Rehberg v. Board of Ed. of Melvindale, Ecorse Tp. School Dist. No. 11, Wayne County, 3

• Decision Date: 14 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 3,3
• Parties: Clark REHBERG, Petitioner and Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MELVINDALE, ECORSE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, WAYNE COUNTY, Michigan, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 131

77 N.W.2d 131

345 Mich. 731

Clark REHBERG, Petitioner and Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MELVINDALE, ECORSE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL

DISTRICT NO. 11, WAYNE COUNTY, Michigan, Defendant

and Appellant.

No. 3.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 14, 1956.

Vincent Fordell, Detroit, Roscoe O. Bonisteel and Roscoe O. Bonisteel, Jr., Ann Arbor, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.

Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

SHARPE, Justice.

Ecorse Township School District No. 11 of Wayne County is a graded school district and operates under the State Teachers' Tenure Act, C.L.1948, §§ 38.71 to 38.191, Stat.Ann. §§ 15.1971 to 15.2056. On or about March 3, 1947, the principal of Melvindale High school of that district sent a letter to the superintendent of schools stating that plaintiff Clark Rehberg, had been guilty of improper conduct in connection with certain girls in his classes. On March 4, 1947, the superintendent sent a letter to the board of education recommending the suspension of Clark Rehberg until a decision was rendered by the board. Following the receipt of this letter the board of education took steps to file charges and concur in the suspension of Clark Rehberg on the charges. Plaintiff appealed to the State tenure commission, and on the hearing a copy of the transcript of testimony taken before the school board was offered in evidence. The commission rejucted this offer of evidence and announced that the parties would have a de novo hearing. Upon review we held, see Rehberg v Board of Education of Melvindale, Ecorse Tp., School District No. 11, 330 Mich. 541, 48 N.W.2d 142, 145, that:

'The Teachers' Tenure Act specifies how the hearing shall be conducted before the controlling board. See § 4 of article 4, C.L.1948, § 38.104, Stat.Ann. [1949 Cum.Supp.] § 15.2004. Testimony under oath or affirmation is required. Section 1 of article 6 provides that hearings before the commission shall be conducted in the same manner, and in accordance with 'such other rules and regulations as the tenure commission may adopt.'

* * *

* * *

'The tenure commission should review and consider the record made before the controlling board, but is not precluded from taking such additional testimony as in its discretion may be required.'

The above cause was remanded to the State tenure commission for further proceedings.

On August 19, 1953, the State tenure commission held a meeting, at which time evidence was introduced in behalf of Clark Rehberg relating to the size of the room in which the original meeting was held and the exclusion of witnesses during the time that testimony was being taken. Testimony of other witnesses was offered and received relative to the character, ability, and attitude towards teaching of Clark Rehberg.

The State tenure commission entered an order reversing the order of the school board and restored Clark Rehberg to his position as a teacher of Melvindale high school and directed that he be paid any salary lost by reason of such suspension. In an opinion filed the State tenure commission stated:

'This Commission found, as did the Supreme Court in the case on appeal, that counsel for teacher Rehberg had duly requested a public hearing as permitted by statute, and advised the Board of Education that Rehberg's witnesses and friends would number about 100, and pointed out to the Board that adequate facilities for the hearing should be provided, all prior to the hearing which was held on April 10, 1947. A number of witnesses testified before this Commission as to the manner of conducting the said hearing, and it convincingly appears that the hearing was held in a small meeting room of the Melvindale Board of Education in the basement of the school building, which had only 24 seats besides the seating arrangement at the table where the School Board sat and a small table for a stenographer. There was not a single seat left to be occupied by any of Rehberg's witnesses, or any of his friends or supporters, and this situation continued without remedy and unchanged until after the plaintiff's case had been entirely heard, and no seat was vacated by any witness, or any of the witness's friends or parents, after such witness had testified, and it was impossible for any witnesses for Rehberg, or any friends or supporters of Rehberg to gain entrance to the room in time to hear any of the testimony offered by the plaintiff's witnesses, and Rehberg's witnesses and friends were excluded until after 11:00 o'clock at night. They could not hear any of the proceedings incident to presentation of testimony in support of the charges against Rehberg, and only Rehberg himself, his wife, his attorney, and the President of the State Federation of Teachers were permitted to hear the plaintiff's side of the case.

'It is the opinion of the Tenure Commission that the hearing held before the Controlling Board on April 10th, 1947, was not a proper public hearing and the rights of Rehberg to such a hearing as provided by the statute were not respected and provided for.

* * *

* * *

'Counsel for Rehberg vigorously objected to the sufficiency of the charges made against Rehberg, and the Tenure Commission was impressed by the fact that Rehberg was not charged with lack of education, lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of intelligence and thoroughness in his teaching methods or neglect of his work. He was not charged with any immoral act, or any improper proposals or suggestions tinged with any indication of any immoral or improper conduct on his part, or anything which might be construed as influencing improper conduct on the part of any pupil. At the hearing held on August 19, 1953, three former pupils of Rehberg testified more fully than they had done at the hearing in 1947 before the Controlling Board, and these three pupils were honor students in Melvindale High School, and they are now considerably older than they the same classes taught by Mr. Rehberg, and have since married and have children of their own. These former students had attended some of the same classes taught by Mr. Rehbrg, which were attended by some of the girls who gave their testimony in support of the charges against Rehberg, and these three former pupils who testified on August 19th attended classes regularly, and had to have exceptional attendance records in order to be honor students. They all testified that they were at all times in position to see what happened in Rehberg's classes. They fully explained that Mr. Rehberg followed the practice of assigning home work or problems for his pupils to do, and that during the hour of each recitation period the students would be seated at small desks which were low in height, such as is usual for a student's desk, and that Mr. Rehberg followed the practice of working out sample problems on the blackboard, and then calling upon individual students to go to the blackboard and work out similar problems before the class. The students were also called upon to give oral recitations, and Mr. Rehberg followed the practice of going to the individual students' desks inspecting their work and the students' efforts to perform the lesson assignment. That in observing such work it was necessary for a full grown man to bend over and lean over to see the writing, and upon some occasions it was unavoidable that he place his hand on the back of the seat and perhaps on a pupil's shoulder. He also at times placed his hand on the shoulder or back of a student, either male or female, as a gesture of encouragement to get the student started toward the blackboard to work out a problem. These former pupils all testified that they regarded Mr. Rehberg as a fine teacher, who had a...