Corbin v. Special School Dist. of Fort Smith, 5--5537
| Decision Date | 05 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5537,5--5537 |
| Citation | 465 S.W.2d 342,250 Ark. 357 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Irmagard K. CORBIN, Appellant, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FORT SMITH, Appellee. |
Warren & Bullion, Little Rock, for appellant.
Pearce, Robinson, McCord & Maurras, Ft. Smith, for appellee.
Mrs. Irmagard K. Corbin taught school in the Special School District of Fort Smith under a contract running from August, 1969, to May 29, 1970. On June 1, 1970, she was advised by the school board that she would not be employed for the ensuing school year. Mrs. Corbin filed a complaint in the Sebastian County Circuit Court for a declaratory judgment holding the district subject to, and in violation of, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 5--701 to 5--714 (Supp.1969)). She contended that the regulations promulgated by the board under which her contract was not renewed were void, and that she is still an employee of the district under her teacher's contract. She sought judgment for salary allegedly due her and for an order reinstating her as a teacher in the Fort Smith Special School District.
The school board demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was sustained by the trial court and the complaint dismissed. On her appeal to this court Mrs. Corbin relies on the following points for reversal:
'The Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act applies to the adoption of regulations by School Districts.
The Board has no authority to adopt the regulation disqualifying plaintiff from teaching.
A School Board may not terminate a teacher arbitrarily.'
In January, 1970, the board of directors of the district adopted a resolution which reads as follows:
'The spouse of the superintendent, the assistant superintendent, and the director of finance and business affairs shall not be employed by the Fort Smith Schools in any capacity.'
Mrs. Corbin is the wife of Chris D. Corbin, the superintendent of schools in Fort Smith. Mrs. Corbin taught in the Fort Smith Schools from September, 1963, through May, 1966. She took a leave of absence; obtained a master's degree, and was re-employed as an elementary teacher by the Fort Smith School District under a written contract for the school year 1969--70. The contract was for the period from August 25, 1969, to May 29, 1970, at a total salary of $8,132, to be paid in monthly installments. The contract provided for termination by either party 'pursuant to the Continuing Contract Law (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80--1304 (Supp.1969)).'
On June 1, 1970, the Fort Smith School Board notified Mrs. Corbin in its intent not to re-employ her in a letter reading as follows:
'In conformity with the Arkansas continuing contract law, I am notifying you that on May 11 the Fort Smith School Board voted not to renew your contract for the school year 1970--71.
The Board stated as a reason for not renewing the contract that it would be against School Board policy. The policy referred to was presented and voted on at the January 26, 1970, meeting of the Board and is as follows:
'The spouse of the superintendent, the assistant superintendent, and the director of finance and business affairs shall not be employed by the Fort Smith Schools in any capacity.'
In her complaint Mrs. Corbin attacks the resolution of the board on the grounds that it was not adopted in the manner as required by the provisions of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 5--701 to 5--714 (Supp.1969)). The demurrer filed by the school board alleges that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
It appears conceded by the parties that the Administrative Procedure Act (Act 434 of 1967; Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 5--701 to 5--714 (Supp.1969)) applies only to state agencies. So, the question presented under the appellant's first point is whether the Special School District of Fort Smith is an 'agency' within the meaning of the Act. We agree with the trial court that it is not. 'Agency,' as defined in § 1(a) of Act 434 and as digested in § 5--701(a), is as follows:
"Agency' means each board, commission, department, officer, or other authority of the government of the State of Arkansas, whether or not within or subject to review by another agency, except the General Assembly, the courts, and the Governor. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal delegations of authority as provided by law. Provided, the word 'agency' as used in this Act shall not include the Arkansas Public Service Commission, the Arkansas Commerce Commission, the Arkansas Polution (Pollution) Control Commission, the Contractors Licensing Board, the State Health Board and the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Commission, it being hereby determined by the General Assembly that the existing laws governing such agencies provide adequate administrative procedures for said agencies.' (Emphasis supplied).
It is obvious that the primary purpose of Act 434 of 1967 was to consolidate and recodify the provisions of Act 183 of 1953 and Act 103 of 1963, because § 16 of Act 434 of 1967 provides as follows:
'All acts or parts of acts in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed, but such repeal shall not affect proceedings pending on the effective date of this Act. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts are expressly repealed:
(1) Act 103 of 1963, codified as Sections 5--701 through 5--725 of the Arkansas Statutes Annotated;
(2) Act 183 of 1953, codified as Sections 5--501 through 5--505 of the Arkansas Statutes Annotated.'
Act 183 of 1953 was entitled an Act to 'Provide for the Filing and Publication of Regulations of Agencies, Departments and Branches of State Government; to Provide for the Effect on Failure to Comply with the Act; to Declare the Inapplication of the Act; to Provide an Effective Date; and for Other Purposes.' This Act simply provided that:
'All agencies, departments or branches of the State Government now or hereafter authorized to promulgate regulations under authority of law shall perform the following Acts before such regulation or regulations become effective:
1. File certified copies of such regulation or regulations with the following:
(a) The Governor of the State of Arkansas.
(b) The Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas.
(c) The Recorder of each County in Arkansas.'
This 1953 Act then required each agency, department or branch of state government to keep on file for public inspection during regular business hours any regulations promulgated. It also provided that the Act would not apply to any agency, department or branch of the State government which would be excluded from its operation by authority of the Constitution of Arkansas or amendments thereto.
The other repealed Act, 103 of 1963, was entitled an Act to 'Establish Uniform Administrative Prpcedures for Occupational and Professional Licensing Boards and Commissions; to Prescribe a Uniform Procedure for Taking Appeals From Such Boards and Commissions; and for Other Purposes.' Section 1 of this Act provided as follows:
'For the purpose of this Act the term 'board' shall mean and include the following:
Arkansas Athletic Commission * * *.'
Then follow 26 other designated boards and commissions, none of which included the board of directors of local school districts. Section 1 of this Act did end, however, with the following two paragraphs:
'Any other state board, commission or agency hereafter created with authority to exercise control over the licensing of any occupation or profession, unless it is expressly excepted in whole or in part from the provisions of this Act.
Provided that all licensing boards in existence on the effective date of this Act and not specifically enumerated herein shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act.'
While Act 103 of 1963 defined the designated boards and commissions under the term 'board,' Act 434 of 1967 uses the term 'agency' to mean each board, commission, department, officer or other authority of the government of the State of Arkansas, whether or not within or subject to review by another agency, except the General Assembly, the courts, and the Governor.
We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act applies only to state agencies; that local school districts are political subdivisions of the state and are not state agencies within the meaning of the Act. (Muse v. Prescott School District, 233 Ark. 789, 349 S.W.2d 329).
As to appellant's second point, we do not share the appellant's interpretation of the effect the regulation adopted by the board had on Mrs. Corbin's qualifications for teaching. All the resolution amounted to, as we interpret it, was an agreement between the members of the board, and announcement in the form of the resolution, that the board would not employ the spouse of a superintendent, assistant superintendent or the director of finance and business affairs. This resolution had nothing whatever to do with Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Bridges
...78 C.J.S., Schools and School Districts, Section 218c. 225 Ark. at 95, 279 S.W.2d at 276. Accord Corbin v. Special School Dist. of Ft. Smith, 250 Ark. 357, 365, 465 S.W.2d 342, 346 (1971); Marr v. School Dist. No. 27, 107 Ark. 305, 308, 154 S.W. 944 Our inquiry cannot end with a review of t......
-
Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.
...of ... "subdivisions of the state ..." School districts are political subdivisions of the state. See Corbin v. Special School District of Fort Smith, 250 Ark. 357, 465 S.W.2d 342 (1971). Appellee contends that the "Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act," Ark.Stat.Ann. Title 75-Chapter 23, V......
-
Green v. Harrington
...v. Jenkins, 213 Ark. 119, 209 S.W.2d 457 (1948). Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962), Corbin v. Spec. School Dist. of Ft. Smith, 250 Ark. 357, 465 S.W.2d 342 (1971). Appellant next asserts that '(T)he appellees failed to follow the required procedural due process require......
-
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Wadley
...119, 209 S.W.2d 457 (1948) (decision to bus students from one district to another); and Corbin v. Special School District of Fort Smith, 250 Ark. 357, 465 S.W.2d 342 (1971) (decision to implement policy preventing spouses of certain administrative personnel from being employed by the distri......
-
SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE IN LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
...Alaska as states that exempt local agencies from APA requirements). As to the remaining states, see Corbin v. Special Sch. Dist., 465 S.W.2d 342 (Ark. 1971) (holding that Arkansas's APA only applies to state agencies); COLO. REV. STAT. [section] 24-4-102 (2022) (Colorado APA defining "agenc......