Case Title: BRD OF TRUSTEES v SUPT OF PUBLIC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13131 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA BOARD O F TRUSTEES O F S C H O O L DISTRICT NO. 9, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA, Petitioner,and Respondent, THE SUPERINTENDENT O F PUBLIC INSTRUCTION O F THE STATE O F MONTANA AND G R A N T R. GALLUP, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R, Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : M. F. Hennessey argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Richard G i l l e s p i e argued and Ross Cannon argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 22, 1976 Decided : PEG 2 1 1976 Filed: D~~ Z~ 19f6 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This appeal i s from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, wherein t h e reinstatement of a p p e l l a n t Grant R. Gallup, a s a teacher f o r t h e remainder of h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t , by t h e S t a t e Superintendent of Public I n s t r u c t i o n w a s reversed. I n t h e spring of 1973, a p p e l l a n t had been employed a s a teacher by respondent Board of Trustees, f o r nine consecutive years. A t t h i s t i m e he w a s o f f e r e d and he accepted a teaching c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 1973-74 school year. O n August 30 and 31, 1973 t h e school d i s t r i c t conducted a pre-school o r i e n t a t i o n f o r new and r e t u r n i n g teachers. Appel- l a n t attended t h e morning s e s s i o n on August 30, 1973 and both s e s s i o n s August 31, 1973. H e f a i l e d t o a t t e n d t h e afternoon s e s s i o n August 30, 1973. O n August 31, 1973, a p p e l l a n t was asked t o explain h i s absence t h e previous day, he responded, and was then suspended. H e later received t h i s l e t t e r : "You a r e hereby n o t i f i e d of your suspension a s an employee of School D i s t r i c t N o . 9, effec- t i v e Aug;st 31, 1973, f o r f a i l u r e t o a t t e n d opening day school e x e r c i s e s on Auqust 30, 1973, i n v i o l a t i o n of t e r m s of your teaching c o n t r a c t . "The Board of Trustees w i l l meet a t 1:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 4 , 1973, i n t h e school administration building, t o consider f u r t h e r a c t i o n on t h i s matter. "You a r e hereby requested t o a t t e n d t h e meeting and s t a t e your reasons f o r not a t t e n d i n g opening day a c t i v i t i e s . " (Emphasis added.) Appellant attended t h e meeting and s t a t e d he w a s ill on t h e afternoon of August 30, 1973. I t was discovered t h e appel- l a n t worked elsewhere t h a t p a r t i c u l a r afternoon. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e absence s p e c i f i e d i n t h e letter, t h e Board a l s o inquired i n t o and considered t h e absences of a p p e l l a n t throughout t h e e n t i r e nine years of employment. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e Board voted t o dismiss appellant. Appellant appealed t o t h e County Superintendent of Schools, and was r e i n s t a t e d , f o r t h e reason t h a t a one-half day of absence was n o t considered a n emergency o r s i c k l e a v e and d i d n o t j u s t i f y d i s m i s s a l , b u t a deduction of pay. The Board then appealed t o t h e S t a t e Superintendent of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , whereupon t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s de- c i s i o n was affirmed. The S t a t e Superintendent found t h e one-half day absence was d e minimis, and t h e absences p r i o r t o a p p e l l a n t ' s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t could n o t be considered by t h e Board, and a s such could n o t be p a r t of t h e b a s i s f o r d i s m i s s a l . The Board then appealed t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The d i s - t r i c t c o u r t reversed t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n , conclud- i n g t h a t : ( a ) The Board was e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r a p p e l l a n t ' s absences occurring p r i o r t o h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t . ( b ) When combined w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n of such absences, t h e unexcused one-half day absence was l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y d i s m i s s a l . (c) The Superintendent of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n exceeded her a u t h o r i t y i n making h e r d e c i s i o n by i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law a s t o what t h e Board could consider i n determining a c t i o n t o be day taken on t h e one-half/unexcused absence. Appellant a l l e g e s t h e s e conclusions of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e i n e r r o r . Before d i s c u s s i n g t h i s i s s u e , t h e i n s t a n t c a s e must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n between t h e s e same p a r t i e s . I n t h e o t h e r a c t i o n , Gallup was terminated a s a t e n u r e t e a c h e r when t h e Board e l e c t e d n o t t o o f f e r him a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 1974- 75 school year. That t e r m i n a t i o n , pursuant t o t h e t e n u r e s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n s 75-6103, 75-6104, R.C.M. 1947, was affirmed by t h e S t a t e Superintendent of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n and, a s f a r as t h e record presented d i s c l o s e s , has n o t been appealed by Gallup. Therefore, t h e i n s t a n t proceeding involves only t h e d i s m i s s a l of a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e remainder of h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 75-6107, R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s : "The t r u s t e e s of any d i s t r i c t may dismiss a teacher before t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s employment c o n t r a c t f o r immorality, u n f i t n e s s , incompetence, o r v i o l a t i o n of t h e adopted p o l i c i e s of such t r u s t e e s . Any t e a c h e r who has been dismissed may i n w r i t i n g w i t h i n t e n (10) days appeal such d i s m i s s a l t o t h e county superintendent; follow- ing such appeal a hearing s h a l l be held w i t h i n t e n ( 1 0 ) days. I f t h e county superintendent, a f t e r a hearing, determines t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l by t h e t r u s t e e s was made without good cause, he s h a l l o r d e r t h e t r u s t e e s t o r e i n s t a t e such teacher and t o compensate such t e a c h e r a t h i s c o n t r a c t amount f o r t h e t i m e l o s t during t h e pending of t h e appeal." (Emphasis added.) I t is apparent t h a t d i s m i s s a l of a t e a c h e r under s e c t i o n 75-6107, R.C.M. 1947, must be f o r one of t h e four s p e c i f i e d causes, which i s f u r t h e r q u a l i f i e d by t h e county s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s scope of review t o amount t o good cause. Although no method of proced- u r e i s set f o r t h i n t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e guidance of t h e school board, it is a w e l l defined p r i n c i p l e , i n such circumstances where d i s m i s s a l must be f o r good cause and r e g u l a t e d by s t a t u t e , t h a t one is e n t i t l e d , i n common j u s t i c e , t o a n opportunity t o m e e t t h e charges before being dismissed. K e l l i s o n v. School D i s t . No. 1, 20 Mont. 153, 155, 50 P. 421; Howard v. I r e l a n d , 114 Mont. 488, 138 P.2d 569; Opheim v. S t a t e F i s h and Game Cornrn., 133 Mont. 362, 323 P.2d 1116; Wyatt v. School D i s t . No. 104, 148 Mont. 83, 417 P.2d 221; 68 Am J u r 2d, Schools, 5 185. The opportunity t o m e e t t h e charges before being dismissed under them n e c e s s a r i l y includes n o t i c e of t h e charges a g a i n s t him, f o r without such n o t i c e t h i s opportunity would be meaningless. The n o t i c e need n o t m e e t t h e formal requirements of a c r i m i n a l in- dictment, however it must be s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d t o inform t h e t e a c h e r of t h e charges a g a i n s t him, s o he i s reasonably a b l e t o formulate a defense. For t h e s e reasons we adopt t h e d o c t r i n e set f o r t h i n 68 Am J u r 2d, Schools, 5 194, which s t a t e s : "While school boards a r e not bound t o s t r i c t conformity with c o u r t r u l e s and p r a c t i c e s , they must, nevertheless, observe t h e elementary and fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l inquiry. And although a degree of informality may a t t e n d t h e administrative proceedings, it must appear t h a t t h e dismissal i s based upon evidence supporting t h e s p e c i f i c charge o r charges a g a i n s t t h e teacher and upon no o t h e r evidence. * * *" (Emphasis - - - . added. ) A s concluded by t h e S t a t e Superintendent of Public In- s t r u c t i o n and t h e County Superintendent, t h i s c e r t a i n l y was not t h e c a s e with t h e Board's d i s m i s s a l of a p p e l l a n t . The letter of n o t i c e s e n t by t h e Board mast c l e a r l y r e f e r s t o t h e one-half day unexcused absence a s t h e s o l e reason f o r h i s d i s m i s s a l , and informs him t o appear and respond t o t h a t s p e c i f i c absence. How- ever, when a p p e l l a n t presented himself a t t h e hearing, he was a l s o questioned and i n v e s t i g a t e d a s t o i n s t a n c e s occurring through- o u t t h e e n t i r e nine years of h i s employment. Appellant was n o t given proper n o t i c e of t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l charges. Therefore, t h e Board could not consider them nor make them a b a s i s o r a p o r t i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a n t ' s d i s m i s s a l . The conclusions of law of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , previously set f o r t h , a r e i n e r r o r . Therefore, w e r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment and a f f i r m t h a t of t h e S t a t e Superintendent of Public I n s t r u c t i o n - f o r t h e remainder of h i s 1973-74 teaching ' D 6 - a L,,J--------&--------------------- . * - + . - . Chief J u s t i c e f I Hon. L. C.,,Gulbrandson, District Judge, s i r t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e e s l e y C a s t l e s . 7