884 entries for Government Department
BackMr Rothe also contacted Fr Derek, former curate in the Walsh Island parish, whose parish priest had been Fr Colm. Mr Rothe had approached Fr Derek, as he felt that his meeting with the Bishop had been unsatisfactory. He gave evidence of a meeting he had with Fr Derek, with whom he had a good relationship. Fr Derek advised him that, when Mr Brander was sacked, a Department of Education Inspector and an Irish National Teachers’ Organisation official were involved. He did not learn their names.
In light of Fr Derek’s information about a Department of Education inspector being involved, Mr Rothe decided to approach a national school inspector with whom he was professionally acquainted.
Mr Rothe gave evidence that his efforts thus far were an attempt to avoid having to write a formal letter of complaint to the Department of Education. He had no idea how to go about this task, and felt that there were implications for him professionally in so doing. Despite this fact, he wrote: Dear Sir, I wish to make the following points concerning Mr. [Brander] who is presently teaching in Sacred Heart School, Tullamore. Mr. [Brander] taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co Offaly from 1965 to 70. He was then sacked because it was found that he was sexually abusing boys in his classes. He was the principal teacher in Walsh Island. The manager of the school, Fr. [Colm] reported the matter to [the Bishop]... Mr. [Brander] was then barred from teaching in primary schools. He then taught in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer before taking up his present post in Tullamore. I have been in touch with the authorities in Sacred Heart, Tullamore and they informed me that they were not informed of Mr. [Brander’s] behaviour in Walsh Island either by the Department or [the Bishop]. Many parents in Tullamore are unhappy with Mr. [Brander’s] teaching and methods of maintaining discipline etc... I am sure that [the Bishop] will verify anything I have said here regarding Mr. [Brander’s] conduct in Walsh Island I am myself a teacher and fully realise the seriousness of the charges I make against another teacher, I would not make any charge that I could not prove. I will expect the matter to be fully investigated and appropriate action taken. Yours sincerely
This letter was received in the Secondary branch of the Department of Education. He followed the letter with a telephone call to an employee in the Primary Branch. She advised him that there was no record of any complaint. He received no reply to this letter. However, the letter did receive some consideration within the Department.
The procedures allowed complaints to the Department of Education, but, as this memorandum points out, the problem now rested with the management of the school.
The Department of Education has acknowledged that the manner in which Mr Rothe’s complaint was handled was inadequate. Counsel for the Department of Education, pointed out in the course of his cross-examination of Mr Rothe that, on a current affairs programme in the late 1990s: ... Minister Michael Martin acknowledged that even by the standards of the time the Department’s handling of your written complaint was impossible to stand over.
In the Department of Education and Science’s Statement to Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, made in the advance of its Phase III hearing, the Department wrote: Mr [Brander’s] conviction subsequently led to many parliamentary questions and ministerial representations on the apparent inaction by the Department of Education to deal with Mr [Brander] in [the early 1980s]. The letter appeared to cause no sense of alarm in the Department and effectively was not acted upon. This view was expressed by the Minister for Education in [the late 1990s], Michael Martin, when he stated that “following my review of the papers, I am firmly of the view that the Department’s response to this complaint was seriously lacking and that there can be absolutely no excuse by reference to the standards of the time”. Rule 4 of the 1967 Regulations for the registration of secondary school teachers provide for the removal of a name from the Register of Secondary School teachers by the Minister if warranted – “The Minister may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, refuse to register him on the grounds that, in the opinion of the Minister, his moral character renders him unfit to be employed as a teacher” and “the Minister may, after a similar opportunity of being heard, remove from the Register the name of any teacher who shall have been shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher”. The Regulations allowed for legal representation. While the Department’s papers on this case indicate that withdrawal of recognition as a teacher was identified as possible course of action, this was not pursued.
Despite his assertion that the practice revolted him, Fr Luca did nothing to stop the ritualistic flogging of boys in Daingean. This punishment was stopped in Daingean, after vigorous intervention by a Department of Justice official, and not because of any initiative on the part of the management. The banning of all corporal punishment followed in 1970. A full account of events at that time is given later in this chapter.
In his report of July 1945, Mr Ó Siochfhradha, the Department of Education Inspector, wrote: I looked at the corporal punishment book. There was no entry from the beginning of this year because for the past half-year the stick has been dispensed with as a means of punishment and in its place is a system of allocating marks for good behaviour and marks for bad behaviour and the bestowing or withdrawing of little priviledges as a result. The Resident Manager is very happy that this method is much more efficient in getting across to the boys that they should practice the good and avoid the evil.
Contemporary complaints about excessive use of corporal punishment revealed how complaints were dealt with by both the Department of Education and the management of Daingean, and the kinds of investigation carried out once a complaint was made.
The standard procedure followed was that, once the Department of Education received a complaint, the Resident Manager was contacted for his comments and observations on the substance of the complaint. If the allegation was of physical abuse or neglect, the Department would often send in its Medical Inspector, who would then report back on the matter.
In 1953, a father wrote a letter of complaint to the Department of Education, in which he complained that his son was flogged several times in the School.
The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation Committee: While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the 1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.
The Department received another complaint, in 1964, contained in a letter from a solicitor on behalf of the parents of a boy, in which it was alleged that the boy had sustained injuries on his first day in Daingean in November 1963. His mother complained that, when she visited him in February 1964, she saw that his face was injured and her son told her that he had ‘received violence’ from one of the Brothers in the School. The solicitors requested that the Department investigate the matter, as the parents had not been informed by the School of their son’s injuries.
The next letter on file is a letter from the Department of Education to the solicitors: I am directed to inform you that the allegations made by the parents of the boy have been investigated by the Manager of the school. He is satisfied that the allegations made by the parents are without foundation and that none of the Brothers in St. Conleth’s treated the boy with violence of any kind. I am to add that the boy’s mother visited him [in June, 1964] and is reported as having expressed her pleasure at her son’s progress and well-being.