The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1916-07-07
GOVERNOR UPHOLDS
SCHOOL DIRECTORS
in BROWN TROUBLE
Superintendent Kinney Tells Why
Waimea Principal and Wife
Were Not Reappointed
INSTRUMENTATION CHARGED,
AGAINST BOTH INSTRUCTORS
Kauai Chamber of Commerce Is
Advised Of Governments Side
of Controversy


II. w. Kinney, superintendent Of
public Instruction, yesterday made
public the specific reasons for the
school commissions action several
weeks ago in refusing to reappoint Mr.
and Mrs. II. @. Brown, principal and
teacher respectively IN the Waimea,
Kauai, scnOoi, 60 any position in the
department for the next year.
The reasons, which cannot be for
mally termed charges, because as
charges the commission would have
been required to give Brown and his
wife an opportunity 70 defend them
selves, are set forth in q lengthy letter
sent by the superintendent to the edu
cation committee of the Kauai cham
Der of commerce, at Waimea. Copies
of this letter, together with one from
the Governor to Superintendent Kin
2 ney, in which the territorial executive
upholds the board of education in its
action, were given TO the Honolulu
newspapers Yesterday.
written With Reluctance
Bimcy's letter TO the Kauai cham
Der Of commerce is written, as he says
therein, with reluctance, because he
Mrs Brown to make known TO others
the charges aRainst them. Nevnrthe-
lesa' the Waimea principal and his
wife, or their friends, circulated a pc
tition recently demanding the appoint
mrnt Of fhc couple to some positions.
preferably the ones they have been
holding. The petition was sent to the
Governor, and when no response was
forthcoming. the matter was brought
to the attention of the Kauai chamber,
which wrote to Superintendent Kinney
for a statement of the reasons behind
the school board s action.
Kinney present letter is in answer
to that communication,
"The department is not opposed to.
criticism from teachers" Kinney
writes; Gas a matter. of. fact, it in
-vites constructive criticism, which as
.sistsit in many ways, but il does in
sist on obedience to its rules which,
under the. statute, have the force and
effect of law. 1t has insisted that Mr.
End Mrs. Brown should obey the rules.
and when they did not do so, in spite
of the fact aht they had been warned
that they must obey or leave the ser
vice. the department took action"
Discussing the charges in detail the
superintendent writes:
Mrs. Brown Refuses Examination
'The department requires teachers tc
be familiar with the school laws, and
in this connection to be examined from
time TO time orally or in writing, III
the subject Last fall. Mrs. Brown Ie-
fused to submit 70 such examination by
the supervising principal. She was in
formed that she must take it, but re-
f.;-nd 80 10 so. In January. | informed
Mrs. Brown personally that She must
L..,e lne examination. Smt refused T.
do so and | todd her in absolutely .spo'
cific terms that she must take it or
leave the service Of the depart
ment. A few minutes later Mrs. Brown
came to me and said she would take
the examination. When the time came
for the test Mrs. Brown again refused
TO take il but. changing her miDd again
apparently, wrote out some Of the an
sSeIs, but ended her paper as follows
nSchoOl. in session: no time to com.
plete this farce. II is obvious, under
the circumstances. that the department
was amply justified in declining to aP
point Mrs. Brown. As matter Of
fact. il was very l"nicnt when it .dh
not discharge her forthwith on grounds
of characterization under the provisions
Of paragraph 3, on POg" % of the rulef
.. and regulations, which gives insub
ordination as q cause for dismissal
This was Il most fragrant ease of con.
tinued and deliberate insubordinat'p
and it is evident that no discipline
could be kept in the department were
the rules not enforced.
'I.ast fall informed Mr.. Brown, in
answer to an inquiry on his part, that
the pupils who passed examinations in
June were entitled to promotion int
the next grade. but in spite of this
the reports show that in number of
cases, the instructions Of my letter werC
disregarded. ! may add that. when J
visited Waiuiea last ,hruhft, = t6ldAAlr
Brown. that the examination rules must
be followbilito tie, letter and there car
be no misunderstanding puGthis point
az paragraph 26, on page 23 Of thu
Course of Study states. referring to thu
examination rules: Amy Infringement
Of this rule win be cause for dismissal.
~ You mention in your letter 'thC
somewhat strained relations existing IL
the town of Waimra in regard to them
freferring t" Mr. and Mrs II. c
Brown, 50 in connection with thin
phase Of the affair, I shall say onl,
that the department did have gOOG
reason TO believe its action would bt
in accord with the wishes Of a ma ioritN
of the leaders Of the community mos
'eoncerned with the conduct Of the VA
mPa school.
Reasons Are Very Plain
The departmrut 5 REASONS for not
appointing Mr. and Ms. Brown to Wal
mea are, / think very vlpiu. Further
more, their disregard for instructions
makes it Impossible to keep them in thu
service in anv place aud still maintain
discipline. II thcs" teachers are allow
el 70 break the rules with impunitv
.1i Teachers should have the same priv
ilege and the result would be chaos.