Maxwell v. Southside School Dist., 80-312

• Decision Date: 08 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-312,80-312
• Citation: 273 Ark. 89,618 S.W.2d 148
• Parties: Lauren MAXWELL, Appellant, v. SOUTHSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 148

618 S.W.2d 148

273 Ark. 89

Lauren MAXWELL, Appellant, v.SOUTHSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 80-312.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 8, 1981.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing July 20, 1981.

Cearley, Gitchel, Mitchell and Bryant, P. A., Little Rock, for appellant.

Carter & Woods, Little Rock, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

The question here is whether the appellee school district substantially complied with state law in refusing to renew the contract of the appellant, Lauren Maxwell, as a music teacher for the school year 1980-81.We are unable to agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the district's termination of Mrs. Maxwell's contract was in substantial compliance with the law.

During the 1979-80 school year Mrs. Maxwell was still a probationary teacher, in her second year with the district.On March 19, 1980, the day before a scheduled meeting of the school board, the school principal hurriedly filled out a form recommending, not quite wholeheartedly, that Mrs. Maxwell be rehired.The next day, however, the school board met and voted not to renew Mrs. Maxwell's contract, apparently in response to complaints (not in the record) made by unidentified parents.On the same day the board sent Mrs. Maxwell a notice stating merely that the board had voted not to renew her contract.No reasons were given.

On April 9 Mrs. Maxwell requested a public hearing and asked for a specification of the charges and circumstances, with the names of witnesses.The school board responded with a brief generalized statement of three reasons, without details or names of witnesses.After a public hearing on April 24 the board took the matter under advisement.On May 3 it released a written opinion adhering to its original non-renewal decision.Mrs. Maxwell pursued the only remedy afforded by the statute, and appeal to the circuit court.Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1264.9(Repl. 1980).

The district is right in its argument that Mrs. Maxwell has not shown a violation of the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979. §§ 80-1264 et seq.That act contemplates that the school superintendent will first recommend a teacher's non-renewal; but we have held that the school board can refuse to renew even though, as here, the superintendent recommends renewal.Fullerton v. Southside Sch. Dist., 272 Ark. ---, 613 S.W.2d 827(1981).Moreover, although the act requires that a tenured teacher be given reasons for non-renewal, that is no similar requirement as to a probationary teacher.§ 80-1264.3.No violation of the Dismissal Act is shown.

There is, however, another consideration.Ordinarily a school district cannot by the adoption of a tenure policy give a teacher a tenure beyond that authorized by law.Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 251 Ark. 836, 475 S.W.2d 517(1972).The legislature, however, has specifically required school districts to adopt written personnel policies, which must be reviewed annually and be supplied to the teachers. §§ 80-1256 et seq.We do not imply that such policies have the force of law, since legislative power cannot be delegated, but we do agree with the view that as a matter of contract law and fair dealing even a non-tenured teacher may reasonably expect the district to comply substantially with its own declared policies.SeeBurnaman v. Ray City Ind. Sch. Dist., 445 F.Supp. 927, 936(S.D.Tex.1978).In the present case Mrs. Maxwell had received a copy of the district's personnel policies.

The appellee's policies on dismissal and non-renewal contain this explicit language:

When the board of education receives evidence which it considers sufficient to dismiss or not renew the contract of a teacher, it shall notify the teacher in writing.Such notice shall: (a) advise the teacher of the cause or causes of his proposed dismissal in sufficient detail to fairly enable him to show any error which may exist; (b) advise him, that upon request in writing, the names and nature of the testimony of witnesses against him shall be furnished; (c) advise him, that upon request in writing, he will be accorded a hearing at which he may be represented by legal counsel and introduce witnesses in his own defense.

Mrs. Maxwell, upon being notified of the board's action, requested a public hearing, a specification of the charges, and the names of witnesses.The board set a hearing date, but it gave no detailed information about the charges nor the names of any witnesses.At the ensuing hearing Mrs. Maxwell answered the vague...