Peter Boshier and James Bentley: Chief Ombudsman and St Peters principal on two NZ schools drawing in complaints from parents

The Chief Ombudsman is urging school boards to take accountability for decisions.

Peter Boshier has made his case notes public relating to his recommendations not being followed - by the boards of Auckland's St Peter's College and Christchurch's Cashmere High School.

St Peter's refused to apologise for excluding a student for buying and smoking marijuana - and Cashmere didn't apologise or take steps after declining an out-of-zone enrolment without explanation.

Boshier says the schools should have apologised for the inadequacies in their responses.

"We recommended that these students' disciplinary records be amended and have nothing attached to it - and then we said the board, when it's doing a decision like this, should have a clear process."

St Peters principal James Bentley has refused to apologise.

"Marijuana buying and using is an illegal activity - we hold the view, as many schools do, that this has no place in our schools. We'd hoped the Ombudsman would have supported us on this, but unfortunately he took a different approach."

LISTEN ABOVE

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
On another subject, the Chief Onboodsman has named in shame
two schools for failing to act fairly when children face
either disciplinary action or you know, have decisions on enrollment
ahead of them. Saint Peter's College board has excluded a
student for buying and smoking marijuana, and Kashmir High School
had declined enrollment for an out of school out of
his own student but didn't explain it well enough to

(00:20):
the parents. Now the Onmboodsman is threatening that he might
actually get the government involved of this. Chief Onwardsman Peter
bowches with us. Now, hey, Peter, good afternoon. Here that okay,
on Saint Peter's is the problem that they kicked the
marijuana smoking kid out or was the problem their record
keeping around it?

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Can I say this by way of introducing this to
you here? What is that the outset I acknowledged the
importance of school boards of trustees and that they are
off on parents and volunteers, but the work they do
is incredibly important. When they exercise a disciplinary function for
children and children's parents, you know, the results can can

(01:00):
be life long and so here I was critical actually
at both boards of trustees. But in relation to Saint
Peter's You know what most irritated me. We endeavored to engage,
We endeavored to suggest a way through where we could
resolve this, and they simply would not do so. And
at the end of the day, I felt that if
people are going to say, of the ombitsmen, you don't matter,

(01:22):
We'll do what we want. I just don't think that's
good enough, and I don't think New Zealanders think I
should accept it.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
No fair enough. So they wouldn't communicate with you at all.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Well, they would that they refuse to engage and give
any good reason why they wouldn't adopt my recommendation. So, look,
we go through a process of investigating, We form a view,
we give people a chance to comment, and if it's
a really good, potent comment, then we take it into account.
You can often reform that our view. They just wouldn't

(01:55):
give any good reason and just essentially from their nose
at our jurisdiction.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
What was your recommendation?

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, in that case there it was mostly in relation
to their form of communication, which we felt was this
is to the parents, which was just not on. We
recommended that they apologize for all of the inadequacies in
the way they went about it. We recommended that the
student's disciplinary record be amended and have something attached to it.

(02:24):
And then we said that a board, when it's doing
a decision like this should have a clear process, should
articulate it and abide by it so that it won't
have again in the future. We didn't interfere with its
decision to exclude. What we said was you've got to
let parents know what you're doing and why.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah, fair enough, okay, and Kashmi high same problem. Not
enough communication with the parents.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
Absolutely, And I just don't know what's so wrong worth
failing to apologize. It's not that difficult. And you know,
I find in this job what most people really want
us to have their manner restored. And I think if
the schools have apologized, we wouldn't be talking on the
radio right now. And what we're wanting to do with
this is not just the punitive but set up. Why

(03:13):
don't so they get it right for the future.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
Peter, thank you very much, really appreciate it. That's Peter Bosher,
who is the chief on Boodsman now s. Peter's College
agreed to two of the recommendations, but the board will
not apologize for excluding the student and the headmaster, James Bentley.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Is with us. Now, Hey James, good afternoon.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
Why wouldn't you apologize?

Speaker 3 (03:31):
Well, basically, the board belizer made the right decision, yeah,
that it was a serious matter, and so they made
the decision that they would continue to agree to the exclusion.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
What about okay, and what about what Peter was saying
that you guys basically thumbed your nose at his recommendations.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
Can I just go back a little bit on that.
I'm a little bit surprised at what he said. We
didn't engage. We've spent this happened two years ago, and
we spent two years engaging with the on boodsman, and
it's been back and forward for two years. We certainly
explained our reasons for why we wouldn't apologize. And look,
can I just say, look, we understand that there are
some people in society who don't see marijuana as in

(04:10):
schools as a big deal these days. But our Barder trustees,
who represents our community, they saw it as a serious
matter and they stand by the exclusion.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
And did you communicate with the parents properly?

Speaker 3 (04:21):
We believe we did. Yes, we did we believe we did.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
What did you do that the onwardsman reckons you didn't do.

Speaker 3 (04:28):
One of the things he said was that in our
decision making process we were to keep more accurate notes.
The board was to keep more accurate notes in their
liberations and be able to present that to him so
that he could see that the board actually went through
all the different options that were available to them. The
board did do that, but his belief was that the
notes weren't as detailed. We complied with that, and the
other thing which he asked for was for the decision

(04:50):
to be attached to the student's file, So we did
comply with that. So those two we did agree with.
But the board said that they would not be apologizing
to the parents.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
I feel like it's a reasonably big deal for Peter
Bosher to have named and shamed you guys. What do
you think?

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Yeah, we're a little bit surprised, and you know, marijuana
buying and using as a legal activity, and you know,
I hold the view as many schools do, if not
all schools that had no place in our schools, and
we would have hoped that the Ombudsmudel have supported us
on this, but unfortunately he took a different approach.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
James, thank you very much for having a chat to us.
I really appreciate it. James Bentley's and Peter's College headmaster.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks he'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio