APOLOGY REFUSED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20540, 15 February 1935, Page 4

APOLOGY REFUSED.

Echo of Suspension of School Principal. ASHBURTON DECISION. (Special to the “ Star.”) ASHBURTON, February 14. The Board of Governors of the Ashburton Technical High School by seven votes to three refused this evening to tender the principal (Mr R. J. Thompson) an apology for its action in suspending him; but agreed to include in its minutes the decision of the Court of Appeal that he had been “wrongfully suspended.” In the second term of last year, when the board suspended Mr Thompson for his action in writing letters to the papers concerning the proposed amalgamation of the Ashburton High School and the Technical School, allegedly against their expressed wishes. Mr Thomson’s appeal to the Teachers’ Court of Appeal was upheld.

The matter was introduced last evening by Mr H. Watts, who moved in accordance with the notice he had given: (1) “That in view of the records minuted regarding the suspension of the principal, the decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that he was wrongfully dismissed be inserted in the minutes.” (2) “That the chairman or one of the other members active in the sorry business move than an apology be sent to the principal for the undeserved stain cast on his work by the publicity given to the illegal act of the board in suspending him.” “ Should Be In Minutes." Mr Watts asked if the board had received advice from the Appeal Court regarding its decision concerning the suspension. The chairman (Mr A. L. Jones) said that he had received an official communication outlining the case and the results, which had been published in the paper. This was the property of the board, said Mr Watts, and members should not have to rely on the papers for their information. He said that the decision of the Court should also have appeared in the minutes. He moved to this effect and the chairman, in seconding the motion, said it was only fair to the members and the principal that it should be recorded in the minutes. Mr Watts then moved his first motion. Mr L. A. Charles said he wished to move an amendment as the words used did not appeal to him. The Principal was suspended, not dismissed as stated in the motion. Mr Thompson explained that the us-2 of the word dismissed was a typist’s error and should have read “suspended.” Mr Charles moved that the words after “that” be deleted, and the following substituted “the full text of the decision of the Teachers’ Court of Appeal and its accompanying memoranda relating to the appeal of Mr Thompson against his suspension be recorded in the minutes.” The amendment was seconded by Mr Buchanan and carried. Mr Watts then moved his second motion, which was seconded by Mrs J. W. Tinker. Dr J. Connor expressed the opinion that the wording of the motion was out of order, as the board had no right to order the chairman or any member to nropose a motion. The chairman: We must deal with the motion as it has been put in. Motion Defeated. Mr Buchanan said that the Principal was not clear of blame. The Magistrate had stated during the hearing of the case that the principal had aeen indiscreet. If Mr Thompson had been entirely free, the cost of the appeal would not have been divided evenlv between the board and the principal. The chairman said that it was unfortunate that Mr Watts had not been on the board at the time of the suspension. but he had a right to express his views. lie said that the board had rcted according to its reading of the legislation, and had done so with the best of intentions. The Magistrate did not sav that the board was wrong, but that it had wrongly interpreted the Act. Mr Watts said that he was not concerned about the opposition of members, as a number of the parents supported him. As this stage Mr Watts with the consent of the seconder agreed to withdraw the motion. The board then went on to deal with “ntw business.” and Mr Watts moved that the board tender a letter of apology to Mr Thompson for wrongful suspension. Mrs Tinker seconded the motion, which, however, was lost by three votes to seven. It was agreed to forward a letter to Mr E. F. Nicoll thanking him for acting as the board’s representative on the Court of Appeal.