TIMARU HIGH SCHOOL BOARD.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2973, 21 December 1900, Page 4

TIMARU HIGH SCHOOL BOARD.

A special meeting of the Timaru High School Board (adjourned from Tuesday) was held last evening. Present—Mr Howell (chairman), Messrs Macintosh, Macdonald, McCahon, Gibson and Talbot. An apology was received from Mr Barclay. Miss Watt, Lady Principal, wrote asking that the window of the cookery room be whitened before the school meets again, and that about two dozen hat-pegs be put in the room. The blackboards also needed blackening again. In reference to manual and technical instruction, she suggested that dressmaking would be a serviceable addition to the school work. A competent teacher could easily be obtained.—The chairman was authorised to have the matters mentioned attended to.

Miss Alice Gillies wrote resigning her post as student teacher at the girls’ school. —Accepted.

The Board sat in committeee some time to discuss matters relating to leases, in conference with their solicitor, Mr Knubley.

They also dealt with a letter from Mr Aspinall, claiming £175 on' behalf of J. Day, a late tenant of an Orari farm, for value of improvements. On this mattei the following resolution was carried by foui to two (Messrs Macintosh and Macdonald entering their protest)— ‘‘That in answei to Mr Aspinall’s letter of the 12th December instant he ,be informed that the Board are willing to pay to Mr Day the sum of £75 in full settlement upon surrender of his lease, and that the chairman be authorised to pay the amount on the completion of the surrender.” Mr T. Orr, Waitohi, wrote accepting the Board’s offer of renewal of his lease on the terms named by the Board.

The chairman stated that, acting on the solicitor’s advice, a letter had been written to Mr Orr, ten days before the date of his letter, withdrawing the offer, as they were advised that the Board cannot legally grant renewals without competition. It was very much to be regretted. The Board had been anxious to get away from the tendering system, and thought they were succeeding in doing so; but the legal opinion showed that they were in'error. Mr Talbot said the opinion revived the whole question, and showed that thev could not make the arrangements they had contemplated making with the tenants. The Board had written to Mr Earl and Mr Burke, offering them renewals of leases of their farms at a certain rental. Now they were advised that they could not proceed on those lines. Notice had already been sent to them that the proposals sent out wore withdrawn. That was the position now. They would have to come to some decision at once as to how they were to proceed in future. The opinion of the solicitors ought to be made public, so that the tenants and others interested, as well as the Board, might know the Board’s legal position.

Letters were read from Mr Earl and Mr Burke, protesting against the rentals asked from them for renewals of their leases.

Mr Gibson said that on receiving Mr Knubley’s opinion the chairman called a meeting of the town members. There were present only the chairman and himself, and the solicitor. They went through the various Acts, and their solicitor advised what the Board proposed to do was illegal. The Board desired to abolish the tender system if possible, but they would not do it. He and the chairman suggested that another solicitor’s opinion should be obtained. Mr Knubley agreed to this, and consulted Mr Kinnemey, whose opinion agreed with that of Mr Knubley. ' Mr Kinnemey’s opinion was read as follows :

TIMARU HIGH SCHOOL BOARD. My opinion has been asked on the following questions: (1.) Can the Board let its reserves without puttting them up to public competition? In other words : May the Board invite applications for tenancies at a rent to be fixed by the Board and chose its own tenants from among the applicants either by resolution orballot?

(2.) Is the Board empowered to grant new leases to its present tenants whose leases are now expiring at a rent to he agreed upon without offering the lands for public competition?

I advise as follows : As to the first question:— (a) With the exceptions hereinafter stated the Board cannot legally let its reserves without first putting them up to public competition by public auction or public tender. It may however fix a reserved rent and in the event of the highest offer by an eligible tenant not reaching the reserve may at any time within twelve months thereaftetr let the land by private contract at a rent not less than the reserved rent at which it was offered by public auction or tender.

(b) The Board is of course not bound to accept the highest tender merely because it is the highest, but may and ought to also consider the means and qualifications of the tenderer to carry out the proposed contract of tenancy. The Board would not however be justified in refusing the tender because the tenderer offered more rent than the Board considered the land was reasonably worth if it was apparent that the tenderer was a responsible man who had means of paying the rent and performing the conditions of the tenancy. (c) The principle generally adopted by the Legislature that a public body cannot itself fix the rent of its reserves but that the amount must be determined by public competition appears not only from Section 11 of Timaru High School Act, 1878, Section 5 of the High School Reserves Act, 1880, and Section 6 of the Public Bodies’ Powers Act, 1887, but also from. Section 20 of the Public Reserves Act, 1881, and the statute law relating to Municipal and other Corporations. The exceptions affecting the case now under consideration are : (1) Where public competition has failed to effect the desired object (Section 7 of the Public Bodies’ Powers Act, 1887). (2) Where the tenancy is yearly or less (Section 8 of the Act last above mentioned). (3) Where a right of renewal is granted under Section 2 of the Public Bodies’ Powers Act, 1887, Amendment Act, 1891. In the case of a lease granted under that section the renewal or renewals may be at a rent to be fixed by the leasing authority by a special resolution or by valuation or by arbitration, but the original lease must be by public competition under Section 6 of the Public Bodies’ Powers Act, 1887. (4) Where the provisions of Section 243 of the Land Act, 1892, have been applied by proclamation. As I understand however that the Board desires to retain the control of its reserves in it? own hands and does not wish to dispose of them under the lease in perpetuity system it is unnecessary to make further reference to the provisions of that section. The facts of the case now under consideration do not bring it within any of the exceptions above referred to and the answer to the first question is therefore that the Board cannot legally let its reserves without first putting them up to public competition by public auction or public tender. As to the second question: Apart from the provisions of Section 244 of the Land Act, 1892, it is quite clear that the Board it not empowered to grant new leases to its present tenants whose leases are; now expiring at a rent to be agreed upon, without offering the lands for public competition. I have had some doubt whether the Board might not without obtaining a proclamation under Section 243 avail itself of the provisions of Section 244 in order to grant the present lessees renewals at rentals to be fixed by arbitration but on full consideration I am satisfied that the power of re-

newal under Section 244 cannot be exercised without obtaining such proclamation and thus rendering the land subject to the control of the Land Board, a course which I understand the Timaru High School Board has no intention of adopting. Mr Gibson said he had made some notes on the opinion. It was evident that the Legislature had laid down the principle that all the Board’s lands must be submitted to some form of public competition, so that the whole community might have a chance to become the Board’s tenants. The Board was therefore forced into the position of submittting the leases to public competition, and there were three ways cf doing this: (l).By public tender, the Board not fixing a minimum rent; to name the sum they were willing to give. Under this plan the Board would be bound to accept the highest tenderer, t nless they had some really tangible excuse why they should not do so. (2.) The Board could fix a‘rent and call for tenders, adhere to that rent, refusing to accept a lower tender, and letting it privately for one year if no tender was up to the fixed rental. (3.) The Board to fix a rental and call for tenders for the purchase of the lease for the whole term at that rental. Personally he was in favour of the third plan, and was !>rerared to move that it be adopted. I nter on Mr Gibson added that there was •;'(vher way—offering the lease by public I ret inn—hot he and all members present ’isannroved of this plan Mr Talbot said that Mr Gibson’s was a -'easible plan, but he preferred simple comnetition. If they sold the lease they would lose all power of selecting the tenant. They would also confine the tendering to men with money in hand, while there were many men who would be good tenants who could not put down any ready money. He did -ot think they would get as good a return under Mr Gibson’s plan. (Mr McCahon approved of this plan, believing that they would get more satisfactory tenants, men who would be able to work the land properly. Mr Gibson moved, and Mr McCanon seconded a motion to the effect that the Board fix a rental for a term of seven years, and then invite tenders for the /purchase of the lease at that rental. TIkT mover argued rhat the Board would fix a fair and reasonable rent a l , and-if would-be tenants thought the land worth more, they would make up the difference in the lump sum they offered for the lease. The chairman said that it would bo a great handicap to a tenant to put down the cash that he should expend in improvements, in paying a portion of his rent in advance. Mr Macintosh said the difference would not be much

Mr Talbot proposed as an amendment — “That in view of the legal opinion with reference to the question upon which the Board can re-let the reserves, the leases of which are now expiring, the said reserves be thrown open to public competition by tender, the tenderer to state the highest annual rental he is prepared to give.” Mr Howell seconded, and on his casting vote, the amendment was carried, Messrs Gibson, McCahou and Macintosh voting against it. All the members expressed great regret that the Board are unable to get away from the tendering system, which had landed the Board and their tenants in so many difficulties in the past. Mr Talbot moved—“ That tenders be called for leasing the reserves now in the occupation of Messrs Orr, Burke, and Earl, respectively, from May Ist, 1901, to May Ist, 1908, tenders to be sent to the office on or before February Ist, 1901.”

The chairman seconded this, and it was carried.

On the motion of Messrs Talbot and McCahon, the chairman, Mr Gibson and the mover, were appointed to act with the Board’s solicitor in drafting conditions of leases for re-letting the Board’s reserves. On the motion of Mr McCahon, it was resolved that on a settlement being made with Mr Day, his farm be treated in the same manner as Burke’s, Earl’s, and Orr’s.

A proposal was made that a clause be inserted in future leases requiring tenants to eradicate noxious weeds, but it was withdrawn, on Mr Talbot assuring the Board that it would be impossible to insist upon “ eradication.” . / The Board rose at 10.10 p.m.