Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-10-07

precsds action By the board adverse to the
party concerned. or whether 1t is guaran-
teed to the employees as q matter OF right.
Tue power OF dismissal, as we have seen.
per1ntendent makes his written recommen-
dalton to that effect.
Section 10 becomes influential only when
Q teacher has been put on trial or is being
investigated. The naked issue now pre-
scented 10 the power OF the board, with Its
superintendent coucurring of its own initi-
atdve to discontinue. by dismissal. the en-
ployment OF q principal or teacher because.
IN their united judgments, such act pro-
notes the good Of the service. OF that
power the act In Its present shape presents
nosdoubt. As have stated above. the CON-
tro! OF the schools resides in the board.
and Its powers are proportionately ample.
It's decisions shape the policy of the gov
eminent OF the schools
Duty Of the Board.
when the board surveys a certain con-
ditfQn or situation in the schools from the
viewpoint of the schools proper policy and
nnoS that the judgment of the superfn-
tehoent reinforces Its own Judgment that
the connection of certain teacher with
the SCHOOLS no longer aids is required.
out contravenes the best interests OF the
service 1t Is not alone its right. but it
becomes Its immediate duty to discontinue
MS employment and remove such teacher
SASh ASiAosdls QIueT the present act
re maze Dy an order OF dismissal This
IS harso term as understood in it's or
oinary sense; but its present use does not
neSessar1fy indicate more than mere dis
con1louance of employment
what construction compels denial of
TINS powery Section 10 does not state that
tria1 must be had before a dismissal may
be made. That section re,atns to the mo
cecure at a trial or Investigation Moth
ing can be Implied from it to enforce the
view tnat a trial must pre-exist before the
powI 70 DISMISS Is exercised. Under the
oid noard. trial and investigation were not
pioVided Tor by law: nor, indeed. in the
history OF the schools has there been
dennite provision requiring this procedure
10 De Followed before the board could re-
move an empseye. The power to ordr a
trial or investigation for the purpose of
sitting charges whioh~may be preferred
against a teacher. whether from outside
or within the school service. and to estab-
iish and carry out proper discipline In the
schools Is undoubtedly inherent in the
board n9ard. and regulations governing such
IN your bylaws II such regulation ex-
listed under the old board. as L am in
FORMED Is fact an appropriate bylaw
should be enacted at once that this impor-
tant subject may be defined
Result of Dissatisfaction.
The former board authorized a trial and
investigations In certain cases last spring.
Section 10 was inserted in the act as a re-
dissatisfaction Of certain teachers witt.
the procedure adopted by the board at
these trials and investigations. The rea-
son Of its origin, then. as the scope
OF its effect to regulate the pro-
cedure at trials and Investigations in
the future It goes no further. 1t does not
ment. 1t leaves the law in the same state
as heretofore.
The petitioners charge that they hold
their positions by a legal right and that
this right has been invaded by the boards
action in terminating their employment. 1t
is plain. however, that this il not the case.
To large extent, q teacher Is a public Of
and being remunerated therefore out Of the
public funds. Such public employment does
not carry with 1t the imminent OF contract
right which obtains in private affairs. A
being employed by a board Of education,
which, in the last analysis. Is q govern
mental agency. Obviously. a person In the
employ OF such agency. has no contract
{CrenShaw vs.. United States 104 u. s., 90:
Butler VS.. Pennsylvania, 10 How, 1927
Merely Cessation Of Employment.
1T ID. therefore, held that the dismissal
Is not judicial discrimination Of guilt but
q cessation Of the employment by the en-
ployer. OF course. q dismissal may be made
by tho board when teacher has been tried
or investigated and found guilty of charges
which render him unfit to remain Q teacher.
When such q trial or investigation Is be-
ing had section 10 would apply. In that
case tho board would base its action upon
the result OF the trial or investigation: but
that Is not the case at bar We have here
the question Of the initiative and power It
self Of the board to discontinue, by dis
missal, the services Of those in its employ.
The provisions OF section 10 do not reduce
this power. From aukht that appears N the
act, the abrogation OF this power could not
have been tho intent Of Congress As has
been said by the New York Supreme Court
when considering dismissals like these in
question: To convert these proceedings into
machinery for the formal trial OF issuable
questions OF fact would not. we think. be
carrying out the policy or intent OF the law.
and would be disastrous to- the we'll being
People vs. The Board. Hun. 1T. ISL:
School District vs. Mccoy. 30 Kan. 2oS. 276.
Within Board Power.
ut is my opinion that under the act in its
present shape your action in regard to the
petitioners was within your power and the
dismissals were validly made. Undoubtedly
the power you have exercised is large. 1t
ia a solemn trust. The discretion thus
youchsafed is as considerable as the respon-
sihility which attends 1t. The board must
puard the welfare Of all of the students of
the District, besides. having the steward
ship Of q vast amount OF public properly,
and these two fiduciary burdens alone
necessitate full measure OF discretion and
authority II the high prerogatives be
abused, the board is answerable to Congress
and the public"
FUNERAL. OF STATESMAN.
Remains Of Judge T. T. Fauntleroy
7n%orrod at Winchester.