Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1921-07-29

4 II OF. " NiiiplOy lOI uOl more
than one year, and for sufficient cause
TO discharge. teachers 50
Section 4710, upon which respond
ent replies, relating 10 appeals to the
county superintendent of schools
from the decision of board of school
directors, and from the decision of a
county superintendent of schools to
the superintendent of public instruc-
tion provides as follows:
"At the hearing of an appeal, pro-
perly presented in accordance with
this chapter, the county superintend-
ent or the board of county commits
sioners, as the case may be, shall
hear testimony of all parties inter-
ested, and for the purpose may adj
minister oaths if necessary, may sum-
mon witnesses or demand records or
certified copies of the same: Pro-
vided, that in the case of a hearing
before the board of county commits
sioners the board may hear the case
de novo, and in case of hearing on
appeal by the superintendent of pub
lie instruction no new evidence may
be admitted
When it is provided by statute that
board of school directors may dis
charge a teacher for reasonable cause
there must be a specific accuse ton,
reasonable notice, evidence of the
charge before the board in it's official
capacity, and an opportunity afforded
ITO the teacher to be heard and refute
the charges. School District No. ".
Shuck, 40 Colo. 526; 113 Pac. ell.
Voorhees,, Law of Public Schools, Sec
ton So.
If any of these elements is lacking,
we do not believe that the action of
the board should be sustained by the
county superintendent on appeal: The
statutory provision that he shall hear
the matter de novo is not inconsistent
with such holding. He may hear
evidence for the purpose of determ-
lining whether the proper procedure
has been followed, and need not rev.
erse the action of the board If the
propriety of it's procedure does not
appear from the record, provided that
it is shown by evidence before him.
But we do not believe that he may
go into the merits of the matter If the
board has failed to make specific ac-
cusation, give reasonable notice, hear
evidence, or afford the teacher an
opportunity to be heard.
The appellant does not appear to
have had sufficient notice to enable
him to prepare defense. 1t does not
appear certainly that the charges spe-
officially laid before him. In fact 1t
appears that he had no notice Of
their nature before he appeared be-
fore the board. No evidence was pro-
duced in support of the grounds as
signed for dismissal.
1t might be urged that the neces-
sity for notice was obviated by appel
lant's appearance, as in the case of
Kellison v. School District, 20 Mont.
1853; SO Pac. 421. In that case the
teacher, after having been discharged
upon specific charges, asked for a
hearing A special meeting was or
dered held Witnesses were exam
ined for and against the teacher. The
court held that the subsequent ap-
pearance waived the Irregularities in
the action of the board prior to the
time when investigation was had.
That case might have been in point,
had Mr.. Baldwin's request for hear
ing, made after his discharge, been
granted. But it may be distinguished
from this case in that after demand
and before hearing some time elapsed
during which the teacher might pre-
pare a defense; that specific accusa-
tion was made, of which he seems to
have had knowledge, and that the
findings of the board were based on
evidence and not on hearsay.
In the view that we take of the
case, it Is not necessary to review the
evidence to warrant the board in dis
charging the appellant, had there
been no irregularities in procedure.
The decision of the county super
intendent is therefore reversed.
Josephine Corliss Preston,
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
p. NJ Troy and George F. Yantis
were attorneys for r. j. Baldwin in
the case.
WILL BUILD HOSPITAL
AT SCHOOL FOR DEAF