Board of Educ. of Garrett County v. Lendo, No. 50

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: Argued before MURPHY; SMITH
• Citation: 453 A.2d 1185,295 Md. 55
• Decision Date: 21 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 50
• Parties: , 8 Ed. Law Rep. 686 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GARRETT COUNTY et al. v. Dan LENDO.

Page 55

295 Md. 55 453 A.2d 1185, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 686 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GARRETT COUNTY et al.
v.
Dan LENDO. No. 50. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Dec. 21, 1982.

[453 A.2d 1186]

Page 56

Ellen M. Heller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Ralph M. Burnett, Oakland, on the brief), for State Bd. and Garrett County Bd.

Charles A. Reese and Judith S. Bresler, Rockville, on the brief, for Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery County.

Joel A. Smith, Lutherville (Abato & Abato, P.A., Lutherville, on the brief), for appellee.

Page 57

Walter S. Levin, James R. Whattam and Sauerwein, Boyd, Decker & Levin, Baltimore, amicus curiae, for Maryland State Teachers Ass'n, Inc.

Page 56

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

We shall here hold that the State Board of Education is obliged to decide appeals to it from county boards of education under the provision of Maryland Code (1978) § 4-205(c)(4), Education Article. The State Board had been under the apparent impression that it had something approximating certiorari jurisdiction so that it was not mandated to decide such appeals.

The central figure in this controversy is Dan Lendo, a teacher in the schools of Garrett County, who taught driver education. He served as an athletic coach in interscholastic sports in addition to his teaching activities. This was after school hours. He coached junior varsity football and women's softball. His principal and vice-principal evaluated him in January 1981. They gave a rating of "effective" (the highest) for each of the eight items which pertained to classroom instruction. They marked "NI" ("needs improvement") under the ninth item on the evaluation form, "other." This pertained to his activities as a coach after school hours. Lendo appealed this evaluation to the Superintendent of Schools of Garrett County pursuant to the provisions of Code (1978) § 4-205(c), Education Article. ¹ He contended that teacher evaluations such as his should be based only upon classroom instruction or other performance during school hours. The appeal was unsuccessful.

Page 58

Lendo then appealed to the Board of Education of Garrett County. ² That, too, was unsuccessful. Lendo then sought review by the State Board of Education. It will be [453 A.2d 1187] noted by reference to n. 1 that § 4-205(c)(4), after making provision for an appeal to the County Superintendent says, "The decision may be further appealed to the State Board if taken in writing within 30 days after the decision of the county board." The State Board declined to hear the case. An appeal to the Circuit Court for Garrett County followed.

Both the State Board and the Board of Education of Montgomery County were permitted to intervene in the circuit court proceeding. The trial judge (Thayer, J.) reversed the action of the State Board and remanded the case to it for appellate review, filing a well-reasoned opinion. He summarized the position of the parties:

"An analysis of the respective parties' contentions reveals at one end of the spectrum [Lendo's] position that any appeal taken to the State Board under Section 4-205(c) must be heard and considered; in the center is the position of the State Board and the Garrett County Board that the State Board may, but need not, consider such appeals if they do not involve matters of constitutional right, state law or by-laws, rules and regulations having the force of law; at the other end of the spectrum is the Montgomery County Board of Education's position that the State Board may not hear local issues not amounting to alleged denial of constitutional right or involving state law or

Page 59

by-laws or regulations having the force of law." (Emphasis in original.)

An appeal to the Court of Special Appeals followed. We granted the petition of the State Board and the Garrett County Board for a writ of certiorari prior to the hearing of the case by the latter court.

It seems that the State Board of Education in 1973 began taking the position that it was not obliged to decide appeals such as that of Lendo's. It was conceded at oral argument that this case involves the issue of proper administration of the county school system within the purview of § 4-205(c)(3)(ii) which we quoted in n. 1. However, the State Board and the Garrett County Board argue:

"[T]he unambiguous language of the statute sets definite limitations as to what the State Board is required to do in regard to controversies and disputes within the public school system. Under § 2-205(e), the State Board has the mandatory obligation to explain--'shall explain'--only those provisions of the Education Article that are 'within its jurisdiction' as well as its own bylaws, rules and regulations. More important to the question at hand, the State Board has a mandatory duty to decide--'shall decide'--only those controversies and disputes concerning a public school law in the Education Article or a State Board bylaw. In short, the State Board is only required to decide those 'controversies arising under the public school law.' Board of County School Commissioners of Caroline County v. Morris, 123 Md. 398, 403 [, 91 A. 718, 91 A. 720] (1914). There is no language in § 2-205(e) from which it could be inferred that the State Board has a nondiscretionary obligation to accept appeals brought to it under § 4-205(c) which do not contain allegations of violations by local school systems of particular State statutes in the

Page 60

Education Article or a State Board bylaw." (Footnote omitted. Emphasis in original.) ³

Petitioners err when they rely upon School Commissioners v. Morris, 123 Md. 398, 91 A. 718, 91 A. 720 (1914). In that instance, the Board of County School Commissioners of Caroline County appealed [453 A.2d 1188] from an order of the Circuit Court for Caroline County directing a writ of mandamus to issue commanding the Board to open for pupils a certain school and to keep it open throughout the scholastic year as in previous years. The Court there referred to a number of our prior cases and said:

"In each of these cases it was distinctly held that when the controversy or dispute is one involving the proper administration of the public school system of the State, the Court has no power to interfere, and that all such questions must be referred to and finally settled by the State Board of Education." 123 Md. at 403, 91 A. 718.

It was in that context that the Court quoted from Zantzinger v. Manning, 123 Md. 169, 90 A. 839 (1914), stating:

"The determination of the State Board in such cases is final, and the courts have no authority to pass upon the merits of the controversy for the purpose of affirming or reversing their decisions. The statute requires the State Board to decide all controversies arising under the public school law without expense to the parties concerned, and the

Page 61

wisdom of that legislation is illustrated in this case. Such controversies in the courts not only greatly embarrass the orderly and successful administration of the public school system, but impose heavy burdens and costs upon the parties interested." 123 Md. at 403-04, 91 A. 718. (quoting Zantzinger, 123 Md. at 182, 90 A. 839).

The Court held that the issue before it was one properly cognizable by the State Board of Education and not by the courts.

The statute with which we are here concerned was not even in existence at the time School Commissioners v. Morris was decided. In 1915 the Maryland Educational Survey Commission was appointed. As a direct result of its report a very substantial revision was made in...