of not allowing the committee to have the right of selection. Wherever possible > a school committee should have the right of selection, and counsel strongly urged tho view that the reference in tho Act to the list was not satisfied by a document containing only one name. For the defence, Mr Reed mentioned that when it was necessary for tho Board to send a number of names to a committee a certain amount of influence was exercised in connection with appointments, and a man of a retiring disposition never obtained such rapid promotion as others who wero prepared to get friends to work for them. The Board had now adopted the policy of making promotion entirely by merit, and counsel submitted that that was the intention of tho Legislature. Tho submission of a name to a committee and the Board's desire for the committee's expression as to tho applicant's capabilities was a statutory consultation. Judgment was reserved.