Opinion ID: 2317381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Susan A. Carpenter

Text: The charges presented against Mrs. Carpenter are that she solicited signatures for a petition from the faculty and students of the high school. After the signatures were procured, it is charged that the appellant changed the substance of the petition which was not in context with the intention of the signers. It is asserted that she made inconsistent and untrue statements concerning her participation in the procurement of the petition, made unauthorized use of a copying machine and neglected her teaching duties during certain periods of time on May 7, 1970. Lastly, it was claimed that she erroneously advised pupils and teachers that she had been fired by the principal, knowing this assertion to be false. The evidence presented in support of the charges was subject to opposing inference and was sharply controverted by Mrs. Carpenter and the several witnesses who testified in her defense. With some equivocation, the board found against the appellant on all of the charges except as to unauthorized use of the copying machine. The findings conclude that Susan Carpenter has conducted herself in a way that constitutes conduct unbecoming to a teacher, as designated under Section 1752, and ordered her dismissal. The core of the charges is Mrs. Carpenter's involvement and participation in the formation of a petition circulated among the faculty and students of Hartford High School during the week of May 4, 1970. This is confirmed in the findings. Although the findings are silent on the text of the petition, the transcript of the hearing establishes that the writing was addressed to the Hartford school board. It was drafted and prepared by three Hartford high school students, with the assistance of Mrs. Carpenter on May 5, 1970. Although the petition was not included in the record certified to the Court, it appears that it requested permission from the school board to procure school release time for the purpose of having a symposium or class discussions in protest of the nation's involvement in Southeast Asia, in general, and Cambodia, in particular. Apparently the petition requested that students from Dartmouth College be permitted to participate in the program. Mrs. Carpenter delivered the petition to the principal of the high school, Mr. Dale Berne, for presentation to the school board. The petition was denied by the school board at an evening meeting on May 6. Before Mrs. Carpenter was informed of this action, the principal gave permission for three Dartmouth students to engage in discussion during Mrs. Carpenter's first period English class on May 7. Mr. Berne attended the class. When the class was over, the principal summoned Mrs. Carpenter to his office. He then informed her that the school board had denied the petition. Mr. Berne was asked on direct examination concerning this event. Q. Now, going to the meeting that you had during the second period on May 7th, at any time during that meeting did you explain to her that she could expect disciplinary action on the part of the board? A. No. Q. Did you use the term disciplinary action at all? A. The term disciplinary actionI did say to her that I would hope that her involvement with the students would not continue today or any other day. I stated to her that if she continued to be continually involved in churning them up that I would make a recommendation along the way for some sort of disciplinary action and I said to her and I said to both of the gentlemen there as well that I hope that day will never have to come; that you will be a responsible person as I believe you are and do a good job of teaching which you are capable of and I asked her if she understood everything that was being said there. She said she did and she said that she would go back and teach her class. Q. Did you tell her that the board was displeased with her involvement with the students and concerned with her involvement? A. No, I told her that Iat that time said to her the petition that she submitted to me had been denied by the school board the night before. I had mentioned that the school board had instructed the superintendent and myself to sit down with her and talk about her involvement with the students but that was, in fact, what we were instructed. As far as penalties, punishments, or anything else, it was not stated by me because it was not stated by the school board. It was I suppose I'd call it more of a probing action. We will sit down and talk with her and hope that, as the superintendent said, we can get her to continue to work positively. On cross-examination, Mr. Berne was asked to explain his meaning of involvement. His answerIn the case of Mrs. Carpenter, involvement her would take more of a negative, rather than a positive, sense. Very simply, involving yourself with the student petition. The charge of neglect in her teaching duties stems from her absence from class while in conference with the principal and later, with the assistant superintendent, concerning the threat of disciplinary action and possible discharge from the faculty. It appears that these class periods were covered by other teachers. Without further elaboration on the evidence, it is abundantly clear that Mrs. Carpenter's involvement with the petition lies at the root of the disciplinary action. The record establishes that her participation in the petition, and the events which followed in its wake, constitute the procuring causes of the board's action and led to its conclusion that the appellant's conduct was unbecoming to a teacher. The rightto petition the Government for the redress of grievances is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, U. S. Const., Amend. I It is safeguarded in the Declaration of Rights of our state constitution. Vt. Const., Ch. I, Art. 20. Chief Judge (then Assistant) Royall Tyler observed that persons irritated and annoyed by a petition may conceive the right to be eligible for destruction. Not so, said the Court, in holding a libelous petition privileged from civil suit. The opinion goes on to stateif this right of petitioning for a redress of grievances should sometimes be pervertedthe right of petitioning with impunity is established both by the common law and our declaration of rights, the abuse of the right must be submitted to in common with other evils in government, as subservient to the public welfare. Harris v. Huntington, 2 Tyler 129, 140, 146 (1802). There is no claim of abuse in the present case. And although the subject of a petition may deviate from the views of others or may engender controversy, we must bear that risk. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed. 2d 731, 739. Fundamental freedom thus protected cannot be stifled in the name of statutory language that affords no guidance against the conduct condemned. Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, 372 U.S. at 229, 83 S.Ct. at 680, 9 L.Ed.2d at 697. The term conduct unbecoming a teacher is imprecise and apparently used to cover disqualifying conduct not otherwise specifically forbidden in the statute. See, Beilan v. Board of Public Education, 357 U.S. 399, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414, 1420. In serious misconduct that is unprotected by constitutional safeguards, it has been validly, and we think properly, applied. See, Smith v. Carty, 120 N.J.L. 335, 199 A. 12, 16. Our examination of the record indicates that the conduct assigned to the appellant does not reach such dimensions. There is nothing to indicate the conduct charged against this teacher collided with the school regulations nor the rights of other students or teachers. Mrs. Carpenter had no notice from the statute, or otherwise, that her involvement with the petition of students and faculty would compose conduct unbecoming a teacher. Since the dismissal relates inextricably to the exercise of the appellant's right to petition, the board of school directors was without authority to direct her dismissal for such participation. Petition of Susan A. Carpenter is sustained and the issuance of the writ of certiorari is ordered. The order of the defendants, directing the dismissal of Susan A. Carpenter, is vacated. Let the result be certified to the defendants and to the Commissioner of Education.