Gloucester County Democrat., 1911-11-23
SWEDESBORO BOARD OF
EDUCATION
Miss Elsie B. Nicholson, Supervising
Principal. Commissioner Decides
in Favor Of the Board.
APPEAL TAKEN TO STATE BOARD

=
from the action of the Respondent ac-
cepting, on April 8, 1911, her resigna-
tion as Supervising Principal of
Schools, said resignation having been
previously rejected at meeting of
the Board of Education held March /
31st.
Miss Nicholson had for some years
been in the employ of the Board of
Education of the Borough of Swedes-
boro as Supervising Principal of
Schools, and on February 8th, 1911, /
she presented to the Board her resig-
nation to take effect when the work
of the present school year will have
been completed Z The resignation
was received and laid over.
At meeting of the Board held
March 31st, motion was adopted
that the resignation of the super
yising principalbe not accepted.
AT meeting of the Board held
April 3rd, 1911, the minutes of the
meeting were read and approved,
except motion as to Supervising
Principals resignation, and at the
same meeting the following motion
was unanimously adopted: that the
be accepted. I
At meetings of the Board held on
August 31st and September 18th, 1911.
it was ordered that Miss Nicholson be
again notified that her resignation had
been accepted and that she was no
longer in the employ of the Board.
Section 238 Of the School Law (P 4
L. 1908, Special SESSION. provides
that the school year shall begin on
the first day of July and end on the
30th day of June. The resignation,
when accepted, would, therefore, go
into effect ON or about June 30th
The Appellant has produced evil
dence that subsequent to the date
when her resignation would become
effective, she rendered service to the
Board by furnishing lists of text
books and supplies needed for the
coming school year, but there is no
evidence that such lists were furnish
ed at the request of the Board
\ If the Board of Education had pow
nation of Miss Nicholson, then the
subsequent action taken on April 3rd
was null and void The first, ques-
ton to be determined, therefore, is,
did the Board of Education on that
date have power to act on a resigna-
ton which was not to go into effect
until about June Both?
Section 70 of the school law (P l.
1903, Special SESSION. provides that
an annual meeting for the election of
members of a Board of Education in
corporated under Section 81 of said
act, shall be held on the third Tues
day nMarch, and Section IS of said
act, as amended (P. +. 1907, p. 2S3),
provides that the Board shall organize
on the first Monday in April
The Board of Education in the Bor-
ough Of Swedesboro is Incorporated
under Section 81 and is composed of
nine members, three members being
elected each year who take Office on
the first Monday in April
The Supreme Court in the case of
Gulnac VS.. The Board Of Chosen Free
| holders of Bergen County, As Vroom,
543, said, Although only a portion of
Board of Freeholders goes out of
office each year, the body itself is not
continuous body Estate VS.. Rogers,
81 Vroom, 4S0). The reasons which
lied to the decision that the Senate of
! New Jersey is not continuous body
are quite as cogent in the case of a
Board of Freeholders. The same
reasoning applied to a Board of Edu-
cation leads to the conclusion that it
is not continuous body.
In the case of Fryer VS.. Norton, IS
i Vroom. 20, the Supreme Court said,
1.-The general rule is that the resigna
tion of a municipal office, to be com
plete, must be accepted by the author
ity having the power to FIJI the va
cancy thereby created, and in the
case of Fitch vs.. Smith, 2S Vroom,
526, it, said, Assuming for the pres
ent purposes that the position of prin-
eipal of a public school is, as the re-
lator insists, public office, still it
appears that when the relator was
| chosen to that office by the former
Board of Trustees, the Office was held
by an incumbent whose term would
not end until after the expiration Of
that Board and the organization of a
new board. Such choise could
give the relator no title to the Office,
as the power of appointment belonged
to the Board which would be in ex-
istence when the Office became VI
cant. =
The Board of Education which, on
| March 31st, refused to accept the
resignation OF the appellant ceased to-
exist on the third day of April, and
| the action taken, in view of the de-
cisions above quoted was null and
void.
| The Board of Education which ceas-
\ ed TO exist on April 3rd, 1911, having
| no power to act on the resignation of
Miss Nicholson, the next question to
be considered is could the Board
| which organized on that date act on
said resignation
The resignation not having been
Withdrawn 1t was properly before the
Board Of Education as soon as It had
organized and said Board was acting
within its powers when it accepted
Miss Nicholson's resignation
-