WAITAKI BOYS’ HIGH SCHOOL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27267, 19 December 1949, Page 6

WAITAKI BOYS’ HIGH SCHOOL

Sir, —It was not my intention again to enter your columns, but certain statements made at the prize-giving and other functions almost demand attention. X shall deal with facts, undeniable facta and principals. (1) The rector stated that Mr Milner resigned partly on a matter of principle in connection with the control of the boarding school. The facts are that Mr Milner would have resigned years earlier but for the fact of the war then being fought, and he felt that it was his duty to remain. (2) Mr Milner had complete and undisputed control of the boarding establishment, it being his own private concern (the last in New Zealand) and the matter of policy was entirely his own affair. His views on the future policy were quite a different matter. (3) The rector suggests that the board office should be at the boys' school, disregarding the fact that there is an equally important girls’ school under the Jurisdiction of the board. (4) The rector of his own volition resigned. The board gave him several days to reconsider his position and to withdraw his resignation. He refused to do so. The board had no option but to accede to his own request and accept his resignation. The decision to go was entirely in the rector’s hands. No member of the board asked him to go. (5) Is the governing body going to be put into the position that it is to be ignored regarding appointments to the staff? In that event, service, qualifications or anything else could count for nothing. Any member of the staff might lose earned and deserved promotion.—l am, etc.. Fair Play. (Abridged.—Ed.. ODT.]

Sir, —I read with interest the reported explanation of the rector of Waitaki concerning the events leading up to his resignation. Has the board any reply to this? Do they stand by the principles that guided them in the first place? The rector resigned “ for a principle." There are good principles and bad principles. How good is this one? In the first place, how many headmasters of even our largest primary schools have a say in appointing their own staffs? Secondly, does the rector of any of our university colleges have any more than an advisory say in the appointing of his staff? Should our Government secondary schools be in a class of their own? Why is the final say in the hands of a governing body? To prevent injustice being brought about. If the head of a school was the sole arbiter of the lives, careers and destinies of his staff then it appears that, making allowance for the frailties of human nature, he wields a power out of all proportion to the position to which hp has been appointed. A correspondent has assailed the board. The board was unanimous in its appointment of a first assistant. Are they all wrong?—l am, etc., Let Right Be Done. [Abridged.—Ed. ODT.]

Sir, —The board will create a dangerous precedent if, in yielding to pressure, it decides to reverse its decision to accept Mr Burrows’s resignation. Surely the board must seek to retain the dignity of its office, as well as the confidence of those citizens of Oamaru who are deeply concerned about the future of Waitaki. — 1 am, etc.. Parent of Ex-pupil.

Sir,—lt seems to me that a lot of Irrelevant material has been introduced in this matter and is obscuring the real situation. Most correspondents have forgotten this issue and introduced the man himself. He and his military record have absolutely no bearing on the matter. The question of right or wrong revolves round this—has Mr Burrows exceeded his duties? Just what is his position? Is he the rector or the governing authority? The board shoulders the responsibility of employer, and as such, is vested with the power of appointment. Whither, then, his right to insist on his wishes being acceded to? Why elect a board if it is to be rendered impotent by external influences? No one doubts Mr Burrowss ability or his character, and the board has not questioned them. The question is one of policy, not integrity.—l am, etc.. Onlooker.