REPLY TO MR ORAM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 202, 27 July 1937, Page 5

REPLY TO MR ORAM.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—lt is a matter of regret to me that Mr Oram did not reply personally to my previous letter, but sought the opportunity of a board meeting to make a statement to it, which gave me no right of defence before the board and imputed a personal attack on him which was never intended. He stated that everyone knows why the personal attack was made on him by me. I certainly do not know what he means, perhaps he will enlighten me. I have known him for many years and have had many and varied conversations with him. He cannot say that I have ever shown him unfriendliness or personal bitterness. He has nothing, even in ambition, which I envy, liis undoubted intellectual ability I admire, and regret that he should misuse it by resorting to statements which by tile clever manipulation of words are made to convey an entirely different meaning from their original intention. Mr Oram states that I have consistently advocated that Central and not College Street School should be selected for the intermediate school. That statement is entirely incorrect. 1 have never advocated that Central School should be the intermediate school site. I have always maintained that the intermediate school should be a new and separate site. What I did say regarding the matter at the meeting of school committees’ chairmen in Mr Oram’s office was this. If the board still insists that either College Street or Central School should form the intermediate school, there appeared to me more logic in support of Central School as the site, particularly as it seemed evident that a new primary school would have to be established at Takaro, but I opposed either site being taken. Such a statement does not infer that I have consistently advocated Central School as the site. Mr Oram 'further says that I advocated the Park Road site at the back of the Girls’ High School. That site was actually submitted by Colonel J. H. Whyte and I agreed that it was a possibility. I suggested several other sites, including two in Grey Street and the railway site if the railway deviation proposal were carried out. Mr Oram, however, does not refer to those sites. Had he asked me to submit all sites that might possibly be suitable, I would have had a survey made for that purpose. I had thought, however, that it was his duty to do that work rather than mine.

Regarding the informal -meeting of committee chairmen in his office, Mr Oram says “no further meeting was held because no suitable site could be suggested.” It was definitely decided at that meeting in his office that no further action would be taken until the committee chairmen were called together again. He certainly telephoned me and I objected to the ballot proposal until the necessary further information was supplied and until school committeemen had an opportunity of considering it. There were others who held that view and there was one other committee chairman a least who was not communicated with. Was his opinion not worth consideration ? In regard to Mr Oram’s remarks to me in his office on the question of a postal ballot I disagree that he said what is reported in his statement. 1 repeat that lie said exactly wliat is contained in question 3 of my first letter. Now dealing with the question ol the teacher who has been appointed to a temporary position at Terrace End, I certainly said that I felt very bittor against the board because it had never shown much consideration for the school committees in this city, and that it almost, appeared, as'r though. Central had been singled but for particularly harsh . treatment. The . facts of the teacher’s appointment are as follow: One of Central’s best qualified teachers was required under the, existing regulations to resign on accoiifit of her marriage.. That resignation was duly tendered and another teacher substantially lower in the grading list was appointed later to Central in her place. In spite of the shortage of both permanent and relieving teachers at that time, no objection was raised under the circumstances by my committee. Within a few months of that resignation she was appointed to a relieving position at Terrace End. If in spite of the shortage of teachers at the time of her marriage it was still necessary under the regulations that she should resign, why should the regulations later .be waived to appoint lier temporarily at another school ? . She could just as easily have remained temporarily at Central School as at . any other school. Had my committee thought that such action would be taken by the board they would have objected in the first instance. 1 apologise to the teacher concerned for involving her publicly in this controversy, but I have no option but to state the facts in view of the publicity given to the matter by Mr Oram. Some years ago Central Committee bad occasion to object to a certain appointment proposed by the board. The nature of our objection was published in the Press and both my committee and I were severely castigated by the board for permitting such a thing to happen. We have since refrained from publication of any discussion on . teachers’ appointments. In this incident we did' likewise and yet Mr Oram is prepared to broadcast the matter through tlic Press. What sort of a committee chairman would I have been had I not objected to the board’s methods?

There certainly has not been any secret made of the desire of the hoard to establish an' intermediate school in Palmerston North; neither should there be. I do repeat, however, that the board’s methods of selecting and recommending a site to the Minister were both secret and hasty. Had it not been for the meeting in the Opera House, College Street School would probably have been taken for the purpose and committeemen would have been made aware of the position too late for any action on their part. No spirit of cooperation with the committees was displayed at any time over the matter. It was for the foregoing reasons that I suggested that, Mr Oram was out of touch with the feelings and opinions of committees in this city. He at least should have made some attempt to acquaint himself with their views before making any recommendations to the hoard.

To the best of my knowledge Mr Or am has never served on a primary school committee. Had he done so it would have been good experience for him and he would probably have had a greater appreciation of the problems and difficulties which confront primary school committeemen, and of the heavy financial burdens which are continually their responsibility. Possibly the present publicity and ' unpleasantness i would have-, been avoided. I personally have steadfastly championed- the cause I of an intermediate school for Palmerston North for the veiy same reasons as Mr Oram does. I still do so, although alt school committeemen do not agree with me. I deny any suggestion that my attitude or actions have been in any \vay biased, or that I am at all insincere in my opinions and expressions of them. I am merely anxious to ensure that committeemen shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity of making a wise, final decision regarding the intermediate school. It would appear that they may now have

such an opportunity. . In my administration of the affairs of Central School and of the School Committees’ Association, and in any matter affecting the proposed intermediate school, I have endeavoured to be scrupulously fair and impartial to everyone, whatever Mr Oram or the board may think. In view of the nature of his statement to the hoard and of the very obvious attempt to throw doubt on my credibility 1 now challenge Mr Oram to resign his seat on the board and to contest the vacancy on the issues I raised in my first letter, the loser to pay the board s expenses of such election. —I am, etc., 1 W. G. BLACK, Chairman of Central School Committee ; president, ManawatuOroua Combined Schools’ Association.