Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-06-05

give timely nonrappoment IL does not ap
By Principal months before
eapponment they be notified of correspondence be-
we're o M sH MAS on n %
they noticed that their We're not in the published list Of APP
sometime there dispute to how longl before they received
formal
meeting Of the Deparmept ae en- and the mailing
Of notices earlier that than they had been for at least many
appointments to the teachers much time possible
1906 1907 and 1905 the made in
in question, in <ss#a=.
The Davis Case Taken Up
The subcommittee deals with petition
another who had been from the Normal
merely nonreapponment in the just referred but first
noneappon
msnt in this as in the other but on the ground that che teacher
qualified for normal training grade work When the Department
found he letter Of Principal list
Tor showing three and the two
referred to- The letter the of the
and could not be found at the Accordnsy the
teacher s. .9Gss -
year began reported
Inspector made Investigation One Of the Commissioners did
did likewise All agreed that such the eaches
consider resignation transfer and give her by
he @ isis About month later her
@ WAS not accepted The its next
REPRESENTED decided unanimously December that
offered her at the rate of $1,000 The subcommittee
f by the and the and
she be paid her salary at the rate D per year a up 70 R
given suitable employment by the Department. as soon such EN-
at the rate of $1,000 for the
Department Again Upheld.
overwhelming support of the action Of the Department and
putes that this school
to the 6 her 6a s eaee As asov m s ee
authorizing her she engaged as in the
the salary schedule for this school
year $3.50 Secretary Department part
no e a 9 r % = instead the
first year in ether words the Secretary applied the schedule Of a
school, paid year.
@ be sSs
M Te noee ha her anq @ b IN the
place as already this also was aas
the fourth place the subcommittee while find
her $1,000 instead 5000
m.enaeh mat sne sn0ga pc pd a. e rate 81 s h n scone
with the finding that she entitled 900
year In the
paid athough Decem
the Departs
those the subcommittee favor the teacher
Does Not Affect Superintendent -
question raised whether the Principal of the Normal
S naa e g st second on 1o ea that she
arithmetic in the seventh eighth and ninth grades
with having sufficient time herself
her that would be the third grade and he so told Of
about that time The teacher that while
be grade he did which grade and
she told the Commissioner at about that time Apparently
which easily
information
which However that that
Superintendent
WI subject the investigation
subcommittee found the business
aton of the Department excepting discrimination in awarding
contracts"
only dscrim
which the accepted bid $10 greater than
the higher bid however actually the
Department and that acceptance not by of discrimination
furnished the lower bidder under previous
quality should of the
call tenders required by law
legal obligation the The
schools the seller
could Justly complain that the schools paid
to The u
specifying quality
AS to Administrative Details
found that the method Of employing teach
terminating their employment adopted
by the al extremely unsatisfactory
inquire of teacher