Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-02-03
TRANSFORMED. ~ DISGRACE.
no ANOTHER StIIOOI.

Your petitioner pressed his charges
an! three days later tho said school
R"ard called special meeting and
dismissed tho said assistant principal
but tn" insistcurN OF l.,ur petitioner
IN sustaining his position anEcrcd tho
said superintendent aud the said school
Board "h" considered II a reelection
upon their Judgment Your. petitioner
Er""" to another schooI and severely
rerrmandcd for allegId insubordlna
iiuU.
ionr petitioner 'hjm voiced his in
diEn.,ion rWhlicly ~ being removed
from his school. /her" he WAS doing
departmental wyTk ana son, to u
graded school Nhcrc h" Was assigned
TO grade. tho curriculum OF which
carried subjects whi-h your petitioner
never protested to lac able Ia teach.
Your petitioner believes that this was
done TO prevent him from making as
good q record as teacher as he might
otherwise. and give urctcxt for his
dismissal. Your petitioner knows that
no was transferred ana r.priman,i-d
hy the improper and arbitrary eXcr-
else OF authority Of his supcriors: that
tho same was don" With intent TO in
1lirc your petitioner as teacher While
|, WAS done adroitly, 1t was done un-
justly. and from this injustice your
petitioner "rp"alc 10 tho Council Of
Tin" city "f Richmond
For Vui"ing his Indignation as above
stated H"uf petitioner j. now before
tn" board TO SHOW cause why he
should not hc dismissed for conduc,
unworthy = teacher. Your petitioner
is willing TO submit his conduct TO
III" inspection Of this honorahic couu-
ell. but will not submit tamcly To tine
righteousness OF tho school authori-
under its control. Among tho charges
made against Your petitioner is thar
he has made statements which RE-
icct upon the integrity Of Suprrintcn-
dent OF Schools j. y. &. Chandler and
the City school l;oatd. This your pc
titioncr is prepared TO prove.
In view OF the above explanation
your petitioner here prefers the fol-
lowing charges against 'ne city
School Board of Richmond:
CHARGES FRAUD IN
EMPLOY MENT or ARCHITECT
l. That tho said School Eoard did
conspire to dcfraul tho city OF Rich
inond for the purpose OF securing TO
one &. NJ. Robinson. an architect Of
said city, certain pecuniary advan-
tagcs
.. That n secret understanding pre-
walls between said School Board and
said architect. whereby said archi-
tcct is to receive certain considcra-
tlOn LOT WOrk, tnohSn Il certain con-
tract. itself highly improper. recites
that there is no consideration moving
from said city to said architect.
T. That the said School Board has
entered into a blanket contract with
the said architect, agreeing in adj
vance to give to that one architect
all preliminary plan work and all de-
sign or other architectural work, and
designed TO prevent the city OF Rich
mond from securing any competition
in architectural work. contrary to the
policy OF the law to secure school con-
tract work on competitive basis.
A. That the Superintendent Of City
Schools. DIR. j. \. G. Chandler. did con-
spire with the said School Board to
lobby in the state Legislature and
obstruct the passage Of a bill introduce
State architect. for the purpose OF Sc
curing TO the said c. NJ Robinson
the exclusive architectural work OF the
city schools.
:. That the said School Board has
agreed with said architect not to re-
1uire any certified check for 5 per
cent of the contract price of any ac-
copied design to he placed with tho
chairman or the proper Council com.
mttee. That the said board Is bicd
to do this unobscrved by the Council
because this agreement Is made with
tho said board in its corporate capacity.
This Is in violation OF chapter Z, page
50. section 4. OF the City Code. which