Case Title: Richie v. Board of Education

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Duane RICHIE, Next Friend of Phillip Richie
v. BOARD of EDUCATION of the Lead Hill School
District; Mark Methvin, President

96-521                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 18, 1996


1.   Schools & school districts -- right of student to appeal
     suspension is issue of public importance -- such cases will
     not be dismissed for mootness. -- The right of a student to
     appeal to the school board a suspension from school made by a
     teacher is an issue of public importance and one subject to
     repetition; the supreme court will not dismiss such a case for
     mootness.

2.   Statutes -- construction of -- effect given to legislative
     intent. -- In construing statutes, words are given their
     ordinary and accepted meaning; in addition, the supreme court
     adheres to the basic rule of statutory construction, which is
     to give effect to the intent of the legislature, making use of
     common sense.

3.   Statutes -- meaning of statute clear -- no occasion to resort
     to rules of statutory construction. -- Where the clear and
     definite meaning of Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-507(b) was that a
     student who has been suspended by a teacher has the right to
     appeal the suspension to the school board, the supreme court
     refused to resort to rules of statutory construction; where
     the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys
     a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for
     resorting to rules of statutory interpretation.     

4.   Schools & school districts -- governmental entity must
     strictly adhere to its own procedures for punishing
     infractions -- procedural due process protections violated
     where district failed to adhere to its own written policy. -- 
     To protect due process, the courts, in matters pertaining to
     a governmental entity's observance and implementation of
     self-prescribed procedures, must be particularly vigilant and
     must hold such entities to a strict adherence to both the
     letter and the spirit of their own rules and regulations;
     here, the district failed to adhere to its own expressly
     enunciated procedures for punishing infractions of its school
     bus rules; because neither alternative form of punishment
     offered to appellant was authorized by the district's own
     written policy, it would have undermined the very purpose of
     procedural due process protections for the court to allow the
     district, through violation of its own procedural guidelines,
     to effectively deny the student's right to appeal his
     suspension from school.  

5.   Mandamus -- when writ will issue -- trial court erred in
     granting summary judgment in appellee's favor. -- A writ of
     mandamus will issue whenever the directors of a school
     district fail or refuse to do an act which is plainly their
     duty to do; because Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-507(b) clearly
     established the legal right to a hearing before the school
     board when a student has been suspended by a teacher, the
     trial court erred in granting summary judgment in appellee's
     favor and denying appellant's petition for writ of mandamus;
     the matter was reversed and remanded.    


     Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; John Lineberger, Judge;
reversed and remanded.
     George B. Morton, for appellant.
     W. Paul Blume, for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
     Appellant Duane Richie filed a petition for mandamus in Boone
County Circuit Court on behalf of his son, Phillip Richie, to
compel appellee Lead Hill School District to hear an appeal of
Phillip's three-day suspension from school.  The trial court
granted summary judgment in the district's favor and denied the
petition.  Because we agree that Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-507(b)(Repl.
1993 and Supp. 1995), clearly establishes the legal right to a
hearing before the school board when a student is suspended by a
teacher, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment and reverse and remand. 
     On March 29, 1995, Phillip Richie, a sixth grader, was
travelling to a school basketball game in a school bus being driven
by Charles Archer, superintendent of the Lead Hill School District. 
While on the bus, Phillip asked a friend, "Did you fart?" 
According to Mr. Archer, Phillip immediately admitted to asking
this question, which Mr. Archer viewed as obscene.  The
superintendent told Phillip to report to the principal's office the
following morning, at which time Phillip would receive a paddling. 
     The next morning, Duane Richie arrived at the principal's
office with his son.  After explaining what Phillip had said on the
bus, Mr. Archer told Mr. Richie that Phillip would receive a
paddling.  When Mr. Richie complained that the punishment was too
severe for the offense, Mr. Archer, in the presence of Principal
Pat Bailey, explained that the alternative punishment was a three-
day suspension from school.  Mr. Richie would not allow his son to
be paddled, and instructed Phillip to go to their vehicle.  Phillip
did not return to school for three days.    
     In his petition for mandamus, Mr. Richie claimed that he
requested permission to appeal the suspension to the school board
on March 30, April 13, and April 14, 1995, and that all three
requests were denied by the board through Mr. Archer.  The district
filed a motion for summary judgment.  After receiving affidavits
from Mr. Archer and Ms. Bailey and briefs from both parties, the
trial court granted the motion and dismissed the mandamus petition. 
Specifically, the trial court concluded that (1) the mode of
punishment chosen by Mr. Archer, a paddling, was not appealable;
(2) Mr. Richie voluntarily selected an alternative form of
punishment -- suspension -- and in doing so forfeited his right to
appeal to the school board; (3) the relief sought was moot because
Phillip had served his suspension; and (4) Mr. Richie was not
entitled to a hearing as a matter of law.  It is from this ruling
that Mr. Richie has appealed.  
     We first address the trial court's ruling that Mr. Richie's
claim was moot because Phillip had already served his suspension. 
In Springdale Bd. of Educ., v. Bowman, 294 Ark. 66,