The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-29
Isidore Leszinsky's Writ Of
Mandate Has Been
Denied.
HAD A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE
Judge Seawe1l's Ruling on a Point Of
Much Interest to Public School
Trustees.

Judge Seawell has declared that Isidore
Leszinsky was legally removed from his
position as principal OF the Commercial
Evening School by the last Board of Edu-
cation.
Leszinsky was removed on October 25,
1888. 1t was claimed by the board that on
august ~ the Commercial Evening School
was abolished, and Leszinskv went with
1t. Leszinsky brought suit for a writ of
mandamus to compel the board to rein
state him, and this writ has Just been de-
MED. lie alleged that in addition to being
principal of the school he held a special
certificate enabling him to teach book
keeping, but that when the Business
Evening School was organized and nearly
all the teachers from the former CONNER
cial Evening were elected TO positions in
the new school Leszinsky was not among
them. He claims he could not be dis
missed except for cause, and after a hear
ing, and that the board could not do in
| directly what was not allowed to be done
directly, and that the old school was
abolished for the express purpose of get
ting rid of him.
In the opinion Judge SeaweIl holds that
| there is no provision of the Political Code
which declares that the holder of a special
certificate shall not be dismissed except
for cause. In the absence of a contract
| fixing the term of his employment he
holds the position to which he may have
| been elected during the pleasure of the
| board.
| Section 1871 of the code provides, the
court SAYS, for three grades of City certif-
Gates and for special certificates upon such
| studies as may be authorized by the Board
OF Education, and section 1893 declares
| that the holders of City certificates shall
| be dismissed only for certain causes. A
| special certificate, the court declares, is
not City certificate and is not mentioned
in the law as a special City certificate,
except in one section. which does not refer
i to the granting of them. The board is
prohibited from dismissing the holders of
| City certificates, and no others. Leszinsky
was not the holder OF City certificate
and the court saw no reason why he could
not be dismissed at pleasure.
The case of Kate Kennedy against the
| Board of Education was cited, but Judge
! Seawell said 1t had no bearing on Les
zinsky's case because in that proceeding
there was no question as to the rights Of
| the holder of special certificate.
| Commenting further the court says:
| II appears from the evidence that among
the teachers of the CONNIE rcial Evening School
| was lecturer on commercial law. The rules
of the Board of Education provide for special
| III InuSICy sewing pnyS1cal culture
| and cooking. 1t is possible that the board
may provide an instructor in the art OF riding
| upon bicycle Are the teachers of all these
| specialties when once elected to hold their
| positions Tor life?
That the defendants had the power to abol-
| ish the Commercial Evening School is not
| questioned 1t is claimed, however that it
was abolished merely for the purpose of de-
! priving plaintiff of his position. While under
my construction OF the statute the question as
to defendants motives is immaterial mas
much as evidence was introduced upon it
it is proper that should state the conclusion
| to which have arrived.
! have grave doubts as to the power of the
| court to inquire into the secret motives which
| Influenced the members of the board in a
matter within their jurisdiction. If the Bust
ness Evening School had not been SUISSE
| quently organized there would have been no
| plausible ground upon which plaintiff could
| ask restoration. The new school was formed
| nearly two months after the old one was abol-
| ished. Several members of the board testified
| that they voted for the resolution in the belief
| that the results accomplished by the CONNER
| cial Evening School were not such as to justify
| the expense ofmaintaining il and that their act
was prompted solely by regard for the public
| welfare. Whether they were mistaken or not
! is a question which / have no Jurisdiction to
determine. There may be question as to the
| validity of plaintiffs election before he was
granted certificate, but no objection has
been made on that ground I assumed that his
election was valid.