Pietrunti v. Board of Ed. of Brick Tp.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1974
• Parties: Kathleen M. PIETRUNTI, Respondent-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BRICK TOWNSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 149

128 N.J.Super. 149

319 A.2d 262

Kathleen M. PIETRUNTI, Respondent-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BRICK TOWNSHIP, Petitioner-Appellee.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division.

Argued Jan. 29, 1974.

Decided April 23, 1974.

Emil Oxfeld, Newark, for respondent-appellant (Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).

Martin B. Anton, Bricktown, for petitioner-appellee (Anton & Ward, Bricktown, attorneys; Donald H. Ward, Bricktown, on the brief).

Gordon J. Golum, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State Bd. of Ed. (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney; George F. Kugler, Jr., former Atty. Gen. and Stephen Skillman, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).

Thomas P. Cook, Princeton, for N.J. School Bds. Ass'n and N.J.Ass'n of School Administrators, amici curiae (Cook & Knipe, Princeton, attorneys).

Before Judges HALPERN, MATTHEWS and BISCHOFF.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Education, affirmed by the State Board of Education, dismissing appellant, a tenured teacher, from her employment with the Brick Township Board of Education, effective on the date of her suspension by the local board of education on September 8, 1971. Appellant also appealed from the determination of the State Board of Education which reversed the decision of the Commissioner granting her compensation at her regular salary retroactively to the date of her suspension, under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:6--14, as amended by L.1971, c. 435, § 2, effective February 10, 1972.

Appellant became a member of the faculty in the Brick Township School District as a business education teacher in the high school in 1966. Her career was uneventful until 1970, when she became a member of the grievance committee of the Brick Township Education Association. During that period she apparently had some difficulties in her relationships During the latter part of August 1971 appellant was invited by the school district administration, as the president of the Brick Township Education Association, to be one of the speakers at an orientation meeting to be held on September 1, 1971. A speech was given, and that speech, as delivered, generated the principal charges made against appellant by the local board of education. The undisputed evidence discloses that appellant used the occasion of the orientation meeting to speak against the school administration in general and against the superintendent of schools in particular. Rather than insert excerpts from the speech throughout this opinion, we have attached hereto, as an appendix, the speech delivered in its entirety.

with the superintendent of schools. Appellant became president of the Education Association in April of 1971. The record shows that as of that date the local board of education had been dilatory in obligations to bargain collectively with the association and had refused to meet with the association for a period of 83 days. Efforts were then ongoing to negotiate a new bargaining agreement since the current agreement expired on June 30, 1971. Negotiations subsequently resumed, however, and a new agreement was successfully negotiated prior to the opening of the new school term in September 1971.

As a result of the speech appellant was charged in ten written charges with conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination and conduct subversive of the discipline and morale of the school system. Her references to the dismissal of two nontenured teachers (Charge 1), the suspension of a fellow teacher (Charge 2), the removal of three books from the English curriculum (Charge 4), the lack of black teachers, and the characterization of the superintendent of schools as a villain (Charge 5) were alleged by the local board as conduct unbecoming a teacher. Her reference to the dismissal of the two nontenured teachers (Charge 1) was alleged as an instance of insubordination to the office of superintendent of As a result of these charges appellant was suspended from her teaching duties on September 7, 1971, effective September 8, 1971. On the same date she gave a public apology for her orientation meeting speech of September 1, distributing copies of the speech to all who were present to hear her apology. After her suspension ten additional charge were preferred. In these charges appellant's actions as a tenured teacher and president of the Brick Township Education Association were alleged to represent an attitude of insubordination which foments disrespect for the office of superintendent and usurpation of administrative functions. A directive claimed to have been issued by appellant to the faculty urging them to refuse to comply with an administrative request to file letters with respect to individual teacher's intentions for the succeeding year; her public expression of concern that administrative vacancies existed; her suggestion that the faculty file letters of intent in language suggested by her; her letter questioning the dismissal of a nontenured teacher, authorship of a bulletin regarding this teacher and a letter directed to parents of students on the subject; and an association directive dealing with teachers' duties, were all cited for bases for this charge. (Charge 9 was found by the hearing officer to constitute a legal summation rather than a charge, thus requiring no defense.) The release of a news bulletin calling for arbitration of the nonrenewal of the contracts of two nontenured teachers (Charge 11), the Hearings before a hearing officer designated by the Commissioner of Education began on January 17, 1972 and concluded The hearing officer filed a detailed report with the Commissioner. For the purposes of this opinion, we find it necessary to give a brief summary of his conclusions. As to Charge 1 he found that there was no basis for appellant's statement that the two teachers were 'fired,' although this may be the common understanding and the practical effect of the action of the board of education on persons who may not be versed in the technical ramifications of school law. As to Charge 2 he made no specific findings of fact with respect to the core of the charge Per se, finding solely that the subject of the incident was inappropriately raised by appellant. In reaching this conclusion, the hearing officer makes the suggestion that the local board of education may have been culpable itself in handling the subject matter which was referred to by appellant. Charge 3, which related to alleged local political activity by the superintendent, was left by the hearing officer to the Commissioner's judgment as to whether the minor instances of political encounter found to have been indulged in by the superintendent were such as to be deleterious to his role as educational leader. He also left for the determination of the Commissioner whether appellant's inclusion of such allegations represented conduct unbecoming to a teacher in the public schools.

schools. Her references to the suspension of the fellow teacher (Charge 2), the claimed involvement of the superintendent of schools in local politics (Charge 3), the removal of books and the dearth of black faculty (Charge 4), her description of the school system as a 'snake-pit for young teachers' (Charge 6), her suggestion to nontenured teachers to refrain from any criticism until they have tenure (Charge 7), and her description of the district's hiring practices as a 'callous economic gesture' (Charge 8) were alleged as instances of conduct subversive of the discipline and morale of the school system purported misrepresentation of the presence of the president of the board of education at a meeting between the superintendent and association representatives (Charge 12), the purported misrepresentation of the cancellation of a meeting requested by the New Jersey Education Association with the administration (Charge 13), and the reference to the superintendent of schools as 'Carmen' rather than 'Stephen' (Charge 14), were alleged in support of claimed insubordinate and vindictive conduct subversive of the discipline and morale of the school system. A disagreement over the insufficiency of a lesson plan and a reply of 'shove it' to an observation by the subject supervisor that she was late for class (Charge 15) were alleged as instances of insubordination, refusal to accept administrative authority and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The claimed insincere apology for the September 1 speech made on September 7, 1971 (Charge 16) and an alleged statement of purpose to rid the school system of the superintendent (Charge 17) were alleged as indicia of a philosophy incompatible with the school system. The uttering of various 'unladylike and unfeminine' remarks in places of public accommodation, such as, 'elementary teachers have elementary minds,' 'C. Serpent Reciti,' (referring to the superintendent, C. Stephen Raciti), 'This paper is so poor it is not good enough to wipe my ass,' 'You son-of-a bitch, you did that on purpose,' 'Ding Dong Bell,' 'bald headed mental midget' and 'bald-headed bastard,' the latter three statements referring to board president, William Bell, were alleged as subversive of the discipline and morale of the school district (Charge 18). A bulletin critical of another teacher which was claimed to have been 'enforced and/or condoned' by appellant was alleged as subversive and unbecoming conduct (Charge 19). Finally, a remark to another teacher in the course of a reprimand was alleged as an instance of interference with supervisory duties. (Charge 20) on April 12, 1972. There was no dispute in the testimony adduced over the fact that the language complained of in the first eight charges was uttered by appellant. The hearing officer determined the question of fact to be whether the statements uttered and complained of were true in fact, and whether the orientation meeting was the proper forum for these remarks.

The hearing officer saw fit to break Charge 4 down into three subcharges:...