Loading...
The Huron Expositor, 1966-04-28, Page 6TkA SEAFORTH READY MIXED CONCRE PLANT NOW OPEN! ! Call or Write Us for Your Concrete Needs HURON CONCRETE SUPPLY LTD. Phone Seaforth 527-1206 or Goderich 524-7361 THE HURON EXPOSITOR PHONE 527-0240 SEAFORTH rbltrErtot A decision in the Tgelcplf- smith School hearing was handed down by Judge R. S. Hetherington Past week. Judge Hetherington in presenting his report said that reasons for judgment are not usually given, but due to the great interest, he felt the public should know his thinkingin the matter. He said that he had accepted responsibility alone for the decision and would continue to accept responsibility. In his written report, Judge Hetherington said: "This Arbitration Board has been set up to 'dispose of a boundary dispute as a re- sult of a petition by certain ratepayers in the Township of Tuckersmith, to have a designated area detatched from County School Section No. 1 and formed into a un- ion school section with the Town . of Seaforth. The des-: ignated area lies wholly within the Township of Tuck- ersmith, County School Sec- tion No. 1 was established by County Council By -Law in March of 1965, and com- prises the whole of three municipalities, Tuckersmith, Stnley and the Village of .Bayfield. These municipalities all requested and concurred on the passing of the By - Law." "After the setting up -of the area, the school boards of Tuckersmith and -Stanley proceeded to make plans for a, large central school to serve the whole area. After plans were somewhat ad- vanced, the Village. of Bay- field and the built-up area around Seaforth,, known as Egmondville and Harpurhey began to protest." Bayfield is at the extreme west of the area and the built -pp area around Seaforth near, the • easterly limits. They wanted the •schools in their present areas enlarged and a smaller central school at Brucefield established.' An election for councils in Tuckersmith and Stanley as well as for the combined school board took place in the Fall of 1965. Both elec- tions were contested on the school issue. In both cases members were elected in 'favour of 'the Central School. There was a large dissent- ing vote in both Bayfield area and the Seaforth area. Plans then went forward for the School. Architects were hired, land \ purchased and substantial suits paid o for ttoth, 4pprlgyal freln PRO. of Education has'been re- ceived and oilier the project approval is now required. This is being withheld pend- ing the outcome.of these pro- ceedings. Towards the end of Janu- ary, 1965: under Section" 4e, of the Public Schools Act, five ratepayers presented a petition to the Tuckersmith Council asking that certain designated areas adjacent to and surrounding Seaforth on the West, East and South, • be detached from County Sec- tion No. 1, and formed info a Union School, with the Town of Seaforth. A similar petition was filed with the Town of Seaforth. The des- ignated area comprises the built-up areas of Harpurhey and Egmondville and a fairly large area of Rural lands adjacent thereto.. By the map, it would appear to be about one-third of the Township of Tuckersmith, with a Public School Assess- ment of $1,093,900.00- and Protestant Public School students attending schools in the, number of 131. On receipt of the petition by the Town of Seaforth, they held a special council meeting' on February 2, ac- cepted the petition and ap- pointed Frank Kling as their arbitrator. On receipt of the petition by the. Township of Tuckersmith, they held a meeting on February 1st, and took ,nd action. The peti- tion was filed immediately before the 1st of February, 1966. The Council however did send the Petition to the Huron County Consultative Committee for advice. They returned it. Later in Febru- ary, the Clerk of Tuckersmith received a letter from Dept. of Education, asking about their arbitration. He phoned an inspector and the conver- sation was inconclusive. The Clerk then brought the mat- ter before the 'Council at their meeting of the lst of March. Council took no ac- tion. A nii'mber of petition- ers, anticipating this, under Section 48, of the act (8), a number filed an appeal with the County Council on the 22nd of February, appealing against Tuckersmith's coun- cils refusal to act. This ..was considered by the Consulta- tive committee on reference from the county clerk on March 22. Further dealt with by the committee on March 24. At this meeting the com- Right an target The finest advertising doesn't have a chance unless it is seen or heard. "r! The circulation of an advertisement is vital to its success. And circulation is people ... not the number of advertisements printed or anticipated or projected. No advertiser can afford expensive guessing. Positive proof of circulation should be demanded. Vague gen- utilities should be discounted. Charts, formulas, and promises are not readers, and can lead your advertising i t of targets The actual circulation figures ... verified count ... of this newspaper are available through the reports of the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Exactly how many units of your advertising are delivered into the hands of paying customers? How much do they pay to see your advertising? Where and ' how is this advertising being delivered? This is the type of circulation information that helps keep your advertising and .advertising budget aimed in the right direction. No camouflage, just facts and figures. Insist on circulation proof when you buy advertising —be ABC -sure. A copy of our latest ABC Audit Report is available on request. $ noe 1S6Or Seri t Community First R xnittee Vz tired a ;;ort for Coupler Connell reco1iunend= ing that an arbitration board be established under Section 48, to determine the matter. Section 48 provides that County Council; may appoint a board of enot mere , than three members whose deci- sion shall be final. County council unanimously passed this recommendation, includ- ing the recommendation that I be the sole member of the board. This motion was pass- ed on March 25. I thereupon met with the clerk as requir- ed by sub. -Section 3, of Sec- tion 48, and undertook the duties. Section 45 provides the or- iginal petition need only be served on the municipality in which. the designated area lies . together with the muni- cipality to which the area is to be joined. However as Tuckersmith forms part of School Area No. 1; in which Stanley and Bayfield were interested, I was of the opinion they should also be joined. I thereupon made the Town of Seaforth, the town- ships of Tuckersmith, Stan- ley and the Village of Bay- field as well as the appel- lants, parties to the proceed- ings. These parties were all notified of the hearing by registered mail. At the hearing, the appel- lants were represented by J. K. Hunter and the Township of Tuckersmith and Stanley, by D. • J. Murphy. The Town of Seaforth made no separate representations, but their mayor, reeve and clerk all gave evidence under counsel for the appellants. The Vil- lage of Bayfield, although riot represented by Council, made representations through their officials. At the open- ing of the proceedings, coun- sel for the Townships took a preliminary objection to the notice of appeal. It was sent to the county on the 22nd of February, and before 30 days had elapsed from the filing of the original peti- tion with the Township of Tuckersmith. However the Township never did act on the petition and the county council did not deal with it until after the 30 day period. I held that the irregularity caused no injustice and had corrected itself by the lapse of time and that the hearing should proceed and I 'have noted counsel's objection. The guidelines by which an arbitrator should- act in this matter andwhat points he should Consider are not de- fined and therefore I must determine these myself. My own , views should not and are not used except insofar as they are formulated by nd supported by the evid- ence. I now consider the vidence pertaining to this espect. Section 40 of the ' School Act has made elaborate pro- visions for the esta'bli'shment of large rural school areas. t has given powers to'cann- y councils to establish these f neceSsary without, the con- urrence of the local .con - Meting interests and the po1- cy statements indicate quite )early that the, object is to make areas sufficiently large hat schools can be built and upported in a size that will ive the -facilities and train- ng that heretofore were only ound is . cities and large owns. They reccomrnend ,000 pupils and in sparesly ettled areas, a minimum of OOT The' proposed` central chool to be located 11/4 iles. South of Brucefield on ighway 4, is loctaed pretty ell in the geographical cen- re of the area as it now ex- sts, and midway between eaforth, Clinton, Bayfield nd Hensall. They have 32 Cres of land. The school as lamed has 16 classrooms, two for each grade). two indergartens and •opportuni- y room, and library, teach- r's room an aduditorium. It i11 employ 19 teachers and non -teaching principal. It sufficiently flexible to pro- ide.for the -rotary system in, he senior grades and pupils vailable to attend would pee n- to be 519. Mr. k`isher f Dept. of Education be- eves this to be an excellent et up and his view concurr- d in by the local inspector: he chairman of the board also in full agreement with his and believes that this rrangement will- supply the est, education possible for rea. Se hese old gne ons clue ons orta Section awe rout subrogated ring on rule involved rises cion pal i� n..looik at ani' ijienon eared- hat ar d -hat fnlparially' and act•#or ho general gond Of the i tatn� a e 1 t c f c s g f t 3 s 3 s rn w S a a p k t e w a is t a a 0 11 s e T is t a b a Seeker). 45, under which t proceedings are brought is legislation. It was de- signed for days when sec - ti or areas wished to join upwas to be encouraged. It affected no one but them- es. Under present condi- ti with • greater demand fordiversified education and theeasy methods of trans- portation, other matters must beconsidered. I find that the S on 40 should not be slowed down and that the provisions of 45 should be s gated to the overriding principles of Section 40. Sec- ts 45 is the exception to the and should only be i ved • when injustice •a as a result of the pro- visions of Section 40. Muni- cipal councils have always b the authority to esta- blish sehool. k�oundarics,„;!'her; ce th icjL L1 t ;•. -This council retuse4 tp act' on the petitions and there- fere in fact decided this peti- 4on was not in the common interest. I therefrom find that the appellants • must show that the council was Wrong and also show by a preponderance of evidence that such ci eumstances ex- isteas deprives them of nut - ural justice or otherwise does violence to their proper rights. If this cannot be shown then there is no rea- son why the wisdom and de- cision of the properly elected councils who •are initially charged with these responsi- bilities should be distrubed. A further matter I believe to be considered is the effect the withdrawal of this area might, have on the rest of the area who are not so fortunate as to be adjacent to a town. Will it or'is it likely tp deprive them of the best. If so. this would be con- trary to tithe express inten- tion of Section 40 and policy statements issued by Dept. of Education ie 'respect there- to. This must also be consid- ered. The matter of accessi- bility and transportation must also be considered. No matter how good the school, if- - pupil cannot get there with reasonable effort the purpose would be defeated. Costs and economic factors must be considered. Can the area afford thebest without prohibitive costs. Can simi- lar education by other means be accomplished with less costs. Will the areal be able to support it. in the future. If all the above matters can be worked out fully in one way or another, taken on balance, be about the _same then there should be consid- ered the wishes and conven- iences of the parties com- plaining and last of all one might then consider the hopes and ambitions of the community builders. I therefore intend to exam- ine the evidence -under the following headings. 57 the best education pos- sible; (b) the necessity to make this available to the greatest number of pupils; (c) accessibility and trans- portation; (d) costs and econ- omic factors; (e) wishes and desires of persons concerned; (f) hopes and ambitions for community builders. S eefield Central School' d on a pro e cen e new' 6 classroomsn nu r all e cla y lar - gar s and s and encis des y suggestse is s rais s too par gt a r of t be opo - era and that from t get are the hospi- tals, tion their from con from find 1 sup possible- T the ' fort 8. It ago.1 equipped has each gart such • roc It is thele Sou No man about mon than Seaforth ly e 3/a central and t the so t used t than •If then 131 t read pur r the clas en ta haveb clan a both e same evidence would2 tura' would teat given ms could ii t xu This school will be locate a 32 acre lot just off provincial highway in th centre of tli'e area. It will b w' and modern, having 1 being an provide mbar that will provide fo grades to have separate classes. It is also sufficient) large to require two kinder- gartens, an opportunity class a library, teacher's room auditorium. From avid e of, the experts this desirable. No one serious) that this factor alone not, right. The objection ed are many. That it f far from the petitioning ties, some suggestion that railway runs to the West the school site and might dangerous. Then to .. an n 'culvert night be ding s. That there is a cult stand not too far away might lure children away m safety. That they might storm stayyed, that they out in the wilderness and re are no doctors, police nor fire protec- tion. they do not like small children so far m home. These will all be considered later. However m the evidence given I that the school itself will ply the best education f?r the area. Seaforth School This school is located on Western outskirts of Sea - 'forth just south of Highway was built .about ,13 years Is modern and well and well staffed. It eight cl'assrooxns, one for grade, plus- a kinder - en. It has no library as nor, any opportunity m for the' slow •leavers located immediately to East of Harpurhey and it 3✓4 of a mile from the South of Seaforth or ' the North of Egmondville, Eg- mondville erten I ,.. southerly a mile and all of Eg- mondville is somewhat less two milesi. from the School. The norther- ly is not more, than o1 a mile. Al the present time the school as planned the Seaforth School has exact proportion of .rooms that all rooms are fully and no rooms with more one grade in act room this petition .15 granted e would be an influx of Students, less those el - attending from Har- ney. This will necessitate addition of at least, four srooms. By the same tyk- he Central Scohol would to be reduced from 16 classrooms to 12, so that schools would have the number. There is no whether Seaforth add libraries, oppor- ty rooms or how this affect the capacity of ting, nor is any evidence rt that the central school only 12 roc support these atotilitiry classy ea Mitt l'och's. Vico 'school for board of $0414.0X#cavo bet 11 quite pont comnxttal on the whole affair. They pas,4ed a resolution agreeing for •co- operate if satisfactory jar, rengements could be made to finances. They gave no in- formation as to the future plans regardin.__g transporta- tion or auxiliary classes.and the chairman stated he was 1 not in a position to speak for the board as they had con- sidered none' of these 'natters. If bgth these schools are brought to 12 room schools, both will lose the advantage of having all grades in sep- arate rooms, Both would have many dual classes. No assur- ance can be had at this time as to the auxiliary classes in eieher. I am of the opinion if this petition ie granted that will reduce the 'efficiency of the central scohol and `,riot increase the offerings of the Seaforth School and on the other hand it may go further and reduce its present degree of efficiency due to the dual classes that will be needed. I therefore find that the best interests of education in either school will not be served by making the re- quested changes. I now must consider the ef- fect that such • withdrawal have on the overall area. Should this petition be grant- ed other dangers may arise. Clinton is at the corner of the Township. Hensall at the South West. If this petition, is granted there is no reason why' the urban residents of both these areas should not make similar requests and have them •granted. This might well be continued until the area that is left will be unable ,to obtain the type of education now considered. so necessary and as envisioned by Ithe Dept. planners. This is the very situation they are attempting to prevent. I find that such withdrawal is not in the .interests of the best education for the largest number of persons. However, . there may be other factors of such suffic- ient seriousness that the above findings' might have to be compromised and.„ I mow deal with this. Transportation, Accessibility This is the' chief argument put up by°the appellants and those who support them. I have had difficulty getting accurate mileage measure- ments. Eginondville is -'just South of Seaforth. 'Harpurhey is just West, Mr. Forsyth .es- timated the distance from Eg- mondville, (northend) ' to Brucefield at six • miles. He said Harpurhey about the said. Mr. Hulley says that his door near "I West end of Harpurhey is -1.8 miles. He did not describthe route he took. From looking at the map and sealing the same, I am of the opinion that Mr. Forsyth' is_" too conservative and Mr.. Hulley, the other way. It would appear to me that Egmobdvilie is • about 7.5 miles and Harpurhey about a mile further. When we consider ;it is motor trans- portation involved, the var- iations are not important and the mileage is ip,nr.,near the above figures is 'satisfactory. It ' would appear from evid- ence° that the easterly part of the rural area of Tucker - smith is, 10-11 miles from Brucefield' School. The south end of Egmondville about. 13/a miles from Seaforth School and the north. end about 3/a miles. Harpurhey is adjacent to the school on.its east side. Evidence was given that the farthest anyone 'would walk in Harpurhey to the Seaforth School is % of a mile. Har- purhey is described as parts of lots- 13, 14, 15, 16, and .17 extending westerly as these would appear that this might be 11/x miles. No evidence was given as to whether any- one lived in the westerly part. Evidence has been giv- en that to hire buses econ- omically they must have the full load and some"consider- able mileage to cover. The cost 'of the service is in the driver and the bus,- and a few extra miles means just a little. Mr. Dalton, reeve of Seaforth produced a plan for. the designated area and Mr, Murphy and Mr, Guenther, both experienced .busy.• comma,,, pany operators • produced plans for the whole area. Mr. liabkirk, another bus com- pany operator agrees' the piens are feasible. They are alI worked out on the prin- ciple that some considerable mileage is necessary. Mr. Dalton's plan for he designated area, he pro- vides for two buses. They Would carry 153 people in otal. (This includes some of S.S. supporters). One busy would make two .tips, first bringing rural pupils and ravelling 12 miles. Students would start at 7:45•- and ar- ive about 8:23. The bus would then go back to Eg- mondville, pick up all pupils rea, and' return before 9 eyond one mile in this .m. The Egmondville stud-' nts would accordingly load about 8:30 or 8:35, The other bus would travel 11/2 Ales and start just be- oref8 a.m. Pupils within a mile from Seaforth would walk aswell as liarptis'hey. Of the plans to take the pu - 11s from Egmondville to rbcefiel0 both Wotttd have hest' pone lslelted up, about G SI 0:30and then dive 44,TRAV 13rlxcefieid, The earliest EVIT routes, wo i41 start in tISP area is 8:Q5 or 8:10. From this it appeare that when b.tising is necessary as it is here, then in time andtrav- elled di..tance the'pupils in the whole area are as close or closer to ' Brucefield than, Seaforth. Wp have no assur- ance that anyone in Egmond- ville would be transported, to Seaforth. Mr. Dalton's plan is a proposal •-made on his own and not a board decision. There are very practical dif- ficulties to providing trans- portation in the built up area. None is provided for town students. It is quite some distance from the north end of Seaforth to the schobl. If we pick thein up in Egmondville at the mile mark, I should imagine some severe criticism could arise between' two neighbors if one's children got on the bqs and the next door neigh- bor's had to watch them drive away and walk them- selves. Also to avoid this, all in Egmondville are pick- ed up then what happens as some older child is picked up on the bus and some little toddler next door living in- side Seieforth has to start the 3' mile on foot. Resentment would be justified, making severe criticism. We have no evidence that Seaforth ' will supply any transportation for the built= up area, and I am of the op- inion that I would not be justified in acting on the as- sumption that such would be the case, One witness expres- - sed the opinion that he would sooner see them bus for Brucefield, than t6 walk to Seaforth.' I agree with this. As for' the rural parts of designated area and Eg- mondville, 110 practical dif- ference arises' betweenthe accessibility of the two schools. Harpurhey gives me some .... concern, I agree 'it Iooks ridiculous to go eight or, nine miles, when the Sea - forth school is in sight. If there were no other consid- erations as far as this one is concerned, then their pet- . ition might well be granted. Mrs. Kunder and Mrs. Heard both gave evidence to • the effect it looked. ridiculous. That the”""ttlition fees, plus lower taxes in Tuckersmith was fair enough, " or they were about the ,same as Sea - forth was. Their main con- cern was that they might be excluded from the Seaforth School, if it became crowded. Mr. Hulley also objects on grounds of' this as well as social, activities after school. Mr. Kunder agrees. It must be noted that they are businessmen or their wives, from Seaforth. They chose this area for its lower. taxes and the freedom of suburbia. They have accept ed the lower taxes of Tuck- ersmith and its hospitality. They owe it something. Also being businessmen in Sea - forth, I have doubts the Sea - forth Board will continue to look kindly on their childrenattend ing that school. The members of the board , have so expressed themselves. This' arrange- ment has continued for many years. The statistics -show Sea - forth has not grown in five years, and though the school population has if anything decreased. The projection figures show this to be if anything a declining school attendence. Mr. MacLennan a boardmember agrees with this. 'I niust therefor"•fiizd that the matter of accessabil- iter of this area is not a fact- or. There is the further pro- blem that might ..• arise if one permitted the chipping away process to begin, where would it end? I believe the evidence shows that any; hardship involved to this area is not sufficient nor of such imminence that it is 'grounds for disturbing the -present arrangements. I therefore find that ac- cessibility or the problems of transportation are' not a factor in determining this award and are not further considered. Costs and 'Economic Factors Much evidence was given concerning this,' particularly to the effect that conditions well or will not change to such a degree that the cen- tral school might well be-. come a white -elephant. That there will not be Sufficient stu ents to use it. That it wo Id become uneconomic for the area to finance. T Formal award follows: (1) That the petitions fil- ed with the Township of Tuckersmith and the Town of Seaforth under Section 45 of the Public Schools Act be refused. " (2) That the appeal be certain ratepayers of - the Township of Tuckersmith to the County of Huron against the neglect of Tuckersmith Council to act on the peti- tion, be and the same is hereby dismissed. (3) That all parties to the arbitration pav their own costs and the County- of' 1furon pay the costs of the hoard.