New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1921-07-08
GROUP INSURANCE ON
LIVES OF TEACHERS
JUSTIFIED BY LAW

Every school in New Mexico is af-
tected by the decision OF the supreme
court in the Bernalillo county case
with respect to the power OF boards
OF education to carry insurance upon
the lives OF teachers and employees.
he supreme court holds that the
boards OF education do have the pow
er to insure the lives OF teachers and
to pay the premiums with school
funds, as being a part of the nee
essary expense connected with the
proper conduct of the schools.
his matter was first brought to
the attention of the public on Jan.
IA, when Harry 5. Bowman, attorney
general, wrote an opinion on the sub
Ject for the guidance OF John Y. Com
way, state superintendent OF public
instruction. The attorney general
studied the question under chapter
IS, laws of 1917, which is the work.
mems compensation act. His ruling
was that the teachers did not come
within the meaning OF the act, and
that therefore the boards were not
authorized to carry the insurance He
wrote, in part:
AZ A'A9A lhNN sum With oQRAElAS
itself IS whether school teachers fall
within the list OF the employments
mentioned in the act which are SUBJ
Ject to the Workmen's Compensation
insurance provisions.
Section 10 OF the above mentioned
chapter prescribes the employments
to which the act is applicable and
none OF them, so lar as | am able TO
ascertain, apply to school teachers.
Therefore, in my opinion, under
this law policies OF insurance could
not be issued upon persons OF school
teachers.
The second inquiry directs itself
to the authority OF the various boards
OF education to spend money for pre-
mums IN payment OF such policies,
ii the policies should be issued upon
persons OF school teachers.
We find nothing, express or im-
piled, in the law, which would justify
the expenditures of school funds for
any such purpose
HE case was carried into court by
Fred Aohl, OF Albuquerque. As a
taxpayer he prayed for an injunction
To restrain the board from paying
urfhCr iHstdilments on the insurance
premiums The district court denied
.4a PRAYER far a restraining order.
7rd AuhI appealed 10 the supreme
.o4rt The opinion is by Chic. JUS
lice Roberts, Justice Reynolds con-
curing. Justice Parker was absent
and did not participate lhe opinion
ii the court is:
q. A court OF equity will not sit
in review Of the proceedings o. SUBJ
ordinate, political or municipal trib-
inals, and where matters are left 70
.he discretion OF such bodies, the ex-
.rclse OF that discretion, in good faith,
IS conclusive and will not IN the ab-
'cnce of fraud be disturbed.
Boards OF education OF municipa,
school districts, (section s, chapter
Vo, laws lyl7)) are given authority
"a deiray all other expenses connect-
ID with the proper conduct OF the
public schools IN their respective dis
rlcts. Held in a suit to enjoin the
expenditure OF school funds ior the
purpose OF carrying group insurance
or teachers and employees, where the
'Icadngs admit that by carrying such
.roup insurance the school board Is
nabicd to procure better teachers
nd TO retain such teachers in its en-
10y by So doing at a much less ex-
cuse than would be necessary ex-
ept upon the payment OF much larg-
r salaries, such expenditure is con-
e-ted with the proper conduct OF
Hr public schools. and within the
discretion entrusted to the board o.
.eati3u