Byrd v. Board of Curators of Lincoln University of Missouri, No. 75632
| Decision Date | 26 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 75632 |
| Citation | 863 S.W.2d 873 |
| Parties | 86 Ed. Law Rep. 1105 Willis E. BYRD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF CURATORS OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Melvin L. Raymond, Margaret Bush Wilson, St. Louis, for appellant.
Kent L. Brown, Michael P. Riley, Jefferson City, for respondent.
William F. Arnet, Robert L. Ross, Columbia, for amicus.
Appellant Willis E. Byrd appeals from the dismissal of his petition in which he sought judicial review of the action of the Board of Curators of Lincoln University when it discharged him from his position as a tenured professor. The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely under the three year statute of limitation. § 516.030. 1 The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed dismissal because the proceeding is a "contested case" under the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA). MAPA requires that an appeal be taken within thirty days after the final decision of an agency. § 536.110.1. This Court granted transfer. Rule 83.03.
On March 4, 1987, Byrd was sent a letter by John M. Chavis, interim president of the university, informing Byrd that his salary would be suspended effective February 13, 1987, due to a failure to perform official teaching duties. On March 12, 1987, Chavis sent a second letter notifying Byrd that dismissal proceedings had been instituted due to Byrd's failure to teach assigned classes during the fall semester of 1986 and the academic year of 1985-86. Byrd was informed that he had ten working days in which to make a response or request a hearing.
On August 20, 1987, Norman P. Auburn, the then acting president of the university, wrote Byrd a letter informing him that he had failed to respond by requesting a hearing and that a recommendation would be submitted to the board of curators for termination of Byrd's services. Byrd was again informed that he had ten working days in which to request a hearing on the president's decision before the board of curators. A similar letter by Auburn was sent on August 27, 1987, informing Byrd he was being suspended pending a decision by the board and again informing Byrd that he had ten working days in which to request a hearing. On September 14, 1987, Byrd mailed a letter purporting to "appeal the recommendation of the Office of President to the Board of Curators that my services" be terminated. Various information was included in the letter regarding the procedure leading up to that date. However, no hearing was requested. On October 21, 1987, Byrd was notified by letter that the appeal of the termination recommendation had been taken up at the October 15 meeting of the board of curators. The board terminated Byrd's services effective October 15, 1988. On November 27, 1987, Byrd wrote a letter asking for reconsideration. On January 15, 1988, the president of the board of curators responded that it had decided "to let stand the action" of the October 15, 1987, meeting. In a letter dated October 12, 1988, Byrd again requested that the board set aside its decision. That request was denied. Byrd sought further review in February of 1989. On March 13, 1989, the president of the university informed Byrd that since the matter had already been appealed at least twice, he considered the matter closed. The lawsuit was filed October 15, 1990.
Byrd claims in his brief that because this matter arises out of contract, the five year statute of limitations is applicable. § 516.120(1). In the alternative he argues that the three year statute of limitations had not run because the wrongful discharge claim accrued, at the earliest, on October 21, 1987, the date he claims he was notified of the Board's decision to terminate him as a professor. The university argues that MAPA applies to Byrd's discharge. Byrd does not address the issue in his brief. However, the issue is developed in the amici brief filed on behalf of the University of Missouri, Central Missouri State University, Southeast Missouri State University, Northeast Missouri State University, Northwest Missouri State University, Harris-Stowe State University, Missouri Western State College and Missouri Southern State College.
Under § 536.010(1), " 'Agency' means any administrative officer or body existing under the constitution or by law and authorized by law or the constitution to make rules or to adjudicate contested case." The board of curators is created by law to govern Lincoln University in its various activities. §§ 175.040 and 172.010. It may employ and dismiss faculty and staff. "Contested case" is defined as a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after a hearing. § 536.010(2). A tenured professor has a property interest in continued employment. Due process gives a tenured professor a legal right to a hearing regarding termination of services. Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 602, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). Thus, Byrd's was a contested case. A party who has exhausted administrative remedies and who is aggrieved in a contested case must institute a petition for review within thirty days after the mailing or delivery of the notice of the agency's final decision. § 536.110.1. Given the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutes, it is crystal clear that the term "agency" applies to the Board of Curators of Lincoln University in deciding "contested cases."
Notwithstanding the clarity of the statutes, amici offer several arguments in opposition to the conclusion that the term "agency" applies to state universities and colleges. First, they claim the legislature did not intend to include public colleges and universities in the definition of "state agency" because such were not specifically mentioned in the statute. Amici's argument proceeds from the premise that § 536.010(5) is the applicable definitional section. That subsection defines "state agency." The term "state agency" is used in MAPA provisions relating to rulemaking, whereas the term "agency," § 536.010(1), is the term used in the sections relating to agency adjudications. Consequently, it is § 536.010(1) which is relevant to this case, not § 536.010(5).
Amici rely on the definition of "public governmental body" found in statutes relating to open meetings, § 610.010(2). That statute specifically includes "board of curators of any institution of higher education," including "any ... board" in the same subsection. Amici also cite other unrelated statutes which make specific reference to the board of curators. For this reason, amici argue that if the legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Blue Springs Sch. Dist. v. Grate
...state in the conduct and maintenance of the public schools." State ex inf. McKittrick, 63 S.W.2d at 102; see also Byrd v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 863 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (superseded on other grounds by statute); P.L.S. ex rel. Shelton v. Koster, 360 S.W.3d 805, 813 (Mo......
-
Krentz v. Robertson Fire Protection District
...entities with the power to hire and fire employees effectively engage in the resolution of contested cases. See Byrd v. Board of Curators, 863 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Mo. 1993). Accordingly, such entities are "agencies." We agree with the district court that because the Robertson Fire Protection D......
-
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas, No. WD 63248 (MO 2/22/2005)
...organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Thus, the MAPA applies to this dispute. Id.; See also Byrd v. Board of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 863 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Mo. banc 1993). Similarly, actions that are delegated by municipality to a board or retained to itself to enforce are adm......
-
Doe v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.
...the same conclusion. Byrd v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 1992 WL 378663 (Mo.Ct.App. Dec. 22, 1992), opinion on transfer, 863 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. 1993) (en banc.). --------- ...