San Anton School contribution

Mr Adrian Muscat Inglott (the Consumer Affairs column, March 25) continues a campaign against San Anton School, in spite of being aware of all the facts. He decries the fact that San Anton School "refuse to communicate with" him. I have in the past personally spent time with Mr Muscat Inglott to ensure that he was aware of the facts.

Indeed, Mr Muscat Inglott knows all the facts, since he was a parent who sent his child to San Anton School, and who defaulted on his payment of the final year fees on the premise that the Parents' Foundation for Education owed him the refund of his contribution.

This action has meant that the school had to decide whether to load the unpaid school fees on to the other parents - which is patently unfair on them - or to carry this debt in its accounts, from one year to the other.

Mr Muscat Inglott has failed to advise his readers of this personal conflict of interest. In addition, none of the facts have, since then, changed, and no further explanations are due to him.

The facts are that San Anton School and the Parents' Foundation for Education are juridically separate entities, and that the contribution is paid to, and will be refunded by, the Parents' Foundation for Education, and not San Anton School.

The facts are that it is not true that there is ever any promise that the contribution will be refunded on demand, or when the last child leaves school. The Contribution Regulations, dated 1988, state, in this regard: "Contributions A shall be made on a refundable basis provided that the Foundation shall be entitled to determine when such refunds shall be made and the method of such refund". In addition, every parent registering with the Foundation signs that he/she has read these regulations and commits to uphold them; I am authorised by the trustees to quote from the registration applications of Mr Muscat Inglott and Mr Ellul, which are both so signed.

The facts are that the PFE refunds contributions according to strict regulations, first of all, in accordance to a published sequence which reflects the date when the last child, for whom the contribution refers, leaves school, and secondly, at a rate that depends solely on the rate by which new contributions come in.

There has never been any promise of a specific date, and indeed it has always been clear, from the regulations, that no refunds would be made before all capital loans from the banks have been repaid.

This target was reached by San Anton School just under three years ago, and since then refunds have started. The published list, which incidentally also includes the names of Mr Ellul and Mr Muscat Inglott, indicates that, on average, it does take about 10-11 years from the specified date before a particular contribution can be refunded, but this cannot be helped.

Let us put the whole matter in perspective, however. The contribution is not part of the annual school fees. It is not a case of a consumer paying for a service, so it is not even a consumer affairs issue. It is akin to a voluntary shareholding in a venture, in this particular case, a venture to provide a new model of education. And, let us also be clear, this particular investment, for 12 years of schooling, is of Lm500 (or now, 18 years later, Lm600), that is about Lm50 per year, or just about what some people spend on newspapers.

The Parents' Foundation for Education was set up in 1988 by a group of parents who were worried about the state of the education system. In response to that difficult situation, the Foundation embarked on the ambitious enterprise of setting up a new school, with, then, fundamentally new objectives, namely a mixed-ability and mixed-gender education without entrance examinations, from kindergarten to school-leaving age.

The Foundation did not have any resources of its own, nor funds bequeathed by a rich benefactor, nor any government assistance; but it had, and continues to have, parents who give their time and skills to make this reality possible. This new model for education has proved to be so successful, that it is now copied by other private schools, as well as by state schools.

In order to build the physical fabric required for the school, the PFE proposed that parents wishing to register their children would pay a contribution, that is a share of the capital costs, which would be refunded at some time in the future, when the capital development of the respective school was completed, and all outstanding capital loans paid up; obviously this had to be done always strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Foundation, which, incidentally, were always approved at general meetings of parents. In this sense, the board does not make the rules; parents make them. In addition, rather than hidden rules or vague promises, the rules and regulations are published and made known to all parents.

San Anton is now one of the foremost private schools on the island. It has completed its original capital programme (although it still continues to invest in its facilities) and has paid up its original bank loans. Refunds of contributions have already started, in accordance with the rules; and it is not fair on other parents for anyone to come forward, claiming special circumstances, and ask to jump the queue.

Of course, Mr Muscat Inglott's campaign has nothing to do with the facts, but with the simple tactic of "pay up, or else we will make sure you get some bad publicity".

Luckily bad publicity is a tool that becomes blunter the more it is used. Mr Muscat Inglott has tried to harm San Anton School since he defaulted on final year school fees. His latest threats will not change the truth.

Professor Torpiano is chairman of San Anton School

Adrian Muscat Inglott writes:

Professor Torpiano's erroneous opening statement reads: "Mr Adrian Muscat Inglott continues a campaign against San Anton School". I am most definitely not running a campaign against San Anton School. However as the customer service columnist, I did run various successful campaigns on important issues such as the printing of the 'best before' date on milk cartons, the removal of our name and address from our car windscreen licence disk, and the removal of the satellite dish tax. (Here I must thank Minister Censu Galea, who intervened on our behalf to resolve all three issues.)

Contrary to what Professor Torpiano wrote, I never conducted, nor do I intend to conduct a campaign against San Anton School, where my daughter was educated, subsequently going on to obtain a university degree. Certainly, the foundations of her education at San Anton School couldn't have been more solid. My wife and I were completely satisfied with the education provided by San Anton School.

When I run campaigns, I refer to the issue every Sunday until the organisation involved co-operates. In the San Anton School issue, I have only referred to it when consumers wrote to me about it. In any case it would be unfair to treat San Anton School differently from other institutions, in the sense that it cannot be subject to letters of complaint and accordingly not to be written about in the Customer Service Column. When I receive complaints from consumers, the traders or organisations involved are dealt with and treated in the same way and all letters are subject to publication.

If Professor Torpiano refuses to dialogue with me, I am perfectly comfortable with that. Moreover, if he chooses to ignore my requests for his comments prior to publication of the letters of complaint, it's his problem. He only sends letters to the editor for publication, which are always referred to me for my comments.

My wife and I were among the first group of San Anton School parents. Just like any situation when a new product or organisation is being launched, we had various meetings at San Anton School where we were subjected to the notorious hard sell. Iinitially we were misled, albeit verbally, into believing that the Lm500 deposit would be returned to us when the last child of the respective family leaves the school. However, it later transpired that this was not the case.

Currently we are dealing with a case submitted by a parent, namely, Joseph Ellul. Before publishing the correspondence, as I do in all cases, I ensure that the organisation involved receives a copy of the complaint with a request for its comments. I gave San Anton School more than a fair opportunity to give me their comments on this case. Generally I send about three chasers and most traders co-operate.

However, unlike other traders or organisations, San Anton School ignored my requests for their comments. Before publishing Mr Ellul's letter, I sent them three requests for their comments, all to no avail, whereupon I had no other option but to publish it on March 25, with the comment that if I did not receive any reply from San Anton School I had no alternative but to publish Mr Ellul's letter of February 3 to the registrar, the registrar's brief reply dated February 9, and Mr Ellul's reply to it dated February 24.

Yet again I stress that I am not running a campaign against San Anton School. However, if I receive complaints from consumers about the school, I will apply the same policy I apply with all suppliers, traders, etc. All cases referred to the Customer Service Column are subject to publication. I sincerely hope that Professor Torpiano does not expect that San Anton School be given preferential treatment. Finally contrary to what he suggested, I must stress that this is a consumer issue and I am dealing with it accordingly.