New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1922-04-05
gcITIZENS RE SEN i 4, D.
BOARDS ACTION,
Continued from page ~

Continued from page l.)
The Board is nevertheless obliged,
on account Of evidence Of disharmony
and lack Of cooperation, not to renew
your contract for the ensuing year.
#l can assure you that no personal
feeling has entered into the Boards
action. al .s5 n w AN
Trusting that some attractive field
may open up to you. / am Il .,.5sls
Very truly yours, b.
Arnold ,Gloor.i
Discussing this letter, Mrs. Krook
charged Supt. Gloor with the same
fault that he charged against Mrs.
stelnhauser, a lack Of cooperation
Mrs. Krook asked Mr.. Gloor whether
he had ever called Mrs. Steinhauser's
attention to the disharmony and lack
OF cooperation in order that she might
be given a chance to work more har-
monlously if there was such dis
harmony. She told the Board that
they had never consulted with Mrs.
Steinhauser, had never visited her de-
partment and knew nothing about the
matter except what their Superinten-
dent told them. She also told them
that they had reelected a, teacher, a
relative of one Of the members Of, the
School Board, about whom there had
been many complaints during the
year, q teacher whose work had been
condemned by State High School in
spectors. Mrs. Krook told Mr.. Gloor
that he needed the support of the
Board member who was a relative Of
this teacher and that was why she was
reelected. Mr.. Henle at this point
expressed his opinion that. Mrs. Krool
was taking too much liberty but Mrs
Krook informed them that she was I
taxpayer and she had right to expires.
her opinions of the Star Chamber
| Sessions of the School Board. III
/ Board Action Criticized. #3
Louis B. Krook spoke to the Boarl
telling them that he realized that eacl
member Of the Board was a very busy
person having his own business matter
to attend to and that he felt that tn,
School Board members had taken tn,
Recommendations of Mr.. Gloor il
various matters at different times with
out Investigating as should have beer
done. 1t seems that at the time of the
reelection of the teachers, Supt. Glool
was questioned by DR.. Hintz concern.
ling his recommendation for reelection
of the teacher he had been condemmine
FALL year, but Mr.. Gloor gave the Board
to understand that he wished to have
her reelected. Although Shpt. Gloo1
was reelected to his office it seems
there has been considerable opposition
ito his reelection also and DR.. Vogel
reminded the Board that at. various
times in considering the superinten.
dency of the schools all Of the members
of the Board had agreed that Mr.
Gloorz was not the man for the super.
intendency Of the New Ulm schools
but that they did not know of any one
to fill his place and let the matter &C
i by, although DR.. Vogel strenuously
opposed his reelection. Dr.. Hintz
is also said to have voted against Mr.
Gloor. Mrs. Krook informed Mr.
Gloor that she intended to make it he1
business to see that there is cleaning
up. NJ.
AS President Mueller refused to per-
NIT the discussion of the petition or to
give Mrs. Steinhauser hearing with
out first having the matter gone over
an Board meeting, the taxpayers dele
cation left, very much dissatisfied
with the treatment that they had re-
ceived. @
Fl The regular meeting of the Board
followed but there was no discussion Of
the matter taken up. The only sub
jects Of any Importance related to the
salaries Of two Of the teachers, Miss
Hensel and Miss Conway. These
teachers had made it known to the
You can get trousers made to match