Hensley v. State Bd. of Ed.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 7172,7172 |
| Citation | 71 N.M. 182,376 P.2d 968,1962 NMSC 168 |
| Parties | Murphy Wallis HENSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the State of New Mexico, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
E. P. Ripley, Santa Fe, for appellant.
Watson & Watson, Charles S. Solomon, Santa, Fe, for appellee.
The State Board of Education appeals from a judgment of the District Court of Santa Fe County holding that appellee, a school teacher who had acquired tenure within Forrest School District Number 53 in Quay County, New Mexico, did not automatically lose her tenure status as the result of the consolidation of that school district with the Melrose School District Number 12, in Curry County.
The facts, stipulated by the parties, are that appellee is a teacher certified as qualified to teach by the State Board of Education; that she was employed to teach by the Quay County Board of Education and taught in Quay County for the school years 1956-57 at the Nara Vista School, and for the school years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in the Forrest Grade School and was reemployed to teach in the latter school for the 1960-61 school year; that the notice of re-employment for the fifth consecutive year of employment by the Quay County Board of Education was made prior to the date of consolidation of the Forrest and Melrose districts, which was ordered by the State Board of Education and became effective on August 16, 1960; that the consolidated district accepted the teaching services of appellee and paid her for her services through the school year 1960-61; that on April 17, 1961, the governing board of the consolidated school district notified appellee that she was dismissed from her position for the school year 1961-62; that appellee requested a hearing and appeared before the governing board of the consolidated district but that board refused to recognize appellee as a tenure teacher and refused to grant her a hearing as provided by statute for a tenure teacher before dismissing her, and retained nontenure teachers in the school district.
Appellee appealed and ruling of the governing board to the State Board of Education. The State Board affirmed the decision of the governing board, the Melrose Municipal School Board, on the ground that appellee, by reason of the consolidation, did not have tenure because she had not taught in the consolidated district for three successive years with a contract for the fourth year. The State Board based its decision on an opinion of the Attorney General, dated June 15, 1956, to the effect that tenure rights to not carry over to newly created municipal school districts nor to consolidated districts. Attorney General Opinion No. 6472.
The trial court held that appellee, a tenure teacher in the Forrest School District, did not automatically lose her tenure status as a result of the consolidation or merger of that district with the Melrose District. We think the court below, in ruling in favor of appellee, reached the correct result; however, a thorough examination of our tenure statute makes it necessary for this court, in upholding the decision, to do so on a different and broader basis. Compare Atma v. Munoz, 48 N.M. 114, 146 P.2d 631; Ortiz v. Gonzales, 64 N.M. 445, 329 P.2d 1027. The question for consideration is not one relating to consolidation only; rather the question is whether a teacher automatically loses tenure status acquired in a particular school district when that district is consolidated or merged with another school district. The trial court held that the teacher does not, and we think it reached the correct conclusion.
The pertinent provisions of the applicable statute, Sec. 73-12-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Pocket Supp.) provide:
'* * * On or before the closing day of each school year * * * the governing board of each school district in the state, whether rural, municipal or otherwise shall serve written notice of reemployment of or dismissal upon each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atencio v. Board of Educ. of Penasco Independent School Dist. No. 4
...public servants are assured an indefinite tenure of position during satisfactory performance of their duties. Hensley v. State Board of Education, 71 N.M. 182, 376 P.2d 968 (1962); Stapleton v. Huff, 50 N.M. 208, 173 P.2d 612 (1946); Ortega v. Otero, 48 N.M. 588, 154 P.2d 252 (1944). Additi......
-
Aguilera v. Board of Educ. of Hatch Valley
...differing results. See N.M. State Bd. of Educ. v. Abeyta, 107 N.M. 1, 2, 751 P.2d 685, 686 (1988); see also Hensley v. State Bd. of Educ., 71 N.M. 182, 185, 376 P.2d 968, 970 (1962) ("[A] reduction in the teaching staff, without more, would not appear to be a good and sufficient reason for ......
-
State ex rel. Marolt v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 695
...N.E. 556 (1932); Hankenson v. Board of Education of Waukegan Twp., 15 Ill.App.2d 440, 146 N.E.2d 194 (1957); Hensley v. State Bd. of Education, 71 N.M. 182, 376 P.2d 968 (1962); Pickens County Bd. of Education v. Keasler, 263 Ala. 231, 83 So.2d 197 (1955); Gassen v. St. Charles Parish Schoo......
-
Fort Sumner Municipal School Bd. v. Parsons
...there is evidence that several positions were available and were held by non-tenure teachers. * * *' See Hensley v. State Board of Education, 71 N.M. 182, 376 P.2d 968 (1962). Here, there were no grounds 'personal to the teacher' for the non re-employment of Mrs. Parsons. The Local Board sp......