Title: Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.
Citation: 475 S.W.2d 517
Docket Number: 5-5692
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 1972

475 S.W.2d 517 (1972) Harold NETHERCUTT and Charles T. Payne, Appellants, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee. No. 5-5692. Supreme Court of Arkansas. January 24, 1972. *518 Warren &amp; Bullion, Little Rock, for appellants. Terral, Rawlings, Matthews &amp; Purtle, Little Rock, for appellee. BYRD, Justice. Appellants Harold Nethercutt and Charles T. Payne were assistant superintendents under contracts of employment with appellee Pulaski County Special School District for the twelve months from July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969. Both had been so employed on year to year contracts for a number of years. In January of 1969, it became apparent that Superintendent Leroy Gattin's contract would not be renewed. At the same time appellants learned that there was some question whether their contracts would be renewed. Some of the school board members took the position that selection of assistant superintendents should be left up to the incoming superintendent, Dr. Heidbrink. However it does not definitely appear that appellants were fully aware of the board's position. From January to the end of their contract term appellants regularly attended the public school board meetings. They admittedly expressed their professional opinion that Mr. Gattin was a competent superintendent. After it became public knowledge that Mr. Gattin's contract would not be renewed and before Dr. Heidbrink was selected, one of the appellants was reported in a local newspaper as having pointed his finger at one of the board members and having told the board member that he was "nit picking." On March 12, 1969, Superintendent Gattin by letter notified appellants that five members of the board had said they would not vote to renew their contracts. Finally on June 3, 1969, the superintendent, as directed by the board, formally notified the appellants in writing as follows: In their actions against the board for reinstatement appellants alleged that effective July 1, 1968, the board had adopted a teacher tenure policy, that the teacher tenure policy became a part of their contract, and that the board did not comply with the teacher tenure policy in terminating their contracts. The teacher tenure policy adopted by the board is: Admittedly the board did not follow the provisions of the teacher tenure policy, but the minutes do show that after appellants had filed an action against the board, the board offered to give them a hearing. There is other evidence to the effect that the board suspended its rules before taking action in formally notifying appellants that their contracts would not be renewed. Before trial of this action in the lower court, a school board election had been held at which Mr. Gattin was elected as a member of the board. After Mr. Gattin's election, Dr. Heidbrink was removed as superintendent. At the time of trial, Mr. Gattin was acting superintendent. The trial courts jointly ruled that appellants had waived any rights they might have had by reason of their contracts and dismissed their action. For reversal, appellants contend that the teacher tenure provisions were part of their contracts; the provisions thereof were not followed; the board could not temporarily suspend the policies; they did not waive their rights; and that they were terminated without procedural due process. We do not reach appellants' arguments because under the laws of this State a school board is a body corporate created by law and as such has no authority not conferred by law. The matter of teacher contracts or employment is controlled by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1304(b) (Supp.1969) as follows: *521 As we construe this statute, a school board, as it may be constituted following any school election, is free to reemploy or terminate any teacher with or without cause. A school board, having only such authority as is granted it by law, cannot by the adoption of a teacher tenure policy give to a teacher a tenure beyond or greater than that authorized by the law limiting such employment to an annual contract. Since the record admittedly shows that appellants received their statutory notice of termination within the time provided by law, it follows that their causes of action for reinstatement and damages were properly dismissed. Affirmed. JONES, Justice (concurring). I concur in the results reached by the majority in this case but I do so on the basis that the tenure policy did not become a part of the teaching contracts. I find no conflict between the provisions of the teacher tenure policy adopted by the board and Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1304(b) (Supp. 1969) pertaining to teacher contracts. As I interpret the statute, it simply provides for a renewal of the annual contract on the same terms and for the same salary unless written termination notice is given in advance by the school board or by the teacher as set out in the statute, or unless such contract is superseded by another contract between the parties. When a principal, superintendent or a school board is of the opinion that a teacher is not rendering efficient or competent service, I find nothing in the statute that would prevent a school board from making a binding written contract with a teacher agreeing to advise her of such opinion and agreeing to give her an opportunity to remedy the inefficiency as well as giving her a hearing thereon, before they would fire her. No such provision was contained in the written teacher contracts in the case at bar, so for that reason I also affirm.