Board of Community College Trustees for Baltimore County-Essex Community College v. Adams

• Decision Date: 01 September 1996
• Docket Number: COUNTY--ESSEX,No. 1379,1379
• Citation: 117 Md.App. 662,701 A.2d 1113
• Parties: , 122 Ed. Law Rep. 210 The BOARD OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES FOR BALTIMORECOMMUNITY COLLEGE v. Jane ADAMS et al. ,
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 662

117 Md.App. 662

701 A.2d 1113, 122 Ed. Law Rep. 210

The BOARD OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY--ESSEX COMMUNITY COLLEGE v. Jane ADAMS et al.

No. 1379, Sept. Term, 1996.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 8, 1997.

Reconsideration Denied Sept. 24, 1997.

John A. Austin, Towson, for Appellant

Barry L. Steelman and Stanley Turk, Baltimore, for Appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and CATHELL and HOLLANDER, JJ.

CATHELL, Judge.

The Board of Trustees of the Baltimore County Community Colleges appeals from the granting of a writ of mandamus requiring it to reinstate Jane Adams and Gwen Nicholson, tenured professors at Essex Community College, appellees, to

their prior positions. Appellant presents three questions on appeal:

I. Did the trial court commit error in awarding mandamus relief to the Appellees?

II. Did the trial court commit error in ordering the reinstatement of the Appellees to teaching positions that no longer existed?

III. Did the trial court commit error in ordering backpay to be paid to the Appellees?

The Facts

Certain facts are basically uncontested. Appellees were tenured professors at Essex Community College. In 1991, the governing bodies, the State and county, that funded most of the operations of the college drastically reduced appropriations to the school. The college, believing that personnel and staff cutbacks were inevitable, began to study the programs and courses it offered to determine which, if any, programs were to be scaled back or terminated. A process was put in place by the "Division Chairs," presumably the heads of the various departments at the college, called the Four Flags for Andy ¹ program. Under it, each department and program was evaluated in terms of enrollment, section size, and other considerations. A committee was then formed composed of the Dean of Instruction, a representative of the faculty senate, a representative of the Academic Council, and a representative "from the counseling area." The committee met over a period of several months considering all of the material on the budgetary crisis, enrollment, etc. This committee then made certain recommendations on how the financial difficulties should be addressed. It recommended termination of seven Appellees, in March of 1993, were apprised by a dean of the college that they would be terminated on July 1, 1994. Appellees submitted additional information to the dean, but the decision remained unchanged. Appellees then initiated the grievance process of the college. Ultimately, the grievance process ended with a hearing before the Board of Trustees--the final step in the grievance process. The Board denied the grievance. ² As a result of the termination of the program, appellees were ultimately terminated from their faculty positions in 1994. At no time were any allegations made that appellees were being terminated for behavioral or qualification problems.

programs. The Board of Trustees, appellant, ultimately approved the program terminations in 1993. One of the programs terminated was the "Office Technology" program, in which appellees taught.

There is a preliminary issue as to the scope of the trial court's findings that needs to be addressed. The issue is whether the trial court addressed the issue of the financial reasons underlying the terminations. We hold that it clearly did. We explain.

In appellees' complaint for mandamus relief, they asserted:

The purported reason for the termination of [appellees] was the discontinuance of the associate degree program in Office Technology, in which [appellees] had been teaching. [The] decision to terminate [appellees] was "based solely on a review of programs and functions." Thus, in contradiction of the express terms of their Contracts, [appellees] were not terminated for any of the enumerated grounds therein....

c. The termination of the Office Technology program was not sufficient cause under [appellees'] Contracts to terminate them. [Citation omitted.]

The provisions of the contract executed in the early 1970s, that was apparently a standard form contract of that time [A]fter said faculty member has been placed on continuous tenure, his [her] appointment may not be terminated except as provided herein.

upon which appellant's complaint was based, provided in relevant part:

....

... The Board of Trustees may dismiss said faculty member ... for immorality, dishonesty, misconduct in office, incompetency, insubordination, or willful neglect of duty....

The contract contained no specific provisions relating to procedures that would apply if the college was forced to terminate programs for reasons not related to the personal performance or conduct of a professor. It contained no provisions for priorities between tenured professors, reassignments, relocations, retraining or the like. It is agreed by all parties that appellees' performance and conduct was not in question.

The complaint later asserted that in the grievance process appellees initiated, the Faculty Appeals Committee found that they were not terminated "for any of the reasons set forth in their Faculty Contracts." They noted that counsel for appellant in a letter to the Faculty Appeals Committee had maintained: "Thus, because the elimination of the program [sic] in question as one means of addressing [the college's ] financial difficulties, and because the elimination of the programs eliminated the subject matter of the contract, then neither party could be required to perform their obligation under the contract." (Brackets in complaint; emphasis added.) Appellees also asserted in this complaint that the Faculty Appeals Committee found that no formal "financial exigency" had been declared. They noted that the college's president denied their grievance in spite of the Faculty Appeals Committee's recommendations. Appellees ultimately asserted in the complaint that they "have a plain and clear right to have continued employment ... until they are discharged for one of the enumerated reasons set forth in their contract."

Appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that mandamus was an inappropriate remedy in that there was clearly an adequate remedy at law, i.e., a suit for damages. Appellant also asserted that mandamus was inappropriate in that the Board's final action was nonappealable, leaving only the remedy of damages, and that appellees were improperly using a writ of mandamus to obtain judicial review of the Board's discretionary action.

Later, appellees filed an amended complaint for mandamus, and in it they again conceded the existence of the "Four Flags for Andy" program that was created to select programs for termination. They acknowledged that "Four Flags" had selected the "office technology" program for termination, but contended that it was done "secretively" and "arbitrarily." This amended complaint was a superseding complaint in that it did not incorporate the prior complaint. Appellees asserted due process deficiencies in the grievance process, and complained that at the final stage of the grievance process, they had been improperly limited in respect to time allotted to present their position. They noted, again, that appellant's original contracts were not course specific but that their contracts simply were to "teach in the community college."

Appellees additionally complained that other professors with less tenure had been rehired and that male professors had been rehired. They also noted that an outside faculty agency had concluded that appellant had acted improperly and that there were still courses at the college that appellees were qualified to teach. That outside agency indicated that it had a belief that the college had improperly failed to relocate the professors.

Again, appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss based mainly on its belief that mandamus was an inappropriate claim. In its new Motion to Dismiss, appellant proffered the following additional argument:

9. That to the extent that the amended complaint seeks to have this court control or direct the statutorily mandated authority over the expenditure of public monies allocated to Ultimately, appellant attempted to file an amended answer to the amended complaint that stated in relevant part:

the Board, mandamus relief is likewise unavailable as decisions concerning expenditures of public funds are by their very nature, discretionary actions as to which mandamus relief will not lie. [Emphasis added.]

6. [Appellees] are not entitled to the mandamus relief sought because the termination of their positions as alleged in the Amended Complaint was done because of the severe financial difficulties facing the [appellant at] the time the action was taken, which financial difficulties required the termination of seven different academic programs at the College and the termination of ten full-time tenured faculty positions. The elimination of the seven programs and the termination of the ten faculty positions occurred following a lengthy and detailed review of the academic programs at the College in response to the financial crisis created by cutbacks in state and local funding.

....

9. [Appellees] are not entitled to the declaratory relief sought as the termination[s] ... occurred as a result of the financial difficulties experienced by the College ... requiring termination ... in accordance with generally accepted principles concerning the concept of academic tenure.

The trial court initially rejected the answer as untimely but ultimately permitted the matters in that answer to be presented and litigated and the trial court resolved them--thus basing its findings on a resolution of that issue. In its oral opinion, the court stated:

As such, it is the Court's opinion that I should strike all of the testimony regarding that particular defense and should grant the writ of mandamus. I suspect as my Uncle Gus Grason who sat on this bench and the Court of Appeals for many...