Murphy v. Berlin Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1974
• Citation: 167 Conn. 368,355 A.2d 265
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Violet T. MURPHY v. BERLIN BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Page 265

355 A.2d 265

167 Conn. 368

Violet T. MURPHY v. BERLIN BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Dec. 10, 1974.

James M. S. Ullman, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas T. Lonardo, Meriden, for appellant (plaintiff).

Harry N. Jackaway, Kensigton, for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

COTTER, Associate Justice.

This is and appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the order of the defendant board of education of the town of Berlin, placing the plaintiff on probationary status for twelve months and withholding for the same period any increase in salary, other than longevity payments, which would ordinarily accrue during that period.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Violet T. Murphy, has been a public school teacher for thirty years, twenty-eight of which have been at Berlin High School. On March 6, 1973, Edward J. Rogean, superintendent of schools, advised her by letter that a complaint had been lodged against her by the parents of James Szymanoski, one of her students. A copy of the letter of complaint, dated February 16, 1973, was enclosed by Rogean at that time. In his letter, Rogean indicated that the Berlin board of education had directed him to meet with her and Robert P. Long, principal of Berlin High School, at which time she would have the opportunity 'to confirm of deny the charges' lodged against her by the student's parents; however, Rogean added, should Mrs. Murphy prefer not to meet with him and Long, she would have the opportunity to meet directly with the board and reply to the letter then.

Basically, the parents complained that (1) their son had received a 'D' on his report card in history for the first marking period; (2) Mrs. Szymanoski was twice unable to reach Mrs. Murphy by telephone at school; (3) their son received an 'F' on his mid-term examination and a 'D' for his mid-term average in history; (4) seventeen out of twenty-four students in their son's history class failed the midterm; (5) Mrs. Murphy made rude remarks to Mrs. Szymanoski in a telephone conversation on February 15, 1973.

Mrs. Murphy chose not to meet with Long and Rogean; accordingly, the Berlin board of education set a hearing date of April 2, 1973, later postponed to April 9. Rogean wrote Mrs. Murphy to notify her of the hearing, the purpose of which he stated was 'to give you an opportunity to confirm or deny the complaints presented by Mr. and Mrs. Szymanoski in their letter dated February 16, 1973.' Thereafter, Mrs. Murphy and her lawyer attended the executive session of the board on April 9, 1973; a continuance was granted until April 16, 1973. They attended that hearing and introduced evidence which showed that between October 6, 1972, and March 13, 1973, James Szymanoski was absent from Mrs. Murphy's history class a total of twenty-six times; six of these absences were excused, and twenty were unexcused; the student's academic performance in history was at all times poor; and finally, he missed completely or performed very poorly on a substantial number of his 'required quizzes' in Mrs. Murphy's class.

After the plaintiff and her attorney left the hearing, various members of the board voiced their personal opinion of Mrs. Murphy. Three courses of action were considered by the board: a written reprimand; withholding of any salary increment to be received for the next year; and dismissal. On April 23, 1973, the board convened and agreed to place her on probation for one year and to freeze her salary at the then current level of $13,780, rather than the $14,400 called for in the new salary schedule. Thereafter, on April 26, 1973, the board notified Mrs. Murphy by letter of their action and identified three separate grounds for their decision: '(a) The Board of Education questions your failure to adequately contact the parents of the student in question, with the exception of a deficiency notice. (b) A further question was raised by the attitude displayed in the presence of the Board demonstrating a lack of sympathy and understanding of the problems of the students of average and below average ability. Such a statement as 'my class is a dumping ground' does not appear to present the proper attitude toward students, and (c) A third point was the failure to carry out and pursue the channels available for students participating in the Work-Experience Program.'

Mrs. Murphy has assigned error, inter alia, in the trial court's conclusion that the board of education did not act in violation of statutory provisions or in excess of its authority. More precisely, she claims that in considering evidence against her that was not related to the particular charges of which she had prior written notice, and in taking disciplinary action against her on the basis of consideration of charges other than those of which she was notified in advance of the hearing, the board deprived her of rights to which she was entitled under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, hereinafter referred to as UAPA. General Statutes §§ 4-177(a), (b)(1) and (4); 4-178(1); and 4-177(g).

I

This court has not had occasion to rule on the applicability of the UAPA to adjudicative proceedings conducted by town boards of education. Under the statute, ¹ the organization whose decision is the subject of an appeal to the courts must be an 'agency' within the meaning of § 4-166(1) if the provisions of the act are to apply. The term 'agency' means 'each state board . . . authorized by law . . . to determine contested cases.' General Statutes § 4-166(1). It has long been held in Connecticut that town and city boards of education are subject to local control only as to budgetary matters. Bridgeport v. Agostinelli, 163 Conn. 537, 551, 316 A.2d 371; Waterbury Teachers Assn. v. Furlong, 162 Conn. 390, 397, 294 A.2d 546; Board of Education v. Ellington, 151 Conn. 1, 6, 193 A.2d 466. In all other respects, the local boards 'serve as agents of the state in their communities.' West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 573, 295 A.2d 526, 531; Fowler v. Enfield, 138 Conn. 521, 530, 86 A.2d 662. This is true because the furnishing of education for the general public, required by article eighth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution, ² is by its very nature a state function and duty. West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, supra; State ex rel. Board of Education v. D'Aulisa, 133 Conn. 414, 418, 52 A.2d 636. The local boards have of necessity been delegated this responsibility. West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, supra; Fowler v. Enfield, supra. In addition, '(o)ur statutes have conferred on the local board broad power and discretion over educational policy.' Ibid. As an example of statutory authority conferring upon town and local boards the power to implement statewide policy, this court has, on a previous occasion, cited General Statutes § 10-220, which, inter alia, directs the boards to 'employ and dismiss the teachers of the schools' in the towns. See West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, supra, 162 Conn. 573-574, 295 A.2d 526. Clearly, then, town boards of education such as the Berlin board, in matters not involving strictly budgetary concerns, act as agents of the state under the authority of our state constitution and the enactments of our legislature. In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the statute itself, its legislative history, or our cases, we conclude that the term 'state board' includes such entities as the Berlin board of education, when acting as an agent of the state.

The UAPA further defines 'contested case' as 'a proceeding . . . in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.' General Statutes § 4-166(2). Implicit in the letter of the Berlin board notifying Mrs. Murphy of the complaints against her and requesting her to 'confirm or deny' these complaints was the suggestion that her dismissal as a teacher may have been under consideration. In fact, the board later, in executive session, debated whether to dismiss her, but voted against this action. Under the Teachers Tenure Act, a teacher in Mrs. Murphy's circumstances is entitled to hearing when a board is considering the termination of her contract. General Statutes § 10-151(b). The hearing held in this case was, then, one 'required by law,' and the proceeding as a result of which the board took disciplinary action against her was a 'contested case' within the meaning of § 4-166(2).

Finally, there can be no doubt that the Berlin board is 'authorized by law' to determine 'contested cases,' pursuant to § 4-166(1). Such authority is implicit in the broad grant of discretionary power conferred upon boards of education by our legislature in its instructions to such boards to 'employ and dismiss' teachers. General Statutes § 10-220.

We conclude that the pertinent provisions of the UAPA apply to such proceedings as that conducted by the Berlin board of education in this case.

II

Under the act, '(i)n a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice'; § 4-177(a); and '(t)he notice shall include: (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing' and '(4) a short and plain statement of the matters...