Johnston v. Rapp
| Decision Date | 30 March 1951 |
| Citation | 103 Cal.App.2d 202,229 P.2d 414 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JOHNSTON et al. v. RAPP. Civ. 4087. |
Norbert Baumgarten and Roy Gargano, Bakersfield, for appellant.
Borton, Petrini & Conron, Bakersfield, for respondents.
Mandamus proceedings against the auditor of Kern County.
Petitioner, Eugene M. Johnston, district superintendent of schools and principal of the Taft Union High School District, and the board of trustees of said district, by these proceedings, seek a writ mandate to compel the auditor of Kern county to approve salary warrants issued to petitioner Johnston pursuant to an increase in his salary voted by the trustees.
The facts stipulated to by counsel for the respective parties are, in part, as follows: That at a regular meeting of the board of trustees of the Taft Union High School District, held on May 6, 1948, it was regularly moved, seconded and unanimously carried that the board give Mr. Eugene M. Johnston a four year written contract as district superintendent in accordance with the terms and provisions of the resolution incorporated in the minutes of said meeting; that thereafter a contract of employment was executed employing Johnston as district superintendent and principal of the Taft Union High School District for the period beginning July 1, 1948 and ending June 30, 1952; that the contract provided for an annual salary of $8,250, payable monthly, and contained the following provisions: 'The board reserves the right to increase the salary during the four year period;' that at a regular meeting of said board held on May 5, 1949, the trustees unanimously voted to increase the salary of Johnston as district superintendent from $8,250 to $10,000 for the school year commencing July 1, 1949, and ending June 30, 1950; that thereafter warrants were drawn for Johnston's increased salary, which warrants were presented to the Kern county auditor, who refused to approve and return them; that because of the refusal of the auditor to approve and return the warrants, Johnston has not received his salary for his services as superintendent for the periods covered by the warrants.
It was alleged in an amendment to the petition, in paragraph four thereof, in addition to the foregoing stipulated facts, that the said increase in salary was made to compensate Johnston for various increases in his duties and responsibilities and in that connection it was alleged that an extensive building and expension program, involving an expenditure in excess of $2,000,000, was entered upon by the district which required the constant supervision and attention of superintendent Johnston, and resulted in substantial increases in his duties and responsibilities as superintendent of the district; that in addition, the duties of the superintendent during the year 1949 increased over the year 1948 for the reason that the enrollment in the high school, junior college and adult education division of the district increased 17.9 per cent; that the instructing staff in the Taft Union High School increased from 115 to 128; that the school budget increased from $1,208,905.80 in the school year 1948-1949 to $2,499,145.00 in the school year 1949-1950; that a good portion of the increase in the budget in the year 1948-1950 was to be for capital outlay and the rehabilitation of the school plant; that all of the foregoing matters resulted in the substantial increase of the duties and responsibilities of the superintendent during the school year 1949-1950 over those responsibilities he carried in the school year 1948-1949; that because of said increased responsibilities and duties of the superintendent, his salary was increased to compensate him for the increased duties.
The respondent auditor filed an answer in which he admitted the execution of the contract and alleged that the board of trustees had no legal power or authority to increase the said salary. He denied each and every allegation contained in paragraph four of the amendment to the pleadings and alleged that there were no changes or increases of any kind or character in the duties of petitioner Eugene M. Johnston for the school year commencing July 1, 1949 and ending June 30, 1950.
Motion was made by petitioners for judgment on the pleadings. This motion was granted and it is from the judgment entered pursuant thereto that the respondent auditor appeals.
The principal question here involved is whether the school board had the authority and power to increase the salary of its district superintendent and principal during the period for which he contracted to render services as such superintendent and principal when the contract contained a provision reserving to the board the right to increase the salary during said period.
It may be stated as a general rule that school boards have a wide discretion and authority in fixing and varying the salary of their employees, Education Code, secs. 13802, 13803, 13804; Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal.App. 296, 303, 296 P. 912; Rible v. Hughes, 24 Cal.2d 437, 444, 150 P.2d 455, 154 A.L.R. 137, and this court has heretofore held that such an employee has no vested right to any particular salary but the same may be changed by administrative authority. Hodge v. Board of Education, 22 Cal.App.2d 341, 70 P.2d 1009. This principle of law is not disputed by appellant. However, he contends that once the salary has been fixed by contract for a prescribed period of time, it may not be increased during said period because of the provisions of sections 31 and 32 of article IV of the California Constitution, the pertinent parts of which are as follows:
Section 31. 'The Legislature shall have no power * * * to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever * * *.'
Section 32. 'The Legislature shall have no power to grant, or authorize any county or municipality authority to grant, any extra compensation or allowance to any public officer, agent, servant, or contractor, after service has been rendered, or a contract has been entered into and performed, in whole or in part, * * * and all such unauthorized agreements or contracts shall be null and void.'
The constitutional provision in the last mentioned section is against 'extra compensation or allowance'. In the instant case the contract contains the following provision: that the board 'reserves the right to increase the salary during the four year period.' Such a reservation clearly indicates that the named salary was subject to increase within the discretion of the board and was not, therefore, for a fixed amount for the entire four year period. The effect of the increase voted by the board at the end of the first year of the contract was to fix the salary for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Council of City of Santa Barbara v. Superior CourtIn and For Santa Barbara County
...Claremont, 49 Cal.2d 826, 838, 323 P.2d 71; Berkeley High School Dist. v. Coit, 7 Cal.2d 132, 137-138, 59 P.2d 992; Johnston v. Rapp, 103 Cal.App.2d 202, 206, 229 P.2d 414; Peart v. Board of Supervisors, 145 Cal.App.2d 8, 13, 301 P.2d 874; Orange County Water Dist. v. Bennett, 156 Cal.App.2......
-
Walker v. County of Los Angeles
...Claremont, 49 Cal.2d 826, 838, 323 P.2d 71; Berkeley High School Dist. v. Coit, 7 Cal.2d 132, 137-138, 59 P.2d 992; Johnston v. Rapp, 103 Cal.App.2d 202, 206, 229 P.2d 414; Peart v. Board of Supervisors, 145 Cal.App.2d 8, 13, 301 P.2d 874; Orange County Water Dist. v. Bennett, 156 cal.App.2......
-
Jarvis v. Cory
... ... (See, e. g., Johnston v. Rapp ... (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 202, 229 P.2d 414; cf., Longshore v. County of Ventura (1979) 25 Cal.3d 14, 157 Cal.Rptr. 706, 598 P.2d 866.) 4 ... ...
-
Main v. Claremont Unified School Dist.
...employment depends for its duration and extent upon such a contract, is not an office." This case was followed in Johnston v. Rapp. 1951, 103 Cal.App.2d 202, 205, 229 P.2d 414, wherein the court decided the same question of power to increase the superintendent's salary during the term of hi......