Explanations Are Wanted

EXPLANATIONS ARE WANTED

Dr. Jones Analyzes Teachers Committee's Letter

EXPLAINED TOO MUCH

Or Too-Little - How Their Argument Looks as Dr. Jones Puts It Together

Editor of Argus:

I wish to thank you for the "publicity" that you have secured in certain matters pertaining to the high school; but like Oliver Twist, I must say, "Please, sir, some more," The Committee on Teachers and Text Books - the busy B's a facetious friend calls them, while another says it is the three P's, petticoats and pairs of pants - has certainly explained too much, or too little. I beg leave to ask for "some more."

As this committee has got its hand in at "correcting certain erroneous impressions" it may be willing to correct "some more."

I will state my wants by citing from this committee's letter to the Argus.

1. "The fact that Prof. Pattengill was NOT performing all the duties of high school principal, and as we supposed did not wish to assume them," etc.

2. "Our meeting with Prof. Pattengill was an amicable pne" (WHy shouldn't it be?) "and we found him perfectly willing to assume the increased duties, although we had mistakenly assumed otherside."

3. "Mr. Pattengill's position remains the same in name as before, but he now is given the full duties and responsibilities of high school principal."

Certainly for a board of high school trustees, this is a "nice derangement of epitaphs." A principal who "was not performing all the duties of high school principal" and, supposedly, "did not wish to assume them." At an "amicable" meeting, he is found to be "perfectly willing to assume the increased duties. Last of all, he is NOW given the full duties and responsibilities of high school principal."

First, we have a principal not performing all his duties and "supposed" to not wish to assume them. What kind of a "principal" is that - a dummy? And what sort of a school board is it that allows this? Then we are told that the performance of all a principal's duties becomes the performance of "increased duties." What kind of an "increase" is that? Lastly, we are sagely informed that the "position remains the same as before, but he is now given and assumes the full duties." etc.

With all deference to the three P's, explanations are wanted, for such a letter as these ineptitudes have had published over their several signs manual is an insult to even a semi-intelligent taxpayer.

It is to be hoped that the Argus will continue its laudable endeavors to provide more of a such "publicity" as it has already secured. In these days days of official anfractuosoties the unsuspecting public need the services of an editor who is "onto the curves" of the wiliest.

May 22nd.

SAMUEL A. JONES