Appeal of Willard

• Decision Date: 18 April 1857
• Citation: 4 R.I. 597
• Parties: APPEAL OF JOHN H. WILLARD.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

4 R.I. 597

APPEAL OF JOHN H. WILLARD.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 18, 1857

A clerk of a school committee may be removed from office by the committee, for cause, after notice and hearing.

THIS appeal, was at the request of John H. Willard, brought before Ames, Chief Justice, upon the following statement by the commissioner; and was decided April 18, 1857.

" Statement and decision in case of the appeal of John H Willard from a vote of the school committee of North Providence, by which they declared his office, as clerk of said committee, vacant.

This appeal was received at the office of the commissioner of public schools on the 27th of March, 1857. It is directed to the commissioner, and sets forth the fact, that, on the 21st day of March, 1857, the school committee of North Providence did, by resolution, declare vacant the office of clerk of their board, at that time held by the appellant, John H Willard, for the reasons set forth in the said resolution that said Willard had refused to present a certain paper to the board when demanded by vote of the committee; that he refused or failed to make certain corrections or additions to the records of said committee, when ordered by their vote that he had used improper language to the members of said committee at their meetings, and for other matters alleged. The appeal alleges that these charges are false and malicious, and also claims that the committee have no legal authority to remove a clerk.

The hearing was appointed for April 13th, at which time the parties appeared at the office of the commissioner of public schools, and a full hearing of the case was had.

Mr Willard appeared in behalf of his appeal, and Mr. Stiness for the school committee. Much testimony was introduced, and much of it was conflicting. These are the facts, as they appear to the commissioner to have been proved in the case.

Sometime in July, 1856, a paper was sent from the commissioner of public schools to the school committee of North Providence, through their clerk, Mr. Willard, with a request that he would communicate it to the board. When the board met this paper was called for, and Mr. Willard did not produce it. A vote was passed demanding it; still it was not produced, and the committee adjourned without it. At a subsequent meeting it was given to the committee. Mr. Willard attempted on the trial to show that he might choose his own time to produce it, and that his refusal was only a qualified one. On this point the commissioner is clearly of opinion that the clerk of a board like a school committee, has no discretion whatever in such cases. The records and papers are not his private property, but belong to the committee, and he has only charge of them, and holds them entirely subject to their order. It was said that the paper in question was one that would prevent some action of the committee, and would in some respects damage the reputation of the commissioner. But the clerk of a school committee is not the judge of the duties and business of the committee, nor the custodian of the commissioner's reputation. If the committee demanded a paper belonging to them, and insisted on that demand, it was the clerk's duty to present it, no matter what business might be prevented or cut off by it, and no matter whose reputation might be hurt.

The next matter in the resolution from which the appeal was taken, related to the refusal of the clerk to amend the records of the meeting at which the abovenamed paper was demanded. It appears by the clerk's records, that at the next meeting the record of the meeting above named was not approved, on account of its imperfection. A motion to amend by inserting the words ‘ which was refused,’ and which would have made the records accord with the truth, was laid on the table, in the hope that after consideration the clerk would make the proper amendment. In December, however, the amendment not having been made, a vote was passed to amend as above stated, and the clerk refused to amend. He contends that his refusal was only conditional,--he being willing to add after the words ‘ that the clerk be directed to produce the decision...