Opinion ID: 1297060
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of School-Employment Disputes

Text: School-employment disputes in New Mexico have historically been resolved by the State Board of Education (the State Board). The legislature first defined the extent of the State Board's power to resolve grievances of discharged school teachers in 1925, when it amended a 1923 law to require that no teacher could be discharged without full hearing and the right of appeal to the state board of education. NMSA 1929, § 120-1105. The State Board was given the power to institute legal proceedings, at which it was required to explain the true intent and meaning of the law, and [to] decide without expense to the parties concerned, all controversies and disputes that arise under it, and their decision shall be final. NMSA 1929, § 120-101. When a teacher was discharged, he or she had a right to appeal to the State Board, but the State Board's decision was final. The constitutionality of this statute (then compiled as NMSA 1941, § 55-101) was challenged in McCormick v. Board of Education, 58 N.M. 648, 274 P.2d 299 (1954). The appellants argued in McCormick that the State Board, as a part of the executive branch of government, had been given judicial powers under Section 55-101 in violation of Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution. They further contended that the statute was unconstitutional because it failed to provide for judicial review of the Board's decision. This Court held that the judicial powers conferred upon the State Board by the legislature fall clearly within the constitutional authority conferred upon the State Board of Education for `the control, management and direction of all public schools,' and that within the area prescribed by Article XII, Section 6, of the Constitution (creating the State Board and defining its powers) the decisions of the State Board of Education are final and conclusive as between the parties, and not subject to review. McCormick, 58 N.M. at 660-61, 274 P.2d at 307. This holding was qualified, however, by the Court's recognition that the judiciary retained jurisdiction over purely legal questions and that the State Board's action would be subject to review on the ground that it was wholly arbitrary, unlawful, unreasonable or capricious. Id. at 661, 274 P.2d at 307. The statutory scheme governing appeals from decisions of local school boards to discharge certified employees evolved from the time of McCormick to provide specifically for review by the New Mexico Court of Appeals of an employee's appeal to the State Board for a determination of whether the State Board had acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, unlawfully, or capriciously. See NMSA 1953, § 77-8-17 (Supp.1973); NMSA 1978, § 22-10-20. This scheme was replaced by N.M. Laws 1986, Chapter 33, Section 25, the current version of which is compiled as Section 22-10-17.1. The hearing on review of a local school board's decision is now held before an independent arbitrator instead of before the State Board, and judicial review of the arbitrator's decision is limited to whether the decision was procured by corruption, fraud, deception or collusion. See §§ 22-10-17.1(A), (M). The questions before us are whether an independent arbitrator (in place of the State Board) may review a local board's decision and issue an arbitration award and whether that award may properly be subjected to the limited review contemplated by Subsection 22-10-17.1(M).