MOUNT ROSKILL SCHOOL HEADMASTERSHIP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 12661, 15 September 1904, Page 3

MOUNT ROSKILL SCHOOL HEADMASTERSHIP.

COMMITTEE'S SUSPENSION OP MR, O'DONOGHUE. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT. The difficulty between the Auckland Eoiu. cation. Board and the School Committee concerning the headmastership of the- Mount Roskill public school, was again. discuss*} at a meeting of the Board yesterday, the subject being introduced by a letter from .Mr. O'Donoghue (the headmaster), in reply to the Board's request that lie should formuate an answer to the charges made against him by the committee, who persist in his suspension pending an inquiry. In this the headmaster stated that the allegations made by the committee had been dealt with and disposed of by the Teachers' Appeal Court, which investigated the circumstances relating to his dismissal by the Board and ordered hi reinstatement, which had subsequently been given effect to by the Board He had consequently refused to recognise the suspension of the committee and had continued in charge of the school, recognising the Board as the- paramount body. The secretary of the Board (Mr. V M Rice) then placed before the members documents from the Mount Roskill School Committee intimating that they had instructed their solicitors (Messrs. Burton and Hammond) to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of injunction restraining: Mr. O'Donoghue from continuing in office pending the lawful removal of the suspension. Mr. H. J. Greenslade said he regretted that the committee had seen fit to adopt such a course pending the receipt of Mr. O'Donoghue's answer to the Board concerning the charges made against him. He moved, "That the Board instruct its solicitor (Mr. ,T. R. Reed) to defend the action, against Mr. O'Donoghue, and empower him to retain Mr. J. C. Martin as counsel."' Air. C. J. Pair seconded. Mr. R. Hobbs protested strongly against the action of the Board in the matter, and held that the Mount Roskill Committee had been driven into Court by the attitude of the Board in persistently refusing the request for an inquiry into the allegations made by them against Mr. O'Donoghue. Tba charges were fresh charges, and where a teacher's character Was concerned it was the duty of the Board to render every facility for an exhaustive inquiry. Mr. Greenslade: Some people say you drove them on. Mr. Hobbs denied that such was the case and stated that he had been out of town during thy pas* fortnight. He asked. Mr. Greenslade not; to interrupt. j Mr. Greenslado: I can substantiate my ' statement. I Mr. Hobbs: I challenge you to do so. I Continuing, Mr. Hobbs spoke further in : support of his protest against the resolution ! submitted by Mi. Greenslade. • Mr. J. D. McKenzie drew the Board's I attention to the fact that only quite reJ cently they had given Mi. O'Donoghue a I testimonial., in which his character was reI ferred to in glowing terms. This had been J done by the unanimous consent of the mem- : bers. Mr. Hobbs .said that the testimonial was | of a non-committal sort, and only referred jto Mr. O'Donoghuo's character as far as j they knew." \ Mr. J. Stallworthy was opposed to the | expenditure of the Board's funds in : the di- | rection suggested by the motion; it was for j the committee and the master to fight the ; matter out. It appeared that the Board feared that the committee was- likely to come out on. top, hence the measures taken to prevent an inquiry. He moved aa an amendment, " That the Board having heard Mr. O'Donoghue's statement in reply to the committee's charges, decides to hold «i inquiry into the matter." '"• Mr. Harris contended that the whole of the charges contained in the 'committee's statement had been fully inquired into by the Teachers' Appeal Court, including those with reference to his private character. Mr. L. J. Bagnall held that the latest allegations made by the committee were nob in the'minds of the members of the Teachers' Appeal Court when they had ordered! the master's reinstatement. If the Board intended to defend the action he thought , its would be quite sufficient that they Bhouldt instruct their own solicitor and act employ another legal man to shield Mr. O'Donoghue. .• • ■ ■■ The Chairman (Mr. S. Luke) held that tho Board had acted loyally and hjid done its duty in the matter? he would accordingly | support Mr. Greenslade's motion. " , ■ Mr. Green considered ' that ; thai Board's dignity .and honour .had been impugned, and it was therefore for them, to move in. the matter. ...,:'./-''. ' Mr. MoKenzie was satisfied that the Teachers' Appeal Court had gone thoroughly into the merits of the case, and held that; the latest charges only covered ground that had been investigated. The amendment wap then put and defeated, and the motion was adopted on th«» voices, the ayes being Messrs. Harris, Parr, MoKenzie, Edgecombe, Luke, and tie mover (Mr. Gxeenslwie), and the noes Messrs. Hobbs and Siailworthy. Mr. Bagnall had withdrawn before the; motion was submitted, having been called away to an important engagement. ; Mr. Greenslade then submitted a further motion approving the action of the headI master (Mr. O'DonoghiieJ in declining to re--1 cognise the Suspension cf the committee, ! but this claimed little support, and was ! withdrawn, members pointing out that the ! master had simply done ] his duty in the I matter. ■ .. ,' ";