VIDEO: Utrecht community adamant that principal will never set foot at the school again

ONE hundred and seventeen parents have signed a petition threatening to, “forcefully remove,” the principal of Utrecht Primary should he return to the school.

Financial mismanagement, nepotism, favouritism, enrolling too many learners and overcrowding classrooms, verbal abuse, poor management skills, lack of consultation with the School Management Team (SMT) and the School Governing Body (SGB), the deterioration of the school and declining academic performance are among the reasons cited in the petition for parents resorting to drastic measures.

Community groups have added their voices to that of parents and members of the SGB, demanding that the Department of Education remove Ally Chutel from his current post as school principal and redeploy him to another school.

ALSO READ: Top 2 matric learners in Zululand are from Hoërskool Pionier

Mr Chutel was supposed to have returned to work this month after being placed on precautionary suspension since September 21, when accusations of financial mismanagement were raised with the Department of Education.

At the time, it was alleged that Mr Chutel frequently made purchases without prior consultation with the SGB, and that he was using fuelling his daily commute to work from Newcastle using the school account.

“He put a lot of fuel in his car. In July, he put in nearly R1 000 and he couldn’t explain to us where he was going,” confided a member of the SGB who asked to remain anonymous.

When Mr Chutel was confronted with this allegation, he responded, “The only time the school petrol is used is when I go to meetings at the district or circuit office, and when I do the shopping for the school. Everything is written down and recorded. There is a file to that effect.”

Perhaps the biggest concern parents have at the moment, is the likelihood that the learning process will be compromised by the overcrowding of classrooms.

During Mr Chutel’s term as principal, there was one class that contained 80 learners. This year, the staff room was converted into an additional classroom to try and reduce the number of learners to one teacher. Broken desks were repaired by a local church, which was also kind enough to lend a number of chairs to the school, so that every child could be seated albeit in very close confines. Nonetheless, there are still classrooms that contain as many as 56 learners to a single teacher.

Many believe that the reason Mr Chutel increased the intake of learners is to motivate an increase in his own salary grade. Others say he was creating a post for his daughter who was appointed as an educator in the Grade RR class.

“He appointed his daughter despite the fact that she is unqualified for the post, and without the knowledge of the SGB,” said a confidential source.

“The amount he was paying his daughter was above the agreed upon salary,” claimed another member of the SGB, who also asked not to be named for fear of victimisation. “The school has more learners than we can accommodate. The classrooms are designed to accommodate a maximum of 40 learners. Now, we have classes with more than 50 learners. This is not right for our children. The department needs to step in and build more classrooms. There was one class that had no teacher. This affects the budget. It means we have to use school funds to hire another teacher, instead of performing much needed repairs and maintenance at the school, or using the money for some other educational purpose to improve the learning environment.” “This is all a fabrication,” responded Mr Chutel. “My daughter was a parent at the school, who was appointed after doing voluntary work. The SGB was well aware of the appointment. The new SGB fired her and we are still pursuing a CCMA case in that regard.”

ALSO READ: Vryheid boasts the 4th best performing high school in the country

With regards to enrolling more learners than the school could comfortably accommodate, Mr Chutel said, “I don’t have jurisdiction to decide how many learners may be enrolled at the school.

“The district office has to issue a certificate indicating that the school is full, and only then can I stop enrolments. The district office was aware of everything as we send them stats for the school every quarter.”
More learners at the school also means that the school’s toilets are no longer adequate to cater for the growing need for proper sanitation.

Blockages in the sewerage system caused waste to backup and spill into the toilets. As a temporary measure, the school has dug a trench to direct the flow of raw sewage from the toilets, out of the school and into the environment, while it waits for the municipality to take action.

Not only is there an unbearable stench where the trench has been dug, but a child who trips and falls risks falling into the foul mess of raw faecal matter and urine.

Mr Chutel blames the state of the school’s ablution facilities on dissension within the SGB.

“I pointed it out to the school governing body and urged them to do something about it, but they couldn’t agree on what needed to be done. I went to the municipality and they urged us to dig to determine where the blockage is. The person who was working on the pipe, sadly passed away before we could find the blockage, but I agree that this matter needs urgent attention,” he said.

Community activist and chairperson of the Eyethu Community Based Organisation, Mr SD Olifant, said he began to attend SGB meetings after hearing frequent complaints about Mr Chutel in the community.

“At the meetings, I noticed a split in the staff.

“There appeared to be a certain group that Mr Chutel openly favoured. He didn’t seem to like anybody who questioned him or opposed a decision he made. I learned that Mr Chutel had increased the school fees without any consultation with the SGB and that he often made decisions unilaterally. It concerns me that Mr Chutel is now returning to the school but we haven’t heard the outcome of the investigation into the financial mismanagement. We have sent a copy of the community petition to have him removed, to the district office and to the MEC and the community and the parents will come together to remove him if he sets foot on the school premises,” said Mr Olifant.

“I don’t believe that the petition is an accurate reflection of how the community feels about me,” concluded Mr Chutel. “It was created by a handful of people who are conspiring against me. They want to defame me and assassinate my character but they cannot remove me. Only the Department can remove me. I love my school. I am a committed individual with a big vision for the school’s future and I know I have a large support base in the community. I was advised by the union not to return to school until I have received permission from the Department, but I am looking forward to resuming my duties and continuing with the good that I did at the school.”