Big Sandy School Dist. No. 100-J, Elbert County v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 13 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21722,21722 |
| Citation | 433 P.2d 325,164 Colo. 173 |
| Parties | BIG SANDY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 100-J, ELBERT COUNTY, Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. Barney C. CARROLL, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Raymond J. Cody, Arvada, John W. Lentz, Englewood, for plaintiff in error.
Kingsley & Wolf, Denver, for defendant in error.
The central issue presented by this writ of error is whether a school board may delegate to its superintendent of schools the 'power' and 'duty' to employ teachers.
Before detailing some of the facts, it is deemed advisable to set forth at the very outset the particular statute with which we are here concerned. C.R.S.1963, 123--10--19, which pertains generally to the 'powers of a school board,' provides in part as follows:
'(1) Every school board, unless otherwise especially provided by law, Shall have power, and it shall be their duty:
'(2) To employ or discharge Teachers, mechanics and laborers, And to fix and order paid Their wages; * * *' (Emphasis added.)
The essential facts in the instant case are not really in dispute, although as to some peripheral matters there are some rather marked disputes. Sometime in June 1963 the five members of the school board for the Big Sandy School District No. 100--J 'authorized' the superintendent of schools to 'contact and employ' a combination principal and teacher for the high school in Simla. This 'authorization' did not result from any formal action of the achool board, but nonetheless was apparently acquiesced in by all five board members. The superintendent was advised as to the 'salary limits' within which he could then fix the salary of the new principal-teacher, once he was located. Otherwise, there were no additional limitations or restrictions placed on the superintendent, and it was strictly up to him to find and hire a combination principal and teacher for the high school.
To facilitate the entire process, the President and Secretary of the school board signed 'in blank' an employment contract form used by the District. In other words, the employment contract form signed by the President and Secretary of the Board did not, of course, designate the other contracting party, whose identity as of that time was unknown, or did it fix the salary or the dates the employment would either start or end.
In mid-August of 1963 Carroll first contacted the superintendent about possible employment as both the principal and a teacher in the Simla High School. On that occasion, Carroll and the superintendent conferred at some length about the teaching vacancy, and the two of them generally 'came to terms' although Carroll said that he wanted to talk the matter over with his wife before he made any final decision. On this occasion the superintendent, in the presence of Carroll, typed in the 'blanks' in the employment contract form theretofore signed in blank by the President and Secretary of the school board. Specifically, the superintendent typed in the name of 'Barney Carroll' as the other party to the contract. The superintendent also typed in the salary as being 'sixty-five hundred $6,500 dollars,' payable in twelve monthly installments, as well as typing in the period of employment as 'beginning August 21, 1963 and ending August 20, 1964.'
According to Carroll, though this was denied by the superintendent, he (Carroll) called the superintendent on the following day and 'accepted' the offer. Carroll testified that immediately thereafter he signed the original contract, and a copy thereof, both of which had been given him on the preceding day by the superintendent. Carroll retained the original of this contract and upon trial the document was offered and received into evidence. As concerns the copy of the aforementioned contract, Carroll testified that a few days after his telephone conversation with the superintendent he left the copy, signed by him on the superintendent's desk. The superintendent testified, however, that he never found any such signed copy on his desk.
Without going into any great detail as to why he was relieved of his duties, Carroll was purportedly 'discharged' by the superintendent some ten days later. It should be noted that the purported discharge occurred on the day before classes were to commence and was triggered by the fact that Carroll had 'missed' the schools' registration day. However, no hearing was ever held as to whether this so-called discharge was 'for cause,' or not.
Carroll immediately brought suit against the District, alleging a contract of employment between himself and the District and a breach of that contract by the District when he was wrongfully discharged 'without good cause shown or a hearing.'
Upon trial of this matter the basic contention of the District was that the school board could not lawfully delegate to its superintendent the power to employ teachers and that accordingly there never was a valid contract between Carroll and the District. Though this case was tried to a jury, at the conclusion of all the evidence the trial court took the case from the jury on the premise that there were no issues of fact, only issues of law. The trial court then ruled that there was a valid contract of employment between Carroll and the District and that the District had breached the contract by summarily discharging Carroll without the benefit of any hearing as to whether there was 'good cause' for his discharge. Judgment was then entered in Carroll's favor in the sum of $6,500 and interest from August 21, 1963. By writ of error the District now seeks reversal of the judgment thus entered against it. Our study of the matter convinces us that under the circumstances there never was a valid and binding contract between Carroll and the District, and that the trial court therefore erred in its entry of judgment in behalf of Carroll.
The applicable statute not only empowers the school board to employ teachers and fix their wages, but goes on to declare that such is the Duty of the school board. C.R.S.1963, 123--10--19. In other words, the power to employ teachers is exclusively vested by the legislature in the school board, and not in any other body or official. It being, then, the Duty of the school board to employ teachers and fix their wages, the question is then raised as to whether the duty which has been thus placed by the legislature in the school board may be delegated, or on the contrary whether this is a non-delegable duty.
By way of background, the general rule is that a municipal corporation, or a quasi-municipal corporation such as the District, may delegate to subordinate officers and boards powers and functions which are ministerial or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunger v. Iowa High School Athletic Ass'n
... ... Kurth & Bunger, Carroll, for appellant ... Engelbrecht ... him were subsequently dismissed by the county attorney ... On June 10, 1971, ... IX, § 15; Kinzer v. Independent School Dist. of Marion, 129 Iowa 441, 105 N.W. 686. Pursuant ... 180, 442 P.2d 429 (school); Big Sandy School Dist. v. Carroll, 164 Colo. 173, 433 P.2d ... ...
-
Silverman v. University of Colorado
... ... engaged as an assistant professor in the school of education for the academic year 1972-1973. In ... Defendants' reliance on Big Sandy School District No. 100--j v. Carroll, 164 Colo ... 209, 103 P.2d 6; Van Cleave v. Board of County Commissioners, 33 Colo.App. 227, 518 P.2d 1371 ... ...
-
Normandy Estates Metropolitan Recreation Dist. v. Normandy Estates, Ltd.
...all recovery, including Quantum meruit, was denied. Denver v. Moorman, 95 Colo. 111, 33 P.2d 749. See also Big Sandy Sch. Dist. v. Carroll, 164 Colo. 173, 433 P.2d 325; Swedlund v. Denver Bank, 108 Colo. 400, 118 P.2d 460; School District v. Pomponi, 79 Colo. 658, 247 P. 1056; Sullivan v. C......
-
Fremont Re-1 School Dist. v. Jacobs
... ... , to the rule of construction we adopted in Big Sandy School District No. 100-J v. Carroll, 164 Colo. 173, 433 ... E.g., Cottrell v. City and County of Denver, 636 P.2d 703 (Colo.1981) ... ...
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...to those expressed. Union High School Dist. No. 2 v. Paul, 105 Colo. 93, 95 P.2d 5 (1939); Big Sandy School Dist. No. 100J v. Carroll, 164 Colo. 173, 433 P.2d 325 (1967); Snider v. Kit Carson School Dist. R-1, 166 Colo. 180, 422 P.2d 429 (1968). Cases disapproving public bodies granting exc......
-
Delegation of Authority in Land Use Decisions
...arbitrary, and provided that the delegation is made to a politically accountable delegee. NOTES 1. Big Sandy School District v. Carroll, 433 P.2d 325 1967); McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §§ 4.08, 4.09, 4.11, 10.49, and 16.03 (3d Ed. Rev., 1988) (hereinafter, "McQuillin"). 2. McQuillin,......