Rehberg v. Board of Educ. of Melvindale Ecorse Tp. School Dist. No. 11, Wayne County
| Decision Date | 04 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 48 N.W.2d 142,330 Mich. 541 |
| Parties | REHBERG v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MELVINDALE ECORSE TP. SHOOL DIST. NO. 11, WAYNE COUNTY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Roscoe O. Bonisteel, Jr., Ann Arbor (Roscoe O. Bonisteel, Ann Arbor, of counsel), for defendant and appellant.
Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for petitioner and appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant Board of Education was granted leave to appeal from an order of the State tenure commission, restoring plaintiff Clark Rehberg to his position as a teacher, and reversing the board's decision of dismissal. The sole question presented here is whether the State tenure commission acting as a 'Board of Review,' hears cases de novo or only for the purpose of determining whether the original proceedings before the controlling board were proper, without error, and in accordance with the provisions of the tenure act. Decision involves the construction of § 9 of article 7 of Act No. 4, P.A.1937, Ex.Sess., relating to tenure of teachers. C.L.1948, § 38.71 et seq., Stat.Ann. § 15.1971 et seq. The specific section in question is 38.139 of C.L.1948, Stat.Ann. § 15.2039, which reads: 'The state tenure commission shall act as a board of review for all cases appealed from the decision of a controlling board.'
On March 3, 1947, the principal of the Mevindale High School advised the superintendent of schools that accusations had been made against Rehberg. These related to claimed improper conduct in connection with certain female high school students. Acting upon the advice of the superintendent, Rehberg was notified by the principal of his suspension and was furnished a copy of the charges.
Counsel for Rehberg requested a public hearing, as permitted by statute, and later advised the board that Rehberg's witnesses and friends would number about 100. Adequate facilities for such a hearing were requested.
A stenogranphic record was made of the testimony taken at the public hearing on April 10, 1947. The school district and Rehberg were represented by counsel. A certified copy of the transcript of the testimony, with copies of certain exhibits, are embodied in a 123-page special printed record filed in this court.
On April 11th the board of education discharged Rehberg and made a suitable minute of its factual determination. An appeal was filed on April 30, 1947. For some reason not clearly indicated in the record the State tenure commission did not consider the matter until November 17, 1949, about 2 1/2 years later. At that time some testimony was introduced respecting the sufficiency of the notice and the question of whether or not there had been an adequate public hearing. No testimony was then introduced or offered before the commission with respect to the merits of the case, except Exhibit No. 17, hereinafter discussed. At the close of that hearing the chairman of the tenure commission announced that the matter would be adjourned to an indefinite date. Proceedings were resumed on April 6, 1950, at which time a police officer of the city of Melvindale was called as a witness to rebut previous testimony relative to the inadequacy of the room in which the controlling board held its hearing, the argument having been made before the commission that the room was so small that an adequate public hearing was not conducted.
At the first session of the commission, Exhibit 17, which was a transcript of the hearing of April 10, 1947 before the controlling board, was offered in evidence. Counsel for Rehberg objected to its reception on the ground that the chairman had already ruled that the commission's hearing would be conducted de novo.
The ruling of the chairman on this question was as follows:
At the April 1950 hearing, counsel for the controlling board re-argued this question and filed a formal motion based upon the limitation of the power of the commission to a review of the record made before the controlling board. The commission again refused to consider that record.
The teachers' tenure act has not been construed in Michigan, but the following has been said about such acts elsewhere:
Its purpose is to maintain an adequate and compentent teaching staff, free from political and personal arbitrary interference. Ehret v, School District of the Borough of Kulpmont, 333 Pa. 518, 5 A.2d 188.
It promotes good order and the welfare of the State and of the school system by preventing removal of capable and experienced teachers at the personal whims of changing office holders. State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 214 Ind. 347, 5 N.E.2d 531, 913, 13 N.E.2d 955, 110 A.L.R. 778, 781. Also same on rehearing, 214 Ind. 347, 7 N.E.2d 777; 303 U.S. 95, 58 S.Ct. 443, 82 L.Ed. 685, 113 A.L.R. 1482; and Lost Creek School Township v. York, 215 Ind. 636, 21 N.E.2d 58, 127 A.L.R. 1287.
In State ex rel. Wood v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 357 Mo. 147, 206 S.W.2d 566, 567, it is stated that the purpose of the act is to protect and improve state education by retaining in their positions teachers who are qualified and capable and who have demonstrated their fitness, and to prevent the dismissal of such teachers without just cause. See, also, The Teachers' Contractual Status by I. M. Allen, page 77, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University (1928).
The question presented in this appeal is one of first impression. The word 'review' is defined as 'a judicial re-examination of proceedings of a court.' 54 CJ 746. See, also, an informative article in the April 1951 issue of the Michigan State Bar Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, p. 29, entitled, 'The Administrative Law of Michigan,' by Frank E. Cooper.
The term 'claim for review,' as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, C.L.1948, § 413.11, Stat.Ann § 17.185, has been construed to contemplate a de novo hearing. King v. Peninsular Portland Cement Co., 216 Mich. 335, 185 N.W. 858.
In a review of the record made before the deputy commissioner, the department may, under the section just cited, without petition and on its own motion, order additional testimony taken where it deems such testimony should be taken in furtherance of justice. See Owen v. Cope Swift Foundry Co., 286 Mich. 601, 282 N.W. 836.
The State board of tax appeals is, by statute, given the power to hear witnesses. C.L.1948, § 205.7, Stat.Ann. § 7.657(7).
The Michigan Unemployment Compensation Act, C.L.1948, § 421.1 et seq., Stat.Ann. § 17.501 et seq.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rockwell v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. of Crestwood
...the goals sought to be achieved by enactment of the Teachers' Tenure Act. These goals, as set forth in Rehberg v. Ecorse School Dist. No. 11, 330 Mich. 541, 545, 48 N.W.2d 142, 144 (1951), quoting cases from foreign jurisdictions, are to 'maintain an adequate and competent teaching staff, f......
-
Smigel v. Southgate Community School Dist.
...teachers for failure to pay the agency fee as provided in the Southgate contract. They cite Rehberg v. Ecorse Township School District No. 11, 330 Mich. 541, p. 545, 48 N.W.2d 142, p. 144 (1951), where, in discussing the purpose of the Tenure Act, the Court 'The teachers' tenure act has not......
-
Lakeshore Public Schools Bd. of Educ. v. Grindstaff
...under the facts established before the commission or by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. 16 B In Rehberg I, 17 the teacher was removed by the school board. The Tenure Commission reversed. This Court reversed and remanded to the Tenure Commission for further......
-
Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Parks
...local school board. Boyce v. Royal Oak Board of Education, 407 Mich. 312, 320, 285 N.W.2d 196 (1979); Rehberg v. Melvindale Board of Education, 330 Mich. 541, 548, 48 N.W.2d 142 (1951). The PERA, on the other hand, has been "consistently construed * * * as the dominant law regulating public......