Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 5--5692

• Decision Date: 24 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 5--5692,5--5692
• Citation: 251 Ark. 836,475 S.W.2d 517
• Parties: Harold NETHERCUTT and Charles T. Payne, Appellants, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 517

475 S.W.2d 517

251 Ark. 836

Harold NETHERCUTT and Charles T. Payne, Appellants, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 5--5692.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 24, 1972.

Warren & Bullion, Little Rock, for appellants.

Terral, Rawlings, Matthews & Purtle, Little Rock, for appellee.

BYRD, Justice.

Appellants Harold Nethercutt and Charles T. Payne were assistant superintendents under contracts of employment with appellee Pulaski County Special School District for the twelve months from July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969. Both had been so employed on year to year contracts for a number of years. In January of 1969, it became apparent that Superintendent Leroy Gattin's contract would not be renewed. At the same time appellants learned that there was some question whether their contracts would be renewed. Some of the school board members took the position that selection of assistant superintendents should be left up to the incoming superintendent, Dr. Heidbrink. However it does not definitely appear that appellants were fully aware of the board's position. From January to the end of their contract term appellants regularly attended the public school board meetings. They admittedly expressed their professional opinion that Mr. Gattin was a competent superintendent. After it became public knowledge that Mr. Gattin's contract would not be renewed and before Dr. Heidbrink was selected, one of the appellants was reported in a local newspaper as having pointed his finger at one of the board members and having told the board member that he was 'nit picking.' On March 12, 1969, Superintendent Gattin by letter notified appellants that five members of the board had said they would not vote to renew their contracts. Finally on June 3, 1969, the superintendent, as directed by the board, formally notified the appellants in writing as follows:

'At a regular meeting of the Pulaski County Special School District Board on April 8, 1969, the majority of the Board voted not to renew your contract for the 1969--70 school year for the following reasons: 'It is the opinion of the majority of the Board that it is in the best interest of the Pulaski County Special School District and that it is in the opinion of the majority of the Board that your services have been inefficient and incompetent.' Sincerely yours, Leroy Gattin, Superintendent of Schools.'

In their actions against the board for reinstatement appellants alleged that effective July 1, 1968, the board had adopted a teacher tenure policy, that the teacher tenure policy became a part of their contract, and that the board did not comply with the teacher tenure policy in terminating their contracts. The teacher tenure policy adopted by the board is:

'All certified personnel entering the Pulaski County Special School District are on probation until they have served under an annual contract for three consecutive years and have been elected for their fourth contract. Upon completion of this probationary period and the receipt of the fourth contract, all certified personnel become entitled to tenure status, in Pulaski County Special School District. Teachers who have taught three consecutive years prior to July 1, 1968 shall be said to have completed their probation. The three years service shall not include any years taught under an emergency certificate.

'The annual contract of all professional employees under tenure (except the Superintendent and certified personnel on probationary status) employed under the annual contract shall be renewed unless the following procedure has been pursued:

'1. Any person who, in the opinion of the Principal, Superintendent, or the School Board, is not rendering efficient and competent service or is insubordinate shall be given written notice of the particular respects in which such person is considered inefficient, incompetent, or insubordinate; and such person shall be informed by the Principal or Superintendent, in consultation, concerning any unsatisfactory rating which has been given with respect to such a person. The purpose of this notice shall be to give the person so notified the opportunity to remedy the alleged deficiencies.

'2. Any person notified under paragraph (1) who, in the opinion of the Principal, Superintendent and the Board of Directors, has not remedied the alleged deficiencies within 30 days of the notification shall be given:

a. A written notice of the alleged deficiencies which have not been remedied.

b. An opportunity for a hearing thereon before the Welfare Committee at a special meeting designated for this purpose. At the special meeting such person may have any representative or spokesman desired by him. The Welfare Committee shall consist of seven (7) persons chosen annually on or before July 1, as follows: Four teachers chosen by the teachers, two principals chosen by the principals and one administrative staff. The members of the Welfare Committee shall present their advisory opinion at a meeting of the Board of Directors held before it reaches its decision on the termination of the contract.

c. An opportunity for a hearing thereon before the School Board at a special meeting...