The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1911-04-06
SUP'T BROWNING CRITI-
GIZED BY STATE BOARD
In its Opinion on School Matters in
Garrett.

the case Of Browning and others VS..
county superintendent E. A. Browning.
Thomas J. Browning and nine others,
as citizens and taxpayers of Garrett
county, united in filing a petition to
this Board, asking for the passage of an
order requiring Edward A. Browning,
the county superintendent of the public
schools of said county, to SHOW cause
why said Browning should not be re-
moved from Office.
The petition charges that said Brown
ing is inefficient and incompetent for
the discharge of the duties of said office
and has been guilty Of such derelicti0n
of duty to the interests of the public
schools of said county as to unfit him
for the office he holds, and to bring the
school system into public disgrace and
scandal.
Nine charges were set forth, and IN
der several Of them numerous specihca-
tons were particularly set out.
The charges are, in substance, as fol
lows:
l. Failure to visit schools as required
by law
?. Improperly granting certificates to
teach
3, Failure to hold proper examina-
tons Of teachers.
4. Failure to perform duties required
by law whereby schools have become
public scandal and competent teachers
compelled to leave the county.
3. With unjust treatment of achers,
neglect TO provide schools with teach
ers, and improper award of contracts.
A. dino, a
iluenca with the school commits sioners
in matters relating to salaries.
Z. With using the power Of his office
to CRAFTY personal spite
$. Failure to mold public examinations
of pupils
9. Unfair award Of scholarships.
The case was heard At a special meet
ing Of the Board, held on March 2nd, at
Oakland. Both sides were represented
by counsel, mass Of documentary evil
dence submitted, twenty-three witness
es for the compliments and four for the
respondent, We're examined, and more
than six hours given to the taking Of
testimony and hearing the arguments.
Section II of Chapter . Of Article Il
Of the Code provides that the State
Board of Education 'shall have power
to remove or suspend any county super
ntendent who may be found inefficient
or incompetent for the diccharge of
duties assigned him, or guilty of such
moral delinquency as units him for the
office he holds "
1t was proven by numerous witnesses
and indeed admitted by the respondent
himself. that the superintendent has
not visited the schools twice each year,
as required by law, and that he had not
held the examinations of pupils as re-
quired by the Bylaw of this Board,
offering as reasons for his failure to do
so the short school term Of seven and
one-ha.i months, bad roads and general
climatic conditions prevailing in the
mountains during the late fall, winter
and early spring seasons.
Now it is not difiicnlt to see how such
conditions might, in Garrett county.
with its large area, severe winter eli
mate, rough mountain roads and widely
separated school houses, at times pre-
vent literal compliance with Section
Y requiring the superintendent to visit
the various schools, bat we are at loss
to know how any Of the reasons assign
ed could explain the failure to hold pub
lie examinations under Section As of
Article II, and Section Is of Chapter Y
of the Bylaws of this Board.
This duty of supervision imposed up
on the superintendent is the most I'M
portant work ne has to perform, and
nothing should be permitted to inter
fere with its thorough, conscientious
and efficient performance The closer
this supervision, the better the results;
l.,,+ .g,,litTay,c in ba
counties, the law has prescribed min
imum number Of visits to each school
year, according to the number of teach
ers employed. The minimum for Gar
rett county, with about one hundred
and seventy-three teachers, is two Wis
its to each school during each scholas-
tic year.
There was an effort on the part of
the respondent to show that it IS not
possible for the superintendent, who
has no assistant, to make two visits
each year to each school, and in addi-
ton to such work, properly carry on
the office work.
If this be true, it is a condition that
should be remedied by the local authori-
ties, but we do not intend to be under
stood as holding that such is necessar-
lily the case.
These visits of the superintendent are
vitality important to teachers and pupils
alike; they are essential to the success
full administration Of the public schools;
they are clearly required by the law,
all of the schools of the county, no mat
ter how small or how remote are EMIT
led to receive the benefits to be derived
from them.
As there is, however, no evidence in
the case sufficient to convince US that
there has been any willful neglect of
duty on the part of the superintendent,
either as to the visits or the public eX-
aminations of pupils, though we feel
compelled under the evidence to sustain
charges one and eight, we do not take
the view that these charges alone should
be held to justify either removal or sus-
pension of the superintendent.
The evidence offered being in our
opinion insufficient to support charges
two, three, four, five, six, seven and
nine, they are not sustained, and the
Detition is therefore dismissed