A Merited Rebuke

Monday's school caucus was probably a surprise to many and yet nothing more than should have been reasonably expected from people wide awake to their school interests. The action of the caucus was a rebuke to the see-sawing of the teachers committee of the board of education in attempting to fire certain prominent high school teachers without taking the public into the confidence of the board. The action of the committee in going from one side to the other -- yes, from one extreme to the other -- on this important question between two suns, as it were, can not be explained on any ground of thoughtful, considerate, safe policy for our schools. The simple fact is, the committee made a stupendous blunder and the bringing of the matter to the attention of the public caused them to retrace their steps and get under cover. Then for a bit of revenge a resolution of censure was placed upon the records of the board because of what a member had given to the press, as though the meetings of the board of education were star chamber affairs and anyone telling of the doings of this body of servants of the people thereby committed a serious offense.

Through the knowledge the public obtained in this way numerous petitions were circulated, numerous patrons signed them, numerous communications were sent to the newspapers and the teachers committee made haste to reverse itself. But the point is this same thing may happen again when the public will not be let into the secret and damage thus done the schools before the people know anything about what is going on.

The before mentioned action is in keeping with something which happened recently at a meeting of the board. Incidentally reference was made to some teacher who had been employed. A member asked when the said teacher bad been engaged. The reply was "At the last preceding meeting." The member stated that he was sure it had not come up at that time. Lastly others joined in the chorus that no such teacher had been acted upon by the board. Borne questions were then asked about the teacher and what references she had and whether there were other candidates. No list of other names or letters of recommendation were produced, however, although some verbal references were mentioned. The point in all this is that the teachers committee seems to be practically autocratic in the matter of the employment of teachers as it seemingly intended to be in inviting (demanding) the resignation of Principal Pattengill. This is, the Argus believes, all wrong. The board should not abdicate its functions, indeed it has no right to, in favor of any of its committees. The people expect the board to know more than it did know of the before mentioned teacher before it sanctions the doings of the committee or a member of it. Work, of course, has to be done through committees, but the committee should not come as near final action as it did in the before mentioned case. If all this kind of work is relegated to a committee, just such action as that which recommended the displacing of Principal Pattengill may be carried into effect some time without either the other members of the board or the public knowing it until it is an accomplished fact.

Last night's caucus was a protest against this sort of thing and, if the people continue alert in this matter until after the election it may be possible to effect a change for the good of the public.