The record-union., 1891-10-07
A PECULIAR CASE.

A peculiar case of attempted removal
from Office by indirection is just now
attracting attention in San Francisco. An
educator who had approved himself in
this community as of fine ability, high
character and broad executive capacity,
was taken from tie Sacramento School
Department, much . the regret of this
community, and made Deputy Superin-
tendent of Public Schools in San Fran
cisco. He served efficiently under one
Superintendent, ard has been year or
more at service under another, and it is
said by the San Francisco press has there,
as here, proved able, industrious, and to
be just the character of man needed
For some reason not yet fully uncov-
cred majority of the Board of Educa-
ton of that city has resolved to crowd
this deputy of Superintendent SWEET out
of his position. No charges are laid
against him. His principal commends
him in warm terms; the teachers of the
city indorse him as possessing superior
qualities for the office he fills. But he is
man of firmness, is conscientious and
straightforward, a fine disciplinarian, and
neither fears to report against an incom-
petent or rebellious teacher, nor can he
be induced to wrong competent one by
adverse report. According to the state
ment of his friends, as set out in the San
Erar7 Co.
dissatisfaction with Mr.. Babcock; that is
to say, he will not be privy to the desires
Of School Directors with injustice to any
teacher, or to the neglect or warping of
any duty. If this is true it amounts to
grave charge against the majority of the
board.
AT any rate, the board has attempted to
do by indirection what it cannot under
the law do directly. 1t has voted to cut
down the salary of the deputy to S25 a
month, and thus compel him to resign.
The law establishes the office, and gives
the Superintendent power to fill it or to
remove from it; the Board of Education
can do neither. But the law provides that
such deputy shall be paid ga reasonable
salary" and the Board of Education has
the power to fix it. Conceding that S25
month is not a reasonable salary, is the
so absolute that whatever it determines
to be reasonable compensation for the
service of the deputy final? Or, is the
power to fix the salary discretion to be
exercised within reason. and the abuse of
which may be reviewed? The customary
salary paid has not been invaded for
many years, and that custom would seem
10 establish the reasonablenesso of the COM
pensation for the service required. In the
absence of charges and complaints against
the incumbent, can the board therefore
arbitrarily declare that the services are
worth no more than $25 month, and re-
fuse to pay more without answering to
the courts for abuse of discretion?
Certainly it would appear that there
ought to be some remedy for the princi-
pal, by invocation of which he can com
pei the board to respect his right to nomi-
nate his own deputies, and to pay them
fair salaries.
The Board of Education owes it to the
public to state its side of the matter; in
ahe absence of expressed reasons for its
action, except that it wishes to remove a
cause of irritation in the board, the pre-
sumption must be in favor of the princi-
pal who wishes to retain his deputy. If
the board, by refusing to pay living
salary TO his deputy can, however, domi-
nate the principal and compel him to ap-
point whomsoever it chooses, then the
independence of the officer is destroyed
and the usefulness of the Superintendency
is at an end. 1t is peculiar case and its
adjustment by the courts will be looked
for with interest, for it involves ques-
tion that reaches far beyond San Fran
cisco and her Board of Education.