McCown v. Patagonia Union High School Dist., 2
| Decision Date | 13 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 129 Ariz. 127,629 P.2d 94 |
| Parties | Juliet McCOWN and Robert Westman, Petitioners/Appellants, v. PATAGONIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; Patagonia Union High School DistrictBoard of Education; Ray Kunde, Doris Seibold, Nick Laguna, Jean Smith, JohnUrias, in their representative capacity; and Joseph M. Landavazo,Superintendent, Respondents/Appellees. 3745. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from the trial court's order denying relief in a special action. The issue is whether appellants were provided with sufficient notice of an executive session of the school board held pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 38-431.02(A)(2) of our Open Meeting Law. We shall consider the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court.
Appellants were certified probationary teachers who had been employed by the school district for three years. A total of eighteen teachers was employed by the district. The notice at issue here concerned an executive session which was to be held in conjunction with the regular meeting of the school board on April 9, 1980. The notice, posted in various places, stated that the renewal of contracts of certified personnel would be discussed at the executive session. Appellants saw the notice but did not believe it pertained to them. At the executive session the superintendent of the district recommended that appellants' contracts not be renewed for the school year 1980-81. Although the members of the board knew prior to the executive session that renewal or non-renewal of teaching contracts would be discussed, they did not know that the superintendent was going to recommend that appellants' contracts not be renewed. When the executive session ended, the school board reconvened for its regular session and in open session voted not to renew appellants' contracts.
Appellants contend they were not given reasonable notice of the executive session. Relying principally on the case of Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education, 155 N.J.Super. 64, 382 A.2d 386 (1977), they argue that they were entitled to personal notice that the renewal of their contracts was going to be discussed at the executive session. We do not agree.
Members of the school board may discuss or consider employment matters in a closed executive session. A.R.S. Sec. 38-431.03(A); Hokanson v. High School District No. Eight (8) of Pima County, 121 Ariz. 264, 589 P.2d 907 (App.1978). An employee may, however, demand that discussion concerning him or her occur at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foor v. Smith
...777 (App. 2006). We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling. McCown v. Patagonia Union High Sch. Dist. , 129 Ariz. 127, 127, 629 P.2d 94, 94 (App. 1981). However, we review questions of law de novo . Whiteco Outdoor Advert. v. City of Tucson , 193 Ariz. 31......
-
Brodsky v. State
...in a special action, we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the court's ruling. McCown v. Patagonia Union High Sch. Dist., 129 Ariz. 127, 127, 629 P.2d 94, 94 (App.1981). On July 23, 2006, Brodsky was arrested and charged with extreme DUI, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-138......
-
Hornbeck v. Lusk
...a special action, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the court's ruling. McCown v. Patagonia Union High Sch. Dist., 129 Ariz. 127, 127, 629 P.2d 94, 94 (App.1981). Hornbeck was charged with three counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in Apache Junct......