Board of Trustees of Lassen Union High School Dist. v. Owens
| Decision Date | 26 July 1962 |
| Citation | 23 Cal.Rptr. 710,206 Cal.App.2d 147 |
| Parties | The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the LASSEN UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack OWENS, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 10051. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Albert M. Bendich, Staff Counsel, San Francisco, for appellant.
James E. Pardee, County Counsel, Susanville, and Paula Tennant, Dist. Atty., Susanville, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment permitting plaintiff to dismiss defendant and to terminate his employment as a permanent teacher in the Lassen Union High School District on the grounds of 'unprofessional conduct.' (Ed. Code, sec. 13403, subd. (a).)
On May 13, 1959, charges were formulated by plaintiff alleging that causes existed for defendant's dismissal. After the written notice of plaintiff's intention to dismiss him was received, defendant demanded a hearing upon the charges in accordance with the provisions of sections 13403 et seq. of the Education Code. Plaintiff thereupon elected to file this action asking the court to inquire into the charges, determine whether or not they were true and, if so, whether they constituted sufficient grounds for defendant's dismissal. (Ed. Code, sec. 13412.)
Although the pretrial statement set the issues in dispute as to (1) whether the publication by defendant of five letters in the Lassen Advocate constituted unprofessional conduct or evident unfitness for service, and (2) whether the contents of the letters were false and as such constituted dishonesty, the superior court made no findings on, nor did it mention, the dishonesty or evident unfitness charges. The court found that the allegations in the letters were 'unwarranted,' 'unfounded,' and 'unsupported by the evidence,' and that the publication of the five letters constituted unprofessional conduct of a degree justifying dismissal.
The purport of defendant's contention on this appeal is that he has been punished solely for the expression of political ideas critical of education generally, and in Lassen County particularly, and that such is not a constitutional basis for dismissal, either under the guise of unprofessional conduct or on any other basis. Defendant further contends that inasmuch as the 'warrantedness' of expressed opinions is an inquiry exceeding the court's constitutional power to adjudicate, any inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is irrelevant.
We do not entirely agree with defendant's reasoning but for reasons later to be expressed, we hold that defendant's conduct under all of the circumstances presented does not constitute unprofessional conduct of a nature justifying dismissal. Furthermore, the record does not support dismissal on the grounds of dishonesty and evident unfitness. However, there would appear to be no reason to elaborate on this point, since no findings were made on these charges and no discussion was directed thereto at the trial.
Since the factual circumstances are of particular importance in a case of this nature, they will be set out at length.
Defendant was in his eighth year of teaching and was employed by the Lassen Junior College when the charges were filed against him. He had taught in both the Lassen High School and the Junior College for the preceding five years and had attained tenure in his position. All of his teaching experience was in Lassen County, during which time he had been active in problems relating to education and the teaching profession.
For example, he was instrumental in the organization of the local chapter of the California Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as the CTA); he had served as president of the Susanville Secondary Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as the SSTA) for a period of two years; he had served for three years on the Board of Directors of the CTA Northern Section; and he had served as chairman of the local CTA chapter's professional relations committee.
The record indicates that for some time defendant had been critical of the teaching conditions in the district. In 1957, while president of the SSTA, he presented a list of proposed improvements at a meeting of the board of trustees. Defendant testified that at the meeting the representatives of the association were greeted with a great deal of hostility, and that shortly thereafter he was being considered for dismissal. A member of the board of trustees stated that the 1957 meeting had been quite cordial and the trial judge, in his memorandum opinion, accepted this testimony. It is undisputed that some of the improvements suggested by the association in 1957 were accepted by the board. However, it appears that during that year a number of teachers left the district because they thought that the efforts of the SSTA had been a failure. The board members conceded at the trial that the teacher turnover problem had been troublesome. Additionally, it appears that many of the points raised by defendant had been the source of comment among educators in some of the major universities of this state; that editorials had appeared in large metropolitan newspapers; and that the Citizens Advisory Commission on the Public Education System had recommended many of the proposals suggested by defendant.
The professional relations committee of the SSTA strongly recommended to the board that defendant be given a contract for his tenure year. Although the board replied that it would accept recommendations on personnel matters only from the administrators, defendant was given his tenure contract.
There is nothing in the record indicating the nature of defendant's relationship with the board, or his other extracurricular activities regarding education in Lassen County, until December 24, 1958. On this date defendant wrote a letter which appeared in the Lassen Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in Lassen County, announcing a forthcoming series of discussions during the following three months on education in Lassen County, which would be sponsored by the Public Affairs Forum.
The Public Affairs Forum was apparently a 'town meeting' type of gathering which had been founded by defendant at some undisclosed date. Prior to the education issue, it had explored various political questions and such problems of local interest as water fluoridation at the specific request of the city council. Various Lassen County citizens, including teachers, were active in the forum presentations.
The December 24, 1958 letter, addressed to the local newspaper and signed by defendant, was critical of local educational conditions, and urged a public turnout to discuss the matter. Although this letter was not included among the five which ultimately constituted the basis of the dismissal charges against defendant, it was not unnoticed by the board. Immediately upon the appearance of the December 24 letter, at the request of the president of the board the Lassen school administrators called in a CTA representative for 'advice.' The results of this meeting are not of record. However, on January 10, 1959, by the time defendant had written two letters, neither of which was listed in the statement of charges later filed against him, the CTA ethics commission met with defendant in an effort to have him stop his letter writing; but, according to the commission, 'Mr. Owens made known that he planned to continue his newspaper article and the Public forum knowing full well that a group such as ours could never go along with him.'
On February 4, 1959, defendant published a letter, which was the fifth he had written, but the first to be ultimately included as a basis of the charges later filed against him. 1
The CTA representative again met with the board on February 25, 1959, to discuss the situation. It was suggested that the board ask defendant to appear before it, thrash the matter out, and stop the letters. This idea was not adopted. Although defendant apparently had never approached the board with his grievances at any time between the inauguration of the letter-writing campaign and the trial, nor had he been requested to do so, he did, on February 5, invite the board to participate in the education forums. However, in its letter of February 13 declining this invitation, the board commended the 'very American principle of the Public Forum and the very great local interest it has inspired,' and thanked defendant for his 'kind' invitation.
The next letter deemed 'unprofessional' was written on March 4. 2
On March 10, a meeting of the Lassen Junior College faculty was called by the acting director of the college to question defendant on the exact nature of his grievances. The acting director testified that the group was not satisfied with defendant's answers, but decided not to take any group action other than to publish a letter in the Lassen Advocate, dated March 18, to indicate that defendant was not representing the faculty in his letter-writing campaign. Two more letters, later adjudged 'unprofessional,' followed on March 11, and March 18. While the letter of March 11 is set forth in full, only portions of the letter of March 18 appear in the record before us. 3
The final letter, also adjudged 'unprofessional.' was published on May 13, the same date that the charges were formulated against defendant by the board. 4
It should be noted that one of the directors of the forum, who also had been a speaker at one of the sessions in the education series, was a successful candidate in the school board election alluded to in the letter of May 13.
Before discussing the additional evidence presented at the trial of this cause, primarily because we feel the trial court erred in its approach to this problem, we believe it necessary to discuss the concept of 'unprofessional conduct.'
Basically, the word 'unprofessional' is a relative expression...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. State Board of Education
...Cal.Rptr. 785, 790, 435 P.2d 553, 558.) 11 Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546, 261 P.2d 261, and Board of Trustees v. Owens (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 147, 23 Cal.Rptr. 710, dealt with the term 'unprofessional conduct' as applied to teachers. In Swan we stressed: 'One employed in pu......
-
Ulwelling v. Crown Coach Corp.
... ... school children were riding in a bus owned by Foster ... Union Furniture Co., 31 Cal.App.2d 234, 238, 87 P.2d ... Sutter Creek Union High School Dist., 25 Cal.App.2d 372, 77 P.2d 509); ... ...
-
Finot v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ.
...or the teaching process there as the principal never permitted any such beards to be worn there. (Cf. Board of Trustees, etc. v. Owens, 206 Cal.App.2d 147, 157, 23 Cal.Rptr. 710.) In fact, the experience of appellant himself and the then current actual experience of another classroom teache......
-
Adcock v. Board of Education
...16, 493 P.2d 480; L.A. Teachers Union v. L.A. City Bd. of Ed., 71 Cal.2d 551, 78 Cal.Rptr. 723, 455 P.2d 827; Board of Regents v. Owens, 206 Cal.App.2d 147, 23 Cal.Rptr. 710; see also Note, Developments in the Law--Academic Freedom (1968) 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1045, 1071--1075; Van Alstyne, Consti......