The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1912-04-16
County superintenaent stees.

ton of Chesterfield adopted resolutions
which were sent to every Board of Educa.
ton in the county, rejecting upon the
official acts of County Superintendent
Stees and asking that there be co-opera-
ton with the view of defeating the reap
pointment of Mr.. Stees.
The response of this invitation has been
Just the reverse of what was asked by the
Chesterfield people and over half of the
Boards in the county have already adopted
resolutions eommendatory of Superintend.
ent Stees and asking the State Board not
to remove him. The latest of these papers
is from Florence township and reads as
follows:
Florence, N. j., March IA, 1919.
Whereas the Board of Education of
Chesterfield township is seeking to dis
credit Mr.. Herman A. Stees, County
superintendent, and is soliciting aid of all
the Boards of Education in Burlington
county to influence the State Board of
Education against the re-appointment of
Mr. Stees, therefore be 1t
Resolved, that the Board of Education
"a VIZ Wv h6AlP VI L 1OICACC QOCb ACICUH
pledge its endorsement and support to Mr..
Herman A. Stees, County Superintendent,
and their approval of the administration
of his Office as carried out by him.
Resolved, that copy of these resolutions
be sent to the Board of Education of each
township of Burlington county, together
with letter setting forth the reasons for
such endorsement and support, and a
prayer for the support and endorsement
of Mr. Herman A. Stees as County Super
intendent by each Board of Education of
Burlington county.
Resolved, that a copy of these resolu-
lions and said letter be sent to the State
Board of Education with explanations of
the action of the Board of Education of
Florence.
Accompanying the resolutions was the
following letter:
Gentlemen:
1t is with great surprise and regret that
we learn that an effort is being made by
the Board of Education of Chesterfield
township to discredit Mr.. Herman A
Stees and to influence the State Board of
Education against his reappointment as
County Superintendent for Burlington
county
uC DOdlu VI 1uuCdblOQ Vi Florence
feels that such action on the part of
Chesterfield Board of Education is deplor-
able and that If Mr.. Stees should not be
reappointed, the County would lose the
services of an able, faithful, tireless, con-
scientious man who has spared no effort
to upbuild the school system of his iuris
diction and who has endeavored to the
best of human ability to bring the various
Boards of Education together for mutual
advancement and for profit to the schools
under their charge.
The Board of Education of Florence
greatly appreciates the cooperation of Mr..
Stees in their effort to build up the school
system in Florence, which In the past five
years has been wonderfully advanced
The Board of Education of Florence has
always found Mr.. Stees courteous, patient
and ready to oblige. Always ready to
meet with the Board at short notice to
give counsel and advice, and although at
times there were things which Mr. Stees
as County Superintendent felt 1t his duty
to order improved, such orders always
came with courtesy and suggestion rather
than with "big stick" methods.
The Board OF Education respectfully re.
quests that each Board of Education in
Burlington County give the matter of re-
of Mr.. Herman A. Stees as
County Superintendent, their careful con-
sideration and prays the support and en-
dorsement of Mr.. Stees and his admins.
tration before the State Board of Educa-
ton.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed by all the men,
bers of the Board.)
The above communication was signed
by every member of the Board of Educa-
ton of the Township of Florence. In
this 1t differs from the letter sent out by
The Chesterfield Board, as the latter bore
only the signature of the District Clerk,
which was printed, although official be-
You'd doubt.
Since the Chesterfield communication
has been issued 1t has been discovered
that while the resolutions were 'unani-
mously adopted" that action was by
quorum of the Board and not by the entire
The president and at least
one other member were absent. And it
might be incidentally stated that one of
hose who was present was badly defeated
IN his attempt to be reelected.
Up to this time Chesterfield has not
made public its reasons for adopting the
In response to letter asking
Tor some reason the reply was that if Mr..
5tees' service had been satisfactory to the
Board seeking information it would sim
ply pay no attention to the resolution.
This was not exactly fair as it was the
right of every Board in this county to be
informed If the County Superintendent
was derelict in his duty. Whether this
answer was sent to every other Board is
not known but 1t is certain the action of
the Chesterfield Board has not yet re
eeived any encouragement and 1t is known
that the entire Board of that township is
not united on the act of the quorum.
Spalding's base ball and lawn tennis