Board of Trustees of School District No. 9 v. Superintendent of Public Instruction

No. 13131 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F BOARD O TRUSTEES O SCHOOL F F DISTRICT NO. 9 , GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA, P e t i t i o n e r , a n d Respondent, THE SUPERINTENDENT O PUBLIC F INSTRUCTION O THE STATE O F F MONTANA AND GRANT R. GALLUP, Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R, Bennett, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : M. F. Hennessey argued, B u t t e , Montana For Respondent: Richard G i l l e s p i e argued and Ross Cannon argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 22, 1976 Decided : PEG 2 1 1976 Filed: D~~ Z~ 19f6 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . T h i s a p p e a l i s from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and C l a r k County, w h e r e i n t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f a p p e l l a n t Grant R. G a l l u p , a s a t e a c h e r f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r of h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t , by t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n w a s reversed. I n t h e s p r i n g of 1973, a p p e l l a n t had been employed a s a t e a c h e r by r e s p o n d e n t Board of T r u s t e e s , f o r n i n e c o n s e c u t i v e years. A t t h i s t i m e he w a s o f f e r e d and he a c c e p t e d a t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 1973-74 s c h o o l y e a r . On August 30 and 31, 1973 t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t conducted a pre-school o r i e n t a t i o n f o r new and r e t u r n i n g t e a c h e r s . Appel- l a n t a t t e n d e d t h e morning s e s s i o n on August 30, 1973 and b o t h s e s s i o n s August 31, 1973. H e f a i l e d t o attend t h e afternoon s e s s i o n August 30, 1973. On August 31, 1973, a p p e l l a n t was asked t o e x p l a i n h i s a b s e n c e t h e p r e v i o u s d a y , he r e s p o n d e d , and was t h e n suspended. H e later received t h i s l e t t e r : "You a r e hereby n o t i f i e d of your s u s p e n s i o n a s a n employee o f School D i s t r i c t N o . 9, e f f e c - t i v e Aug;st 31, 1973, f o r f a i l u r e t o a t t e n d opening day s c h o o l e x e r c i s e s on Auqust 30, 1973, i n v i o l a t i o n o f t e r m s o f your t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t . "The Board o f T r u s t e e s w i l l meet a t 1:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 4 , 1973, i n t h e s c h o o l administration building, t o consider further a c t i o n on t h i s m a t t e r . "You a r e hereby r e q u e s t e d t o a t t e n d t h e m e e t i n g and s t a t e your r e a s o n s f o r n o t a t t e n d i n g o p e n i n g day a c t i v i t i e s . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) A p p e l l a n t a t t e n d e d t h e meeting and s t a t e d he w a s ill on t h e a f t e r n o o n of August 30, 1973. I t was d i s c o v e r e d t h e a p p e l - l a n t worked e l s e w h e r e t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a f t e r n o o n . In addition t o t h e a b s e n c e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e l e t t e r , t h e Board a l s o i n q u i r e d i n t o and c o n s i d e r e d t h e a b s e n c e s of a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e n i n e y e a r s of employment. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e Board v o t e d t o dismiss appellant. A p p e l l a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , and was r e i n s t a t e d , f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t a o n e - h a l f day of a b s e n c e was n o t c o n s i d e r e d a n emergency o r s i c k l e a v e and d i d n o t j u s t i f y d i s m i s s a l , b u t a d e d u c t i o n o f pay. The Board t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , whereupon t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s de- c i s i o n was a f f i r m e d . The S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t found t h e o n e - h a l f d a y a b s e n c e was d e m i n i m i s , and t h e a b s e n c e s p r i o r t o a p p e l l a n t ' s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t c o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d by t h e Board, and a s s u c h c o u l d n o t be p a r t o f t h e b a s i s f o r d i s m i s s a l . The Board t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The d i s - t r i c t c o u r t reversed t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n , conclud- ing that: ( a ) The Board was e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r a p p e l l a n t ' s a b s e n c e s o c c u r r i n g p r i o r t o h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t . ( b ) When combined w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s u c h a b s e n c e s , t h e unexcused o n e - h a l f d a y a b s e n c e was l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y dismissal. ( c ) The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n exceeded h e r a u t h o r i t y i n making h e r d e c i s i o n by i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f law a s t o what t h e Board c o u l d c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g a c t i o n t o b e day t a k e n on t h e o n e - h a l f / u n e x c u s e d a b s e n c e . Appellant a l l e g e s t h e s e conclusions of t h e d i s t r i c t court are i n error. B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g t h i s i s s u e , t h e i n s t a n t c a s e must b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n between t h e s e same p a r t i e s . I n t h e o t h e r a c t i o n , G a l l u p was t e r m i n a t e d a s a t e n u r e t e a c h e r when t h e Board e l e c t e d n o t t o o f f e r him a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 1974- 75 s c h o o l y e a r . That t e r m i n a t i o n , pursuant t o t h e t e n u r e s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n s 75-6103, 75-6104, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , was a f f i r m e d by t h e S t a t e Superintendent of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n and, a s f a r as t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d d i s c l o s e s , h a s n o t been a p p e a l e d by G a l l u p . Therefore, t h e i n s t a n t proceeding involves only t h e d i s m i s s a l of a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r of h i s 1973-74 c o n t r a c t , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 75-6107, R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s : "The t r u s t e e s o f any d i s t r i c t may d i s m i s s a t e a c h e r b e f o r e t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f h i s employment c o n t r a c t f o r i m m o r a l i t y , u n f i t n e s s , incompetence, o r v i o l a t i o n of t h e adopted p o l i c i e s of such trustees. Any t e a c h e r who h a s been d i s m i s s e d may i n w r i t i n g w i t h i n t e n ( 1 0 ) d a y s a p p e a l s u c h d i s m i s s a l t o t h e county superintendent; follow- ing such appeal a hearing s h a l l be held w i t h i n t e n ( 1 0 ) days. I f t h e county superintendent, a f t e r a hearing, determines t h a t t h e dismissal by t h e t r u s t e e s was made w i t h o u t good c a u s e , he s h a l l o r d e r t h e t r u s t e e s t o r e i n s t a t e such t e a c h e r and t o compensate s u c h t e a c h e r a t h i s c o n t r a c t amount f o r t h e t i m e l o s t d u r i n g t h e pending o f t h e a p p e a l . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) I t i s apparent t h a t d i s m i s s a l of a t e a c h e r under s e c t i o n 75-6107, R.C.M. 1947, must be f o r o n e o f t h e f o u r s p e c i f i e d c a u s e s , which i s f u r t h e r q u a l i f i e d by t h e c o u n t y s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s s c o p e o f r e v i e w t o amount t o good c a u s e . A l t h o u g h no method o f proced- u r e i s set f o r t h i n t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e guidance of t h e school board, it i s a w e l l d e f i n e d p r i n c i p l e , i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s where d i s m i s s a l must b e f o r good c a u s e and r e g u l a t e d by s t a t u t e , t h a t o n e i s e n t i t l e d , i n common j u s t i c e , t o a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o m e e t t h e charges before being dismissed. K e l l i s o n v . S c h o o l D i s t . No. 1, 20 Mont. 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 , 50 P . 421; Howard v . I r e l a n d , 114 Mont. 488, 1 3 8 P.2d 569; Opheim v . S t a t e F i s h and Game Cornrn., 133 Mont. 362, 3 2 3 P.2d 1116; Wyatt v. School D i s t . No. 1 0 4 , 148 Mont. 8 3 , 417 P.2d 221; 68 Am J u r 2d, S c h o o l s , 5 185. The o p p o r t u n i t y t o m e e t t h e c h a r g e s b e f o r e b e i n g d i s m i s s e d under them n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him, f o r w i t h o u t s u c h n o t i c e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y would be m e a n i n g l e s s . The n o t i c e need n o t m e e t t h e f o r m a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a c r i m i n a l i n - d i c t m e n t , however i t must be s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d t o i n f o r m t h e t e a c h e r o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him, s o h e i s r e a s o n a b l y a b l e t o formulate a defense. For t h e s e r e a s o n s we a d o p t t h e d o c t r i n e s e t f o r t h i n 68 Am J u r 2d, S c h o o l s , 5 1 9 4 , which s t a t e s : "While s c h o o l b o a r d s a r e n o t bound t o s t r i c t c o n f o r m i t y w i t h c o u r t r u l e s and p r a c t i c e s , t h e y must, n e v e r t h e l e s s , o b s e r v e t h e e l e m e n t a r y and fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l i n q u i r y . And a l t h o u g h a d e g r e e o f i n f o r m a l i t y may a t t e n d t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s , it must a p p e a r t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l i s based upon e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e s p e c i f i c charge o r charges a g a i n s t t h e teacher and upon no o t h e r e v i d e n c e . * * * " (Emphasis - - . - added. ) A s concluded by t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n - s t r u c t i o n and t h e County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h i s c e r t a i n l y was n o t t h e c a s e with t h e Board's d i s m i s s a l of a p p e l l a n t . The l e t t e r of n o t i c e s e n t by t h e Board mast c l e a r l y r e f e r s t o t h e o n e - h a l f d a y unexcused a b s e n c e a s t h e s o l e r e a s o n f o r h i s d i s m i s s a l , and i n f o r m s him t o a p p e a r and respond t o t h a t s p e c i f i c a b s e n c e . How- e v e r , when a p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t e d h i m s e l f a t t h e h e a r i n g , he was a l s o q u e s t i o n e d and i n v e s t i g a t e d a s t o i n s t a n c e s o c c u r r i n g through- o u t t h e e n t i r e n i n e y e a r s of h i s employment. A p p e l l a n t was n o t g i v e n p r o p e r n o t i c e of t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s . Therefore, t h e Board c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r them nor make them a b a s i s o r a p o r t i o n of t h e b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a n t ' s d i s m i s s a l . The c o n c l u s i o n s of law of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p r e v i o u s l y set f o r t h , a r e i n e r r o r . Therefore, w e reverse t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment and a f f i r m t h a t o f t h e S t a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f Public I n s t r u c t i o n - f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r of h i s 1973-74 t e a c h i n g D ' L,,J--------&--------------------- 6-a .- .. *+- Chief J u s t i c e f I Hon. L. C.,,Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i r t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . 7 Justice esley Castles.