The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1905-02-17
CITY SOLICITOR
GIVES OPINION
ON VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS
MADE WITH TEACHERS.
Says They All Expire August 3tst,
1eo5--Teaehers Will BE Notified
by Circulars.

by Circulars.
The board of education met last
night with all members present.
After the reading of the minutes the
regular routine business was taken up.
A report of the Hartford Boiler In
spection company showed all the boil
ers of the city buildings to be In good
shape. An application was received
from Miss Grace Young for position
as teacher DR.. March of the teachers
committee moved that she be placed
on the reserve list. The motion car
ried Upon motion OF the same mem
ber Miss Louise Doerfer was appointed
teacher of the seventh grade of the
Woodland avenue school.
Superintendent Sarver's report show
ed an attendance of 5760 at the end of
the past month. He also gave few
pointers on the recent examinations.
The number of failures was very
small and these could be accounted for
mostly by the absence of the pupils
on account of sickness.
Upon motion of the chairman of the
supplies committee several items were
ordered bought for use in the various
schools. The usual claims were allow
ed.
A communication was received from
the city collector in reply to their re-
quest for his opinion on the question
as to the validity of the contracts en-
board
Member March moved that a letter
be sent to all teachers and janitors in
the city acquainting them with the
decision of the solicitor.
Solicitor Hughes opinion follows:
Canton. Ohio, Feb. 10, 1905.
Board of Education, city.
Gentlemen: In reply to your reso-
luton of January 9th, presented by
your Mr.. Lehman, beg to submit the
following:
Section 4017a of the new school code
provides that the Board of Education
in existence at the time of the inau-
guration of said code, should not en-
ploy a superintendent for term to
extend beyond the school year ending
August 81, 1905.
Said section further provides as fol-
lows: Said superintendent shall, upon
his acceptance of the appointment, be-
come thereby empowered to appoint.
subject to the approval and confirma-
ton OF the board, all the teachers; !;
and GSaid superintendent shall visit
the schools under his charge, direct
and assist teachers in the performance
of their duties, classify and control
the promotion of pupils and perform
such other duties as the board may
determine"
It will be noticed from the foregoing
that the present superintendent can
not, under his present employment.
retain the management of the schools
beyond the 31st of August, 1905. The
question then arises, had the SUPER
intendent the lawful authority to ap-
point teachers for term to extend De-
yond August S1st, 1905?
The decision in the Walker case was
rendered as an Interpretation of old
Section 4Ol7 which, with certain
changes. was re-enacted in the new
code. The superintendent now ap-
points all teachers, subject of course
to the approval and confirmation OF
the board, except that the board may,
upon three-fourths vote of its full
membership, re-employ any teacher
whom the superintendent refuses to
appoint
There is therefore decided differ
ence between the old and the new
codes with reference to the hiring OF
teachers. %
Inasmuch as the superintendent d.
rects and assists teachers in the per-
formance of their duties, coupled with
the power to appoint, 1t would seem
that the principle laid down In the
Walker case is now applicable to the
powers of the superintendent to ap-
point teachers. Applying this princi-
pie, | am of opinion that the super
intendent has no lawful authority to
appoint teachers for a term extend
ing beyond his own incumbency; in
other words, he could not appoint
teachers for term to extend beyond
August 31st, 1905.
| am also of opinion that the con.
tracts of all teachers now in service
are legal and binding for the school,
year ending 1905, and no longer.
In view of the foregoing, the reso,
luton adopted on January End, by
which the terms of all existing con.
tracts with teachers were attempted tc
be extended to August 31st, 1905. is Of
no force or effect.
Respectfully submitted,
DENVER C. HUGHES,
City Solicitor