Let The Public Know What Public Officers Do

What is the Use of Open Doors If Matter Must Not Be Published

---

School Board Should Expunge From Their Records a Resolution Censuring the Making Public Their Meetings--Letters of the People

---

To the Argus:

Like many other citizens, I have been astounded at the effort of the majority of our board of education ot hide the board's proceedings from the light of day. The Argus deserves the commendation of every sincere friend of our schools in taking a strong stand in favor of publicity.

The people, who pay $60,000 a year in school taxes, should not be kept in ignorance of what is being done by the board. They are entitled to the fullest knowledge of its proceedings. In fact such publicity is absolutely essential to the success of our public school system, which must always be kept close to the people. Any attempt to apply dark-lantern methods to its management must inevitably result in disaster.

The people of Ann Arbor owe a debt of gratitude to Trustee Cavanaugh who gave the newspapers the first intimation of what was being done with reference to Prof. Pattengill. The moment the matter was made public the alumni and the citizens generally arose as one man in defense of this splendid teacher, who has done more than any other living individual to give the Ann Arbor high school the proud position it holds in the educational world. Like his beloved associate of many years, Prof. W. S. Perry, whose death was an almost irreparable loss to our schools, Prof. Pattengill has given the best effort of a life-time to their upbuilding. ANd yet, had Mr. Cavanaugh not given the newspapers the facts, this veteran educator might have been quietly dropped or forced to resign, in spite of the existence of a practically unanimous sentiment in favor of his retention.

For oding the public this valuable and timely service, Mr. Cavanaugh is condemned by resolution of the same board that was compelled by public sentiment to re-engage Prof. Pattengill by unanimous vote. Among those whose votes were recorded in favor of this arrogant resolution of censure were the members of the teachers' committee who had squarely reversed themselves in the face of enraged public opinion and without giving any reason for their action.

Under the circumstances, could anything be more ludicrous than this resolution of censure of Mr. Cavanaugh for giving the public the truth? We can conceive of a Quay or a Pennypacker favoring such action, but we are confident from expression heard on every side, that the citizens of Ann Arbor have viewed it with nothing short of contempt. 

TAXPAYER.

---

To the Editor of the Argus:
 

I do not believe in rushing into print, but your article in your issue of May 19 is so unjust and unfair that I cannot help answering it. There was no reporter of the Argus present at the meeting except Mr. Beakes stood in the doorway for a moment or so. I judge therefore that Mr. Cavanaugh made the report that was published. I am gratified that Mr. Cavanaugh is now so strong an adherent of Prof. Pattengill. If the committee were wrong in their report asking Mr. Pattengill to resign, Mr. Cavanaugh certainly was for he made the motion ot have the committee's report concurred in, which the records will show. Also, when I made some remarks that in my opinion it would seriously affect Mr. Pattengill's health should anything of that nature come upon him unawares, Mr. Cavanaugh answered "We were not there to act on sympathy," to which I replied "No, but for justice and right." Now as regards the matter becoming public at the time it did. After Mr. Beal's motion to refer the matter back to the committee to consult with Mr. Pattengill, it was mentioned that it would not be best to have the matter published until it was settled, and had there been reporters present the request would have been made to them, and I have not the slightest doubt it would have been granted. As to secrecy. There never, to my knowledge, has been a session since I have been on the board behind closed doors. The public are always welcome and I think I voice the sentiment of every member of the board in that regard.

Respectfully, 

EVART H. SCOTT.

---

The Argus gives Mr. Scott space for his criticism on the Argus article. At the same time it would have him understand that the article he deems unjust and unfair was not written by Mr. Cavanaugh, but was written by Mr. Beakes, who heard Mr. Cavanaugh's speech and who assumes full responsibility for the article. As to who made the motion to adopt the teachers' committee report last Friday that has nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Scott says Mr. Cavanaugh did. Mr Cavanaugh emphatically denies this and gives the name of the member who, he says, did. The Argus did not state who did and does not care, as that is a matter of no moment whatever. The question is, has the school board the right to censure the publication of the board proceedings. The logic of saying that the meetings of the board are always open to the public and then that the publication of the proceedings should be censured is not apparent. And the resolution of censure should be expunged from the records. 

There is much unwritten history about this whole matter that is in possession of the Argus, which convinces this paper that had it not been for the publicity given the matter, so that the board had an opportunity of finding out that the public were of one mind in recognition of Prof. Pattengill's worth, the recommendation of the committee would have been adopted. Publicity made the board of one mind. Hence it is that the Argus maintains that the censure of publicity should be stricken from the minutes of the school board.

---

Editor Argus:

Dear Sir-Now that we have awakened from the nightmare of the past few days and our honorable school board has properly adjusted the principalship of our high school, let us as citizens of Ann Arbor and fathers and mothers of its youths, look calmly into this thing which threatened and may perhaps again threaten the high standing of our school.

It has always been a cause of deep regret that capable men do not remain in the profession of teaching, btu merely use that profession as a stepping stone for something more lucrative. Can we any longer wonder why this is so? Now, if we really want efficient teachers to remain in the profession we must make it a paying one. Is there any other business requiring generous education and long preparation before entering it that would not yield more than $1 800 a year income after a perfectly capable man has devoted 25 or 30 years of his life to it? Should it not be the last thing we could ever think of doing, i. e., to ask a beloved and thoroughly efficient principal to resign just because Greek is no longer fashionable and there might arise a possibility of his having a liesure hour, or to propose reducing the salaries of capable and perfectly satisfactory teachers whose whole lives have been devoted to the welfare of our school simply to save a few dollars? Are we not willing to pay a legitimate school tax? Can we afford this kind of economy? Let us learn the lesson that the past has been struggling to impart to us, viz., that teachers are worth more than their hire and that if we want to have capable people remain in the profession we must make it a paying one and we must know the value of those whose lives ahve been devoted to the work and raise their salaries if necessary to retain them. I am sure I only give voice to the sentiment of our citizens when I claim that our best economy requires us to maintain the high standing of our schools and that we cannot spare any of our very capable staff of high school teachers for any paltry reason.