Corrigan v. Sch. Comm. of New Dedford

• Decision Date: 04 December 1924
• Citation: 145 N.E. 530,250 Mass. 334
• Parties: CORRIGAN v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF NEW DEDFORD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

250 Mass. 334

145 N.E. 530

CORRIGAN

v.SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF NEW DEDFORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Dec. 4, 1924.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Bristol County; John C. Crosby, Judge.

Petition for mandamus by Alce T. Corrigan against Claude C. Smith and others to compel defendants, as School Committee, to furnish specifications as to reasons assigned by them for their contemplated action in proceeding to vote on petitioner's dismissal as principal of school. Petition denied, and petitioner exceptes. Exceptions overruled.

Schools and school districts k141(5)-Principal of school held not entitled to requested specifications before removal by school committee.

Information given prinoipal of public school at her request by school committee, specifying grounds of dismissal as dissatisfaction with her work and belief that she had not demonstrated constructive leadership and necessary administrative capability, was sufficient compliance with Gen. Laws, c. 71, s 41, and section 42, as amended by St. 1921, c. 293, and she was not entitled to more detailed specifications.

J. P. Doran and A. S. Maxim, both of New Bedford, for petitioner.

B. B. Barney, of New Bedford, for respondents.

SANDERSON, J.

This is a petition by the principal of a public school, in the city of New Bedford, for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents, who are the school committee of that city, to furnish her full and complete specifications to the reasons assigned by them for their contemplated action in proceeding to vote upon her dismissal as principal. She had been principal of the school in question for about 12 years before the filing of this petition. On June 29, 1923, the school committee voted:

‘That at a meeting of the school committee to be held October 19, 1923, a vote shall be taken on the question of the dismissal of Alice T. Corrigan, principal of the Betsey B. Winslow School, and that notice be sent forthwith to her of this intention by the committee.'

The petitioner then requested of the school committee a statement ‘of its reasons for which her dismissal as principal is proposed.’ At a meeting of the committee held September 14, 1923, they assigned and stated the reasons to be:

‘The committee's dissatisfaction with her work, and the belief that she has not demonstrated constructive leadership and necessary administrative capability.'

On September 28, 1923, the petitioner asked for the following specifications to their reasons assigned for dismissal:

‘First. Specify the manner in which and under what circumstances my work has been unsatisfactory to your committee.

‘(a) Whether acts or omissions.

‘(b) When, how, where, and in what connection has my work as principal of the Betsey B. Winslow School been unsatisfactory to your committee.

‘Second. Specify the manner in which and under what circumstances I have demonstrated lack of constructive leadership.

‘(a) Give incidents with names of person or persons, if any, connected therewith.

‘(b) Give dates and records of any adverse criticism by department heads concerning my constructive leadership.'

‘Fourth. Give dates, when, and circumstances under which, I failed to demonstrate necessary administrative capability.

‘(a) Give incidents with names of person or persons, if any, conceted therewith.

‘(b) Give dates and records of any adverse criticism by department heads concerning my failure to demonstrate necessary administrative capability.'

At a special meeting held October 5, 1923, the school committee, after consulting the city solicitor, denied the request for specifications to the reasons assigned, and gave the petitioner notice of their decision accompanied by a copy of the opinion of the city solicitor. On October 10, 1923, the petitioner, without waiving her right to specifications, requested that a date be set for a hearing as soon as possible ‘after the respondents had reconsidered their former action denying the requested specifications.’ The respondents, without reconsidering their denial of the petitioner's request for specifications, assigned October 19, 1923, at three o'clock, as the time for a hearing. The petition was filed October 18, 1923, and an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order were then issued.

‘Upon hearing, the court ruled, subject to the petitioner's exception, that the petitioner was not entitled to the specifications set forth in the petition, and denied the petition for mandamus and dissolved the injunction heretofore issued, to which ruling and order for judgment denying the petition, the petitioner duly excepted.'

It does not clearly appear from the record whether the order denying the petition for mandamus was based upon the ruling of law made in the case, or whether it was made in the exercise of the court's discretion as the result of the hearing. The exception was taken to the ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the specifications set forth in her petition. These are identical with those contained in the petitioner's request to the respondents hereinbefore quoted. The case will be considered upon the assumption that it presents the single question whether, as matter of law, the petitioner was entitled to the specifications for...