January 17, 2006
Circular to the Parents & well-wishersDear Parents & Well wishers,
We, Brothers had no intention of giving a detailed account of the happenings and developments that eventually forced us to serve notice to BHEL management but unfortunately the company has come out to the public with a circular regarding why we Brothers are leaving the school conveniently presenting only the partial truth and concealing the vital points. Hence, we are forced to give to you our parents and well wishers the correct picture of what led us to leave the School, which we held, so close to our heart for the last forty two years.
First of all I would like to tell you that we are not leaving RSK just because we are planning another school. Building schools and providing quality education is our mission and the proposed new school is just our routine expansion of our mission. One may ask why in Kattur? Well, the answer is simple. It is at the repeated requests of the public and the need of the locality. If building a school in Kattur were our aim to leave RSK, we would not have renewed our contract with the BHEL management for another 10 years in 2004. I cannot understand the unfounded fear of BHEL that it would result in a conflict of interest for the school management when the company is having number of schools by different managements in the same campus!
Now, what led us to serve the notice to terminate the contract and leave the school?
1. As we all know, RSK is a forty two years old institution. It needs a lot of maintenance for the sake of the safety of the students, which is much insisted by the education department after the Kumbakonam tragedy. Even after bringing these to the notice of the company, nothing much is done.
2. The growing negative attitude of BHEL management towards the welfare measures such as Medical facility, House tariff etc. of the teaching community, which gives its life for the well being of the students was brought to the attention of the authorities concerned along with the PTA of the school but of no use.
3. The due monthly subsidy to the school by BHEL is quite often delayed or carried over to the following months, which places the Principal into unnecessary tension and hinders from concentrating his time and energy on important aspects of the students educational needs.
4. Unfortunately the integrity of the Montfort Brothers was questioned by the Executive Director on 19-09-2005 during his meeting with the principal. When the sanctioned subsidy for the year was not released in full, the Principal approached the ED to sort it out that day. He in turn said that already RSK is well fed and a lot of money is dumped in RSK. He went on to blame the Brothers of being non-transparent, money minded and cheating comparing the brothers to the vegetable vendors!
5. He asked about the school we are planning to start at Kattur. Principal told that it was a routine expansion of our mission in TN. For this the ED stated, “You start the school in Kanyakumari, why in Kattur?” For this he was told by the principal that the Brothers need not get the permission from BHEL where and how to start a school. It is far from truth that anything regarding computer education or the school bus was talked in the meeting of the Principal with the ED on 19th September 2005.
6. Having listened to the humiliating experience of the Principal with the ED on 19-09-2005, I sent a letter on 22-09-2005 to ED expressing our shock and dismay at the baseless allegations made against us, questioning our very integrity by the ED in the presence of GM-HR and AGM-HR. In my letter to him I reminded ‘how he as a parent of the school a couple of years ago and as an officer acknowledged and spoke high and appreciated the brothers’ service and commitment on various occasions and now going to the extent of labeling the brothers as non-transparent and cheats’. I got on 13-10-2005 an embarrassing reply of denial of facts from DGM-HR who was not even present in the meeting.
7. As per the decision of my council, I as the Chairman of Montfort Brothers – Trichy Province, had requested for an appointment with the ED through my letter dated 09-11-2005 to clarify face to face the issues raised. I had suggested the date 15-24 of November. As there was no reply from the ED office I sent a reminder on 5-12-2005 asking for an appointment between 8-12 December since I was to go to Rome on 14th December 2005. In reply to my letter I received a letter from GM-HR dated 7th December (along with a copy of a letter dt.14-11-2005 from ED) stating that ED had replied to my letter of 09-11-2005 expressing his inability to meet me due to other engagements. The so called letter of ED dated 14-11-05 has not reached me till this date surprisingly.
8. I was quick to answer and give my views through my letter dated 9th December 05 on three issues raised by the BHEL. Here is what I stated: “ RSK school has not purchased any land anywhere. The School annual audited statements and budgets submitted every year give the details on financial matters concerning RSK HSS and the rate of computer fees collected class wise was given in my letter”
9. And now about the income from School stationary, Bus and computer education have been explained to the BHEL management by the former principals through letters to their satisfaction. These items have been managed and financed by the Brothers right from the inception of RSK School at the request of the officials of those days. At no point of time (even when we renewed our contract in march 2004) we were told to include these items in the school account system since it was purely by the Brothers fund and at their supervision.
Knowing with deep grief the humiliation meted out to us, that our integrity, and honour is suspected and having got no date for dialogue with the ED after waiting patiently till 13th December 05, my council decided the painful decision to give the notice for termination of contract with the BHEL and handover the school management from the coming academic year. This is the fact on which our decision rests and nothing else.
We have happily served the institution for forty-two years amidst many hardships with the unstinted support of our teachers. We are proud of our contribution to the Nation, to BHEL and to a large group of students. We are contended with the way our old students have discovered their lives and our worth. They are and will always be our beacons carrying the torch of greatness and remain grateful for the Montfortian way of education they received. Our motive was not profit and gain. Unfortunately our integrity and honour is questioned. This should not have been done to us. Anyhow, we go with the realization that some in this world sometimes may not reciprocate in the same measure as you give.
Bro. Dhanaraj, SGProvincial Superior.