The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1912-03-19
Want Him Removed.

] The Board of Education of Chesterfield
has sent out circulars, unsigned, but OF
course official. asking that the State Board
of Education refuse to reappoint County
Superintendent Stees at the expiration OF
his term Of Office In June. The circular
reads as follows:
Board of Education, Chesterfield township.
Crosswicks, N. j.
At meeting of the Board of Education
of Chesterfield township, held March 2,
1919, the following resolutions were
unanimously adopted:
Whereas, the Board of Education of
Chesterfield township, desiring to improve
the rural schools, and 20 obtain a better
and more efficient supervision thereof,
therefore be It
| Res0lUed, That we respectfully request
the State Board of Education not to re-
appoint Mr.. Herman A. Stees County Su-
| perintendent.
Resol0ed. That copy of these resolu-
tions be sent to the Board of Education of
each township in Burlington county with
a request for their cooperation.
ResOIUed, That copy of these resolu-
tions be sent to the State Board of Educa-
ton.
This request Is rather strong. To ask
the Boards of Education throughout the
county to aid the Board of Chesterfield in
securing the dismissal of public official
without some explanation of the move
ment was thought to be out of the ordin-
airy, so letter was sent to the district
clerk Of Chesterfield asking for reasons
for the removal of Mr.. Stees. To this re-
quest the following answer came:
March IA, 1912
In reply to yours of March IL, would
say that in the third of the resolutions to
which your letter refers our Board asks
the other Boards of the county to CO.
operate in an effort to secure better and
more efficient supervision of our rural
schools. If you find In your district that
Mr.. Stees' administration as county gu
perintendent is satisfactory. your Board
will not have any desire to act with US.
If you do not find it satisfactory then it
will be for your Board to decide whether
to act favorably toward our resolutions or
not.
Yours truly,
MARY r. BRAIsLIN ID. G.
The above letter does not explain or
enlighten. The first resolution says that
the Board of Education of Chesterfield
desires to secure better and more efficient
supervision for the rural schools, but it
uoCo nOI dufduC6 any ONluOuCe VI pOOI UT
inefficient supervision that may be trace
able to Superintendent Stees. The reply
of Miss Braislin to the effect that IF you
find Mr.. Stees' administration in your
district is satisfactory you will not need
to act, we do not agree with. If there is
any one district In the county that is
being neglected or that needs especial
attention all Boards of Education for the
good of the cause should aid In having
the defects remedied.
But there should be general investiga-
ton of the subject before final action.
The Board of Education of Chesterfield
owes it to the County Superintendent, to
Itself and to the Boards to which it has
appealed for support, to give in detail the
causes for the passage of the resolutions.
In many instances the cause for neglect of
rural schools is due to the acts of the local
Boards of Education. Illy-ventilated
buildings, inadequate equipment, unsan
itary surroundings, proximity of school
houses to pigpens and Objectionable build
ings and many other things come within
the Jurisdiction of local Boards of Educa-
tion and it is their duty to remedy such
situations To ask for the removal of an
efficient official because of such conditions
or for some personal matter will not do.
The Boards Of Education of Burlington
county should insist upon knowing Just
what the trouble is at Chesterfield and
Superintendent Stees should be confronted
with charges that he may answer before
the State Board in order that the resolu-
lions may have the weight which they
are intended to possess.